Armory, Self Defense, And EDC > Firearms Legislation And News

fed court rules medical MJ card means no new guns....

(1/4) > >>

mountainmoma:
I forgot to get the news link, but the 9th circuit federal court has ruled that having a medical Marijuana card is grounds to not be allowed to purchase a gun, it is failing the background check. So, that means when the new Californisa background check for ammo starts in Jan. either alot of medical users will be denied, or alot of medical users will forget to indicate it on the background check form ( federal form 4---  somethin.... I have a mind like a sieve today)

Ok, links are everywhere today, but here is a quote from Truth ABout Guns website:

" ....The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a Nevada medical marijuana card holder’s challenge to the BATFE’s “Open Letter” to FFL’s, as well as the underlying statutes and regulations. The July 2011 “Open Letter” directed FFL’s not to sell guns or ammunition to users of marijuana, even where such use has been legalized or decriminalized under state law. Put simply, the BATFE’s position is that (emphasis added):

    “[A]ny person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.

    Such persons should answer “yes” to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473 . . . and you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to them. Further, if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have “reasonable cause to believe” that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. As such, you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person, even if the person answered “no” to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473.”

Ms. Wilson is the holder of a medical marijuana card issued by the State of Nevada. When she attempted to purchase a firearm from a Nevada FFL, the store owner stopped her from answering Question 11e on the Form 4473 because he knew she had a medical marijuana card. Wilson then handed in the 4473 with Question 10e left blank.

Having received the BATFE “Open Letter” a few days before, the FFL refused to sell the firearm to her. Wilson then filed suit in federal court, asserting that the BATFE’s position and the underlying statutes and regulations prohibiting illegal drug users from purchasing firearms or ammunition violated her constitutional rights.

Affirming the dismissal of her lawsuit, the Ninth Circuit held that the prohibition on unlawful drug users purchasing firearms or ammunition was not a Second Amendment violation. Citing its previous decision of United States v. Dugan, the Court reasoned that just as felons and the mentally ill can lawfully be prohibited persons, so too can users of illegal drug....."

RitaRose1945:
It doesn't make sense with regard to common sense, but it makes sense legally.  You're technically a criminal if you imbibe, so you can't legally purchase.  I don't really agree, but it makes legal sense.


It's the same thing when it comes to banking.  I have a marijuana dispensary literally less than a mile from my house.  I'm in a good neighborhood and there have been zero problems from that dispensary.  But sales of large safes have gone up quite a bit in my state (and even more in Colorado) because the income from the sales at dispensaries are not allowed to be deposited into FDIC insured banks or NCUA insured credit unions.  Technically, the money is proceeds from criminal activity as far as the Feds are concerned.


Interesting note: when I went to a local credit union's website (I couldn't remember the insurer for credit unions) they had a note at the bottom of the page saying that the deposits were insured by a private insurance company, not the NCUA "by member choice."  So I wonder of they're bypassing the FDIC/NCUA issue by privately insuring.

FrugalFannie:
then people on lots of prescribed meds should be disallowed by their logic. they are denying a right because someone has a medicinal need.

TheRetiredRancher:
The 9th circuit court of appeals that  having a medical marijuana card can be reason enough to not sell you a firearm do to it being an illegal drug (by Us Government standards) even if it is legal in your state of residence. 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/31/appeals-court-upholds-ban-on-gun-sales-to-medical-marijuana-card-holders.html

Gary Johnson needs to add this to his talking points.  I wonder how many of the older 2nd amendment crowd have a medical marijuana card for pain management? 

David in MN:
So if your body is so ravaged by cancer that the only way you can eat is to take pot you should be able to defend yourself with your fists? Thanks government.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version