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: 3553969" data-attributes="member: 45725"><p>Either something drastic changed in the dark of night or that's old information. HB2612 reads: "E. A medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee shall not be denied the right to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories based solely on his or her status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee. No state or local agency, municipal or county governing authority shall restrict, revoke, suspend or otherwise infringe upon the right of a person to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories or any related firearms license or certification based solely on their status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee." <a href="http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2019-20%20ENR/hB/HB2612%20ENR.PDF" target="_blank">http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2019-20 ENR/hB/HB2612 ENR.PDF</a></p><p></p><p>It would also take more than just congress approving funding for the jackboots to start kicking in doors. There is no legal way they could confiscate firearms or charge the owners with crimes, while continuing to ignore any other aspect of any state medical marijuana program. Either the supremacy clause supersedes the states' authority to authorize their own medical programs, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then the patients are not unlawful users, and therefore there is no legal basis for taking away their guns or charging them with any crimes.</p><p></p><p>There is no law saying specifically that marijuana users across the board can't have guns. Like I pointed out before, there are several types of people who use marijuana lawfully, including people who use it abroad and federal patients, and their right to own firearms is not in question. The mere use of marijuana is not what makes someone prohibited. It's the UNLAWFUL use thereof that makes someone a prohibited person.</p><p></p><p>Ergo, if they take someone's guns under the current legal framework, they are saying that person is unlawfully using marijuana, and by extension ANYONE who is using marijuana on a state approved level is unlawful, whether they own guns or not. Guns aren't a qualifying factor here. Either someone is lawfully or unlawfully using it, and the presence of a gun in their home doesn't have any bearing on that. That is, there is no legal path to arguing someone lied on a form or is otherwise illegally in possession of a firearm, without first saying that anyone who is a state legal user is violating federal law, as well.</p><p></p><p>This isn't really that complicated. If someone does even a little bit of research on the supremacy clause and how it's applied, you will immediately see that there is not necessarily any conflict between federal and state medical marijuana laws. That is, the federal government didn't specifically preclude the states from starting their own medical programs, just like the federal government has since the 70s. Now on the recreational side, that's probably pretty shaky, since that is obviously specifically what the controlled substances act meant to curtail. However, since congress has abandoned its power to enforce it on a state level, there's a pretty solid argument that even recreational states are in the clear.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JR777, post: 3553969, member: 45725"] Either something drastic changed in the dark of night or that's old information. HB2612 reads: "E. A medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee shall not be denied the right to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories based solely on his or her status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee. No state or local agency, municipal or county governing authority shall restrict, revoke, suspend or otherwise infringe upon the right of a person to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories or any related firearms license or certification based solely on their status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee." [URL]http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2019-20%20ENR/hB/HB2612%20ENR.PDF[/URL] It would also take more than just congress approving funding for the jackboots to start kicking in doors. There is no legal way they could confiscate firearms or charge the owners with crimes, while continuing to ignore any other aspect of any state medical marijuana program. Either the supremacy clause supersedes the states' authority to authorize their own medical programs, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, then the patients are not unlawful users, and therefore there is no legal basis for taking away their guns or charging them with any crimes. There is no law saying specifically that marijuana users across the board can't have guns. Like I pointed out before, there are several types of people who use marijuana lawfully, including people who use it abroad and federal patients, and their right to own firearms is not in question. The mere use of marijuana is not what makes someone prohibited. It's the UNLAWFUL use thereof that makes someone a prohibited person. Ergo, if they take someone's guns under the current legal framework, they are saying that person is unlawfully using marijuana, and by extension ANYONE who is using marijuana on a state approved level is unlawful, whether they own guns or not. Guns aren't a qualifying factor here. Either someone is lawfully or unlawfully using it, and the presence of a gun in their home doesn't have any bearing on that. That is, there is no legal path to arguing someone lied on a form or is otherwise illegally in possession of a firearm, without first saying that anyone who is a state legal user is violating federal law, as well. This isn't really that complicated. If someone does even a little bit of research on the supremacy clause and how it's applied, you will immediately see that there is not necessarily any conflict between federal and state medical marijuana laws. That is, the federal government didn't specifically preclude the states from starting their own medical programs, just like the federal government has since the 70s. Now on the recreational side, that's probably pretty shaky, since that is obviously specifically what the controlled substances act meant to curtail. However, since congress has abandoned its power to enforce it on a state level, there's a pretty solid argument that even recreational states are in the clear. [/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
