Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Marijuana Disqualification Question To Be Removed From ATF 4473
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JR777" data-source="post: 3553567" data-attributes="member: 45725"><p>First of all, if someone answers yes then it's an automatic denial. The question we are arguing is not what happens when they answer yes, but if they can legally answer no.</p><p></p><p>Second of all, I've already said several times that FFLs shouldn't knowingly sell guns to medical marijuana patients, because they have been graciously gifted with case law specifically protecting them from liability for erroring on the side of caution while this gets sorted out. It's a don't ask don't tell situation.</p><p></p><p>Third, it's not a gun rights issue. If someone were prosecuted for answering no, the prosecutor would be arguing that they lied, because as a state legal user they were in fact still in violation of federal law. What that means is that the prosecutor would be invoking the supremacy clause, and he would be challenging all state medical marijuana programs in every respect, not just how it applies to gun rights. The reason the state medical programs are continued to allowed to operate is because it's presumed they are legal until proven otherwise. If successfully prosecuted, this hypothetical case of yours would mean an abrupt end to all medical marijuana, which would oblige the DEA to move in and start charging everyone wholesale.</p><p></p><p>Even if the supremacy clause were successfully applied, there would be all kinds of legal defenses, because the person's legal status was unclear at the time. And because the prosecution of a single individual amongst millions would be the most arbitrary and capricious case ever brought before the court.</p><p></p><p>Fifth, this hypothetical case will never exist, because an act of congress precludes it from existing. What you're failing to realize is that an act of congress would be required first to even allow the possibility of a case like this being brought in the first place. That's obviously not going to happen.</p><p></p><p>What you're not understanding is that this doesn't swing both ways. There's no legal argument for state medical programs to be lawful, but for someone to be lying if they answer no. Therefore, if the state programs are continued to be assumed to be legal, the users under those programs are not unlawful users, and therefore cannot be said to have lied by answering no.</p><p></p><p>The one and only legal avenue for this to swing both ways is if congress acts to allow the justice department to bring a case, the supremacy clause is successfully invoked, and the states simply continue to act outside the law, despite being put on notice that their programs are illegal. It would be much the same as the sanctuary cities, where what they're doing is obviously illegal, but the federal government simply refuses to act.</p><p></p><p>However, if they were to successfully only prosecute a select number of people, which would be arbitrary and capricious to the extreme, we would have much bigger things to worry about. In that kind of legal environment, they could get away with whatever they wanted, and we would all likely be in jail anyways under some trumped up charges. We're talking full on political purge at that point. So when you're looking at realistic conditions under which someone would actually get in trouble, we're talking either thousands or tens of thousands of people being locked up for pot, or full on purge. Both are unlikely, and both would be disastrous beyond imagination for this country, and likely tear it apart.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JR777, post: 3553567, member: 45725"] First of all, if someone answers yes then it's an automatic denial. The question we are arguing is not what happens when they answer yes, but if they can legally answer no. Second of all, I've already said several times that FFLs shouldn't knowingly sell guns to medical marijuana patients, because they have been graciously gifted with case law specifically protecting them from liability for erroring on the side of caution while this gets sorted out. It's a don't ask don't tell situation. Third, it's not a gun rights issue. If someone were prosecuted for answering no, the prosecutor would be arguing that they lied, because as a state legal user they were in fact still in violation of federal law. What that means is that the prosecutor would be invoking the supremacy clause, and he would be challenging all state medical marijuana programs in every respect, not just how it applies to gun rights. The reason the state medical programs are continued to allowed to operate is because it's presumed they are legal until proven otherwise. If successfully prosecuted, this hypothetical case of yours would mean an abrupt end to all medical marijuana, which would oblige the DEA to move in and start charging everyone wholesale. Even if the supremacy clause were successfully applied, there would be all kinds of legal defenses, because the person's legal status was unclear at the time. And because the prosecution of a single individual amongst millions would be the most arbitrary and capricious case ever brought before the court. Fifth, this hypothetical case will never exist, because an act of congress precludes it from existing. What you're failing to realize is that an act of congress would be required first to even allow the possibility of a case like this being brought in the first place. That's obviously not going to happen. What you're not understanding is that this doesn't swing both ways. There's no legal argument for state medical programs to be lawful, but for someone to be lying if they answer no. Therefore, if the state programs are continued to be assumed to be legal, the users under those programs are not unlawful users, and therefore cannot be said to have lied by answering no. The one and only legal avenue for this to swing both ways is if congress acts to allow the justice department to bring a case, the supremacy clause is successfully invoked, and the states simply continue to act outside the law, despite being put on notice that their programs are illegal. It would be much the same as the sanctuary cities, where what they're doing is obviously illegal, but the federal government simply refuses to act. However, if they were to successfully only prosecute a select number of people, which would be arbitrary and capricious to the extreme, we would have much bigger things to worry about. In that kind of legal environment, they could get away with whatever they wanted, and we would all likely be in jail anyways under some trumped up charges. We're talking full on political purge at that point. So when you're looking at realistic conditions under which someone would actually get in trouble, we're talking either thousands or tens of thousands of people being locked up for pot, or full on purge. Both are unlikely, and both would be disastrous beyond imagination for this country, and likely tear it apart. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Marijuana Disqualification Question To Be Removed From ATF 4473
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
