Medicinal Marijuana and firearms regulation

[tbburg]

ATF came out with an update/clarification on their drug use rule.

UPDATED: ATF: Illegal to Sell Guns to Marijuana Users
Firearms dealers in states that regulate medical marijuana can't sell guns or ammunition to registered users of the drug, a policy that marijuana and gun-rights groups say denies Second Amendment rights to individuals who are following state law.

It's already illegal under federal law for someone to possess guns if he or she is "an unlawful user of, or addicted to" marijuana or other controlled substances. A Sept. 21 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, issued in response to numerous inquiries from gun dealers, clarifies that medical marijuana patients are included in that definition.

"There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law," said the letter by Arthur Herbert, the ATF's assistant director for enforcement programs and services.

Link to full article at Flatheadbeacon.com
Never gave it much thought myself, but people in government are paid to do something, after all, and what they do is usually produce regulations/restrictions.


Thoughts?

 

[GSequoia]

Thoughts?

1: I don't really have an issue with card holders being gun holders. I know lots of card holders who I'd trust with guns (hey, I live in California, you get a free MM card whenever you get pulled over).

2: This is no surprise, to those who have thought about it it's always been obvious that to the ATFs eyes using marijuana is illegal no matter what, just like the DEA raiding legal clinics the feds don't recognize your state's legalization ploys. To the 4473 "unlawful user of" also includes consuming your legally obtained medical marijuana within your state.

 

[Doc Holliday]

ATF came out with an update/clarification on their drug use rule.

Link to full article at Flatheadbeacon.com
Never gave it much thought myself, but people in government are paid to do something, after all, and what they do is usually produce regulations/restrictions.


Thoughts?

Dont use marijuana myself, I am in the military after all. But I think the exception would be that the law says that "firearms cannot be sold to someone using drugs illegally or addicted to." That being said, most people I know are to lazy to walk and pick up the gun when stoned. Not to mention I have never met a marijuana user that is violent AND/OR that stupid to start firing a weapon at people. But I just defend our rights, not make them up, so whatever Congress or the Supreme Court decides, thats what I go by. :smoker:

 

[GSequoia]

Not to mention I have never met a marijuana user that is violent AND/OR that stupid to start firing a weapon at people.

So what you're saying is give guns to stoners, not rednecks.

 

[FlexdXJ]

So what you're saying is give guns to stoners, not rednecks.

Too late they gave this redneck a gun permit!

 

[master turner]

There aint nothin wrong with letting card holders be rednecks. of course a lot of rednecks don't go out and get a medical card, they just smoke up and party anyways. i am a card holder myself, and although i don't use the drug that often, i have never smoked and then wanted to go raise hell and start shooting around the neighborhood. i would imagine if you are using crack, heroin, steroids, or any other drug that actually messes you up then you may get a little messed up and full of energy, and not know what your doing and probably hurt somebody.
i think that people really need to lay off about the marijuana thing, go mind your own business and stop hasslin me. go find a hobby, go off roading more, read a book. get a girlfreind. ive actually found alot that the people that are the anti-weed activist are old retired guys that listen to Nixon and Reagen speech tapes every night.
kind of annoying, i mean let people do what they want to their own bodies, you shouldn't be able to control everything and if you would this wouldn't be the good old god blessed America i know and love!

-the dude abides...
"do you mind if i smoke a j?"- the big Lebowski

 

[xcm]

Can we first compare gun statistics with alcohol vs marijuana? how would you beer drinkers feel about a similar law?

of course this is just more stupid bullshit from the government, the same assholes who claim smoking marijuana is illegal in the first place (in which case, they are wrong).

the tide's turning on this... im glad to see it. i will continue to ignore unjust and stupid laws til that beautiful day comes.


As someone who's had a card, and no longer has a card, the whole 'medical' thing is a bullshit syndicate. the weed offered in clubs is more expensive, and grown in the same farms as illegal weed. it was a bandaid fix, and it showed the world wouldnt explode if people bought weed legally... lets just get rid of the pretense.

 

[iwannadie]

I have been considering getting a card now that it is happening here in Az. I have some serious chronic pain from a motorcycle accident and haven't been pain free in over 7 years. I don't smoke or do any type of drug recreational or prescribed except beer on occasion. However, if I had to choose between a marijuana card or my guns I may just stick with my guns at this point and wouldn't want to jeopardize anything by owning both.

I of course agree the whole card thing is a joke but at least it helps move things forward. It is all about getting the govt. their share of money of course. You'd think they would see this as a bigger opportunity. You want guns and marijuana, you need a special card. They could make you take some sort of awareness class and application fees to pull in the cash too.

 

[xcm]

They could make you take some sort of awareness class and application fees to pull in the cash too.

...would you want them doing this for alcohol consumers? after all... alcohol causes way more deaths than... i'd say marijuana, but it's never caused a single death... ever.

watch where you toss your garbage, someday someone will be throwing it on YOUR doorstep...

 

[iwannadie]

...would you want them doing this for alcohol consumers? after all... alcohol causes way more deaths than... i'd say marijuana, but it's never caused a single death... ever.

watch where you toss your garbage, someday someone will be throwing it on YOUR doorstep...

I didn't say I wanted them to do anything, I am surprised they are not trying to just cash in.

 

[5-90]

ATF came out with an update/clarification on their drug use rule.

Link to full article at Flatheadbeacon.com
Never gave it much thought myself, but people in government are paid to do something, after all, and what they do is usually produce regulations/restrictions.


Thoughts?

Easy enough fix, then - stop paying them! F Troop has proven themselves over the years (since they were spun off from IRS in 1972) to be about as useful as teats on a boar, so why have them either?

 

[Darky]

I'd say the matter requires serious look at Constitutional law. Where do state rights trump federal law? If Federal law states that marijuana is illegal, do states have the right to declare it legal? This isn't a matter of how you feel about weed, good or bad, it's about what does the law actually say? I see two sides: either a)the Fed should be the overriding law of the land and states should only be able to tighten the law. OR b)the state trumps federal in all areas. Answering that will answer whether the ATF can say no guns to MM card holders. Remember, current federal law says weed is bad. The ATF follows federal law. Whatever state says, under federal law, there is no legal usage.

 

[5-90]

I'd say the matter requires serious look at Constitutional law. Where do state rights trump federal law? If Federal law states that marijuana is illegal, do states have the right to declare it legal? This isn't a matter of how you feel about weed, good or bad, it's about what does the law actually say? I see two sides: either a)the Fed should be the overriding law of the land and states should only be able to tighten the law. OR b)the state trumps federal in all areas. Answering that will answer whether the ATF can say no guns to MM card holders. Remember, current federal law says weed is bad. The ATF follows federal law. Whatever state says, under federal law, there is no legal usage.

All well and good, but F Troop has a history of overstepping their bounds, creatively interpreting Federal law, and they're allowed to write and rewrite the regulations they are meant to enforce (a clear division of power issue - this allows them to act as both a legislative and executive department.

There's a reason that Congress writes the laws, but doesn't have the power to enforce them. Allowing ATFE, IRS, EPA, and other similar departments to write the rules they enforce is a large part of how we have gotten saddled with a hodgepodge of regulations that no-one can understand...

 

[blubullett]

I'd say the matter requires serious look at Constitutional law. Where do state rights trump federal law? If Federal law states that marijuana is illegal, do states have the right to declare it legal? This isn't a matter of how you feel about weed, good or bad, it's about what does the law actually say? I see two sides: either a)the Fed should be the overriding law of the land and states should only be able to tighten the law. OR b)the state trumps federal in all areas. Answering that will answer whether the ATF can say no guns to MM card holders. Remember, current federal law says weed is bad. The ATF follows federal law. Whatever state says, under federal law, there is no legal usage.

It says that Federal Law trumps State law in the constution. This is how all the cannibus clubs in California were getting raided a couple years ago. Local Police departments would call the DEA and tell them they wanted to get a club out of thier town and the feds would come and arrest everyone. When Obama got elected he told the head of the DEA that they would no longer be doing that and they could only raid clubs that were actually breaking the state medical marijuana laws.

The funny thing is I have a MM card and a CCW. The MM cards aren't issued by the state, they are private orginazations that just provide an identification service for law enforcement with a 24hr verification hotline so you don't have to carry around your actual perscription. There is no way anyone you are buying a gun from is going to know if you have a MM card or not. It will never show up on a background check either. By law you don't even have to get a card, you only have to have a perscription signed by your doctor, and he isn't going to be telling anyone.

 

[tbburg]

It says that Federal Law trumps State law in the constution,..

You can break Federal law without breaking state law. You can EASILY break state law without breaking federal law. It used to be State and Federal law were aligned on this issue, and you could be charged in either venue for the same action. Very occasionally you can be charged in BOTH venues for the same action. Now with however many states allowing "medicinal" use, half the state laws don't align with the Fed any more.

Like it or not, we allow the commercial transfer of firearms to be controlled by the federal government. You have to fill out a federal form(ATF form-4473) You are required to fillout the form, and answer all the questions, then sign the bottom of the form, which is an affidavit that all your answers are true.
If you care, here's what it looks like:
http://ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/ATF-Form-4473.htm

..,The MM cards aren't issued by the state, they are private orginazations that just provide an identification service for law enforcement with a 24hr verification hotline so you don't have to carry around your actual perscription. There is no way anyone you are buying a gun from is going to know if you have a MM card or not,...

It doesn't matter if the SELLER knows you lied on the form, if you lie on the form, it's YOUR a**. Two separate crimes: Possession or attempted possession of a firearm by a prohibited individual(Yes, technically you can be charged with a crime for filling out the form and failing the background check, although it rarely happens.)And lying on a sworn affidavit.(Same one the IRS busts you on if you lie on your tax returns.)


(Entertaining aside: I was in a gun store in Athens, OH, one evening, when a uniformed university police officer came in to pick up 3 shotguns for departmental use. The NCIS check kicked back. The LEO was outraged. He made a big deal about it. The clerk was very apologetic, but wouldn't complete the transfer.
There were probably a half dozen people in the store, and every one of us were smiling, chuckling, or outright laughing. Anyone who's bought multiple firearms has had this happen, and knows the dealer has to wait for the snafu to be corrected before they can complete the sale. Cop seemed pissed mainly because he had to follow the same rules as the "little people". )

 

[Darky]

All well and good, but F Troop has a history of overstepping their bounds, creatively interpreting Federal law, and they're allowed to write and rewrite the regulations they are meant to enforce (a clear division of power issue - this allows them to act as both a legislative and executive department.

There's a reason that Congress writes the laws, but doesn't have the power to enforce them. Allowing ATFE, IRS, EPA, and other similar departments to write the rules they enforce is a large part of how we have gotten saddled with a hodgepodge of regulations that no-one can understand...

True, but that says nothing about what I asked. What is the Constitutional test? Who is in charge, state or Fed? If Federal law is king, and federal law says marijuana is illegal and illegal drug users can't own a firearm, it sounds like ATF is just clarifying an existing law.

If state law is the end all be all, and the state allows certain people to use marijuana, they would then not be illegal users and ATF would have no reason to deny their firearm rights.

So, as I said, the only real answer to this problem is to compare it to the Constitution and see how it lines up in totality.