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: 3553583" data-attributes="member: 45725">This argument is not applicable to FFLs. If the customer answers yes it's an automatic denial. If they answer no, and you somehow know for a fact that they have a medical card, there's case law protecting you for denying the sale. What the case law says in a nutshell is that it's unclear whether medical users are violating federal law, and therefore an FFL has justifiable reason to believe he would be violating federal law by selling them the gun, and is therefore not violating their constitutional rights. If he doesn't know (and how would he???), and they answer no, it's not his problem.You're right, scotus will not decide this, because it will never be brought to trial, because congress has acted to preclude that possibility. For many years running, including when republicans controlled the entire federal government, congress has forbade the justice department from using funds to interfere with any aspect of state medical marijuana programs. Last I checked, the ATF was in fact still part of the justice department, and did in fact receive their funding from congress, and is in fact therefore bound by the same order.However, under your hypothetical scenario, scotus would undoubtedly hear the case, because it would be the federal government vs. 33 states and an untold number of other interested parties, and the case would hinge on the very core of states rights and the extent to which the supremacy clause can be applied to supersede state's rights. It would be the landmark case of the century, and its implications would be dire, to the point that a conviction could literally lead to three quarters or more of the states seceding.</blockquote>

Verification