Medical Marijuana and gun ownership/possession

[mightymouse]

Yep, but that is state law......in the case of firearms and ammunition, federal law trumps state law.

Yep. And if a person checks "yes" on question 11e, the FFL can terminate the background check at that moment.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

Time will tell on how this will swing federally. The FDA just approved its first cannibis drug earlier this week. It's a CBD product, but derived straight from the sticky icky.

 

[snafu21]

FAA/pilot medical?
DEA license (doctors)?

The federal ban needs to go away. Period.

ETA: this is just one of many reasons for the push toward electronic medical records. Fed.gov has access to that stuff, y'know.

I'm licensed by the FAA and where I work is required to do random drug tests for it to keep its FAA certificate

 

[Buzzgun]

So, if a local or state cop stops you and finds you in possession of marijuana and a gun.......and you have a ccw and a marijuana card.......does he arrest you or does he ignore federal law??

This is a can of worms!!

 

[Dave70968]

So, if a local or state cop stops you and finds you in possession of marijuana and a gun.......and you have a ccw and a marijuana card.......does he arrest you or does he ignore federal law??

This is a can of worms!!

He's not required to enforce federal law; in fact, the feds can't force state and local cops to enforce federal law in most cases. That would be "commandeering," and SCOTUS has ruled against it.

 

[dennishoddy]

He's not required to enforce federal law; in fact, the feds can't force state and local cops to enforce federal law in most cases. That would be "commandeering," and SCOTUS has ruled against it.

Which is how commieforkika gets by with illegal immigration and releasing them back into the population without consequences.

 

[OldGringo]

OK guys, this is an EZ answer, guess we forgot. The federal courts have ruled that "mere possession" of a medical marijuana license is a firm and lawful basis for the state or federal government denying a person the right to buy a gun. In Wilson v. Lynch, https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf, the 9th Circuit ruled that the card was absolutely a valid basis for deny a gun purchase. In 2011, Robin Wilson went to her local gun store in Las Vegas to buy a handgun. The owner knew her and knew she had a marijuana card, so he refused to sell her a gun. She sued, and it ended up at the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, the most left wing court in the nation. The Court ruled in favor of Attorney General Lynch and the Obama folks that no one with a medical marijuana card could legally buy a gun. Someone commented above that it was not the card but using marijuana. Nope, not according to the Court. In fact Robin Wilson testified that she never used the marijuana card at all, just got it because she was a marijuana advocate. Court said if you got the card, it is logically inferred you are a user. Kind of like having a CCW, it is inferred that you have a gun.

Please read this entire opinion as it spells out very specifically that "marijuana" causes people to act irrationally and is scientifically linked to violent behavior. This is important because this case started in 2011 and I think the ruling was not until the summer or 2016. Also bear in mind for anybody over 40, that the ditch weed normally found in Oklahoma was 2-3% THC. Today, the average sold in Colorado is 17.1% and the concentrated version is up to 62%. So, a kid can take a little of the 62% stuff and put it in his vape and be nuts in 3-4 minutes. Also, note that recent studies are saying that of the people killed in car wrecks in Colorado are 20% have THC in the blood at the autopsy. Compare that to opioids, all types, hydrocodone, Oxycodone, OxyContin, Fentanyl, morphine , opium, heroine, and all combine is 7.2%. Point is what we will be getting as medical marijuana is 6-15 times stronger that back in the day.

Point is, it is settled law about buying a new gun and having a MM card, at least in the western 1/3 of the country. Second, there is absolute risk to anyone who owns a gun and gets MM card.

Now today gun shops in both Oklahoma City and Tulsa channels were telling the media that "possession" of the marijuana card requires people to sell or dispose of any guns they already own. I do not know where they got that, because I do not believe any federal court has ruled that. The Lynch case above, said she could keep any guns she already owned. It is a political issue we shall see. I do not want to be the test case where some US attorney tries to take my guns away and get his name in the history books. Just my 2 cents.,

 

[Dave70968]

Now today gun shops in both Oklahoma City and Tulsa channels were telling the media that "possession" of the marijuana card requires people to sell or dispose of any guns they already own. I do not know where they got that, because I do not believe any federal court has ruled that. The Lynch case above, said she could keep any guns she already owned. It is a political issue we shall see. I do not want to be the test case where some US attorney tries to take my guns away and get his name in the history books. Just my 2 cents.,

Allowing continued possession, but denying future purchase, is a nonsensical position as 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) treats both just the same. If fed.gov is going to interpret possession of a card as actual use, then the gun shops are right. The state of Hawai'i--which is in the 9th--has interpreted it to cover possession, and is actively confiscating.

I would caution all to note that the 9th Circuit ruling is binding only in the 9th Circuit; it has persuasive precedential value elsewhere, but is not binding precedent. I could very easily see the 10th Circuit (sitting in Denver) reaching a different conclusion and setting up a circuit split.

But I certainly wouldn't want to be the test case.

 

[Dave70968]

Allowing continued possession, but denying future purchase, is a nonsensical position as 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) treats both just the same. If fed.gov is going to interpret possession of a card as actual use, then the gun shops are right. The state of Hawai'i--which is in the 9th--has interpreted it to cover possession, and is actively confiscating.

I would caution all to note that the 9th Circuit ruling is binding only in the 9th Circuit; it has persuasive precedential value elsewhere, but is not binding precedent. I could very easily see the 10th Circuit (sitting in Denver) reaching a different conclusion and setting up a circuit split.

But I certainly wouldn't want to be the test case.

A followup: I just read the ATF letter carefully, and the ruling is less nonsensical than I first thought. (g)(3) covers possession, but the letter also cites (d)(3), which applies to the dealer, and includes language about having "reason to believe" the buyer is an unlawful user. That's consistent with the position that having a card gives rise to a reasonable belief that the person uses.

One more reason we need to end the stupid prohibition on a plant.

 

[OldGringo]

Allowing continued possession, but denying future purchase, is a nonsensical position as 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) treats both just the same. If fed.gov is going to interpret possession of a card as actual use, then the gun shops are right. The state of Hawai'i--which is in the 9th--has interpreted it to cover possession, and is actively confiscating.

I would caution all to note that the 9th Circuit ruling is binding only in the 9th Circuit; it has persuasive precedential value elsewhere, but is not binding precedent. I could very easily see the 10th Circuit (sitting in Denver) reaching a different conclusion and setting up a circuit split.

But I certainly wouldn't want to be the test case.

I do not disagree with you that denying a new one, and allowing one to keep others is goofy. But read the opinion and you can see that they meandered around to get to that conclusion. If you check the Hawaii case is a little different as I recall. They have a specific state statute they were using. Last I heard they backed off and were not actually taking guns from those folks.....but they can any day. Also, they had the same issue in Penn, but last I heard they were not actively going out and taking guns. My guess is no state wants to go out and pick up guns, have a gunfight and some cops killed, and be labeled as jack booted thugs. If that happened the politicians would be booted out.