ATF says medical marijuana users can't buy guns of any kind

[Tom Servo]

Should his use of a state taxed and legalized substance require him to divest himself of that pistol?

It shouldn't, but Gonzales v. Raich is the 800lb gorilla in the living room. Under the current situation, California can't make marijuana legal, even under a prescription.

I don't think it's right, but there it is. And it's not new.

[Chaz88]

Well, meet one.

Meet another one. I have no interest in using pot or other drugs legal or not. I do have an interest in living in a free country. A country that adults can decide what they want to responsibly put in there own bodies for whatever reason they want to. I feel the same way about protecting other liberties for Americans, even the ones I do not agree with. I do not like anyone telling me what I can and can not do, as long as I am not infringing on the liberties of others.

[HiBC]

I was OP to one of the older threads on this issue.I posted because I noticed,and took serious,the qiestion on the form decades ago.I decided I could keep one or the other,but not both.I kept my RTKBA.

Years later,Colorado passed the Medpot card law.I fpund myself in conversations with folks about guns,but later the topic would change,and pot cards would come up.

I have been told I look like Jerry Garcia by a number of folks,and so assumptions get made.

Not as a parent or wannabe DEA agent,but as a service,I advised these folks they have documented themselves as pot users with the Medpot card.Obamacare gives the Fed Government access to med records.
Technology gives tremendous power to cross checking records.Does database "A" have any hits on database "B"
Making a false statement on the BATF form is a felony.

The ATF just made a clarifying statement as to what the rules of the game are.

IMO,all the rant about "should be" "not fair",etc,is irrelevant.Do what makes you happy.

Appreciate someone gave you information you may use to take care of yourself.

How does it work out for cockroaches who argue with chickens? Darwin 101.

My conclusion:I may have A,or B,but not A+B. Recite serenity prayer.Change what you can change,accept what you cannot change.

IMO,if you ask the doctor to end the prescription,and stop using long enough to clean your body,you should be OK.
The form does not ask "Have you ever been..." it asks "Are you..."

Passing a drug test would be pretty strong evidence against being a user of or addicted to..

[Chris_B]

Well, meet one.
I smoked plenty of pot in my youth, having graduated high school in the 1970's and attended Kent State University. Virtually everyone smoked pot then.
I am a DOT regulated truck driver, and subject to random urine testing. I have not touched pot for a decade, and I have the drug test results to prove it.
I am firmly in favor of legalization. Punish those who use irresponsibly, just like alcohol drinkers.
Medicinal pot proved it's worth to me just recently when my brother was diagnosed with cancer. Living in California, he was able to get various edible forms of pot which helped him like no other drug which the doctors tried.
While he is not a regular shooter like me, he does own a pistol our father brought home from WWII.
Should his use of a state taxed and legalized substance require him to divest himself of that pistol?

But right there at the end of your post, there's the crux:

This is not a State only issue. The ATF is the Feds, and the Feds say it's not OK

And I hear you on your standpoint on one drug vs the other and punish those who are irresponsible. But if I'm drunk and spill a beer, the people around me don't ingest that drug. If you're smoking dope and your smoke wafts over to me, I get the smoke second hand. It's not so cut and dry as we may like it; the issue is more complex than just personal use in this case, and it seems likely that this is part of the ATF's standpoint on things in this case, and possibly on the legal aspect on the Federal level as a whole

[amd6547]

"...How does it work out for cockroaches who argue with chickens? Darwin 101..."

If you choose define yourself as a cockroach, that is on you. In the America I love, the people still decide what they will accept from their government.
Someday, the huge number of citizens who have used pot with no difficulties will end the madness that is the illegality of pot.
They will use all the methods available to them, from the electoral process, to ignoring the ridiculous laws...just as they did to end prohibition of alcohol.

"....And I hear you on your standpoint on one drug vs the other and punish those who are irresponsible. But if I'm drunk and spill a beer, the people around me don't ingest that drug. If you're smoking dope and your smoke wafts over to me, I get the smoke second hand. It's not so cut and dry as we may like it; the issue is more complex than just personal use in this case...."
Pot does not have to be smoked...while my brotHer was buying med pot, he never smoked any. It was available as chocolate bars, suckers, bread and other foodstuffs. The issue of second hand smoke is a false one.

[Chris_B]

Pot does not have to be smoked...while my brother was buying med pot, he never smoked any. It was available as chocolate bars, suckers, bread and other foodstuffs. The issue of second hand smoke is a false one.

On the contrary, your assertion that my point is invalid because in your brother's case, the marijuana was not inhaled is in error. Your standpoint assumes that legalized marijuana can never be smoked.

In addition, my example was one of general terms, not your brother's specific situation. I used as an example you and me, not your brother. This was very deliberately on my part, to remove his specific case from my example.

Lastly, this still does not address the point I had made previously- the state may tax it, but the ATF is not a state agency, and this is at the center of the issue. The ATF is not looking at your state's laws

[American Made]

Most federal laws are unconstitutional. I mean, if someone looks back in time many of the founders spelled out the meaning of federalism. It was unheard of for the "agent of the several States" to dictate any such law as this. However....after the States ratified the constitution all bets were off.

BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES:

It will he remembered, that the object of the several states in the adoption of that instrument, was not the establishment of a general consolidated government, which should swallow up the state sovereignties, and annihilate their several jurisdictions, and powers, as states; but a federal government, with powers limited to certain determinate objects; viz. their intercourse and concerns with foreign nations; and with each other, as separate and independent states; and, as members of the same confederacy: leaving the administration of their internal, and domestic concerns, to the absolute and uncontrolable jurisdiction of the states, respectively; except in one or two particular instances, specified, and enumerated in the constitution. And because this principle was supposed not to have been expressed with sufficient precision, and certainty, an amendatory article was proposed, adopted, and ratified; whereby it is expressly declared, that, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This article is, indeed, nothing more than an express recognition of the law of nations...
=================================================

"I had written to Mr. Madison, as I had before informed you, and had stated to him some general ideas for consideration and consultation when we should meet. I thought something essentially necessary to be said, in order to avoid the inference of acquiescence; that a resolution or declaration should be passed, 1. answering the reasonings of such of the States as have ventured into the field of reason, and that of the committee of Congress, taking some notice, too, of those States who have either not answered at all, or answered without reasoning. 2. Making firm protestation against the precedent and principle, and reserving the right to make this palpable violation of the federal compact the ground of doing in future whatever we might now rightfully do, should repetitions of these and other violations of the compact render it expedient. 3. Expressing in affectionate and conciliatory language our warm attachment to union with our sister States, and to the instrument and principles by which we are united; that we are willing to sacrifice to this every thing but the rights of self-government in those important points which we have never yielded, and in which alone we see liberty, safety, and happiness; that not at all disposed to make every measure of error or of wrong, a cause of scission, we are willing to look on with indulgence, and to wait with patience, till those passions and delusions shall have passed over, which the federal government have artfully excited to cover its own abuses and conceal its designs, fully confident that the good sense of the American people, and their attachment to those very rights which we are now vindicating, will, before it shall be too late, rally with us round the true principles of our federal compact. This was only meant to give a general idea of the complexion and topics of such an instrument. Mr. M. who came, as had been proposed, does not concur in the reservation proposed above; and from this I recede readily, not only in deference to his judgment, but because, as we should never think of separation but for repeated and enormous violations, so these, when they occur, will be cause enough of themselves."

-- Thomas Jefferson





Thomas Jefferson To William B. Giles

Monticello, December 26, 1825. Dear Sir,—I wrote you a letter yesterday, of which you will be free to make what use you please. This will contain matters not intended for the public eye. I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to our arms, with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation. But in the meanwhile, the States should be watchful to note every material usurpation on their rights; to denounce them as they occur in the most peremptory terms; to protest against them as wrongs to which our present submission shall be considered, not as acknowledgments or precedents of right, but as a temporary yielding to the lesser evil, until their accumulation shall overweigh that of separation. I would go still further, and give to the federal member, by a regular amendment of the Constitution, a right to make roads and canals of intercommunication between the States, providing sufficiently against corrupt practices in Congress, (log-rolling, etc.,) by declaring that the federal proportion of each State of the moneys so employed, shall be in works within the State, or elsewhere with its consent, and with a due salvo of jurisdiction. This is the course which I think safest and best as yet.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by American Made

Most federal laws are unconstitutional...

Except that unless a court agrees, your opinion doesn't mean anything.

[Chaz88]

Except that unless a court agrees, your opinion doesn't mean anything.

Like me, when I got the same response from you, he is putting things in a historical context and asserting what the original intentions of the founders and constitution were. How is this just a matter of opinion that does not matter?

Ultimately it was only the opinions of colonial citizens that lead to the creation of this nation and the constitution. The King, parliament, and courts assuredly felt that the opinions of the colonies did not matter in light of British law.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Chaz88

Like me, when I got the same response from you, he is putting things in a historical context and asserting what the original intentions of the founders and constitution were. How is this just a matter of opinion that does not matter?...

When the question relates to whether laws create consequences for acts, it's the opinions of courts that matter. The opinions of courts cause/affect those consequences. Your opinions have no effect on such things in the real world.

[orangello]

If this is too far off the topic, edit it please.

I am wondering about timing now. If a non-pot smoker person were to go out and buy a firearm at a FFL and truthfully answer that they "are not a user", and that same person later that week started dating a pothead and smoking the pot on a regular basis, did they break the firearms laws? If that is a legal purchase, how long would a pot smoker have to stay sober to be legal to answer "not a user" on the 4473 form?

Alternately, if a glaucoma patient who occaisionally smokes the pot were to buy a firearm in a private sale (not requiring a 4473 form), would this gun owner be in violation of the ATF rules in possessing/owning the firearm or in the act of purchasing sans 4473? I am assuming there was no "straw purchase" situation, say the owner had gun for 2 years and tired of its magenta coloration, then sold it to random glaucoma-afflicted buyer at gun show who showed an in-state ID and denied any felony record. In other words, should we be asking people if they smoke the pot before making a private firearm sale to them?

This situation seems far from optimal.

[Chaz88]

When the question relates to whether laws create consequences for acts, it's the opinions of courts that matter. The opinions of courts cause/affect those consequences. Your opinions have no effect on such things in the real world.

Again I submit that if only the opinions of courts matter and the considered, in light of history and precedent, opinions of the people do not then we would not have this great nation.

If it is now the generally accepted "opinion" of the citizens of this nation that court opinions are all that matter then we might as well burn the constitution turn in our guns and do whatever big brother tells us.

[BGutzman]

Maybe next we will learn the the ATF is importing weed..... Its the kind of nonsense this office seems to think is acceptable.

[Chaz88]

Maybe next we will learn the the ATF is importing weed..... Its the kind of nonsense this office seems to think is acceptable

Would not be the first time the government had a hand in the contraband drug trade.

[American Made]

"Except that unless a court agrees, your opinion doesn't mean anything."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't just my opinion....it's how this Country was founded. Moreover, there are four people in black robes that can't find the 2nd Amendment with both hands! To say it another way,.. I don't need any court to define what my rights are. It WAS understood that our rights are God given and
unalienable.

John Marshall too, back when he was part of the Virginia ratification convention, which also by the way said what I'm saying here today.


"Mr. John Marshall asked if gentlemen were serious when they asserted that, if the state governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication. If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken. The state governments did not derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia,--as to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. But the power given to the states by the people is not taken away; for the Constitution does not say so. In the Confederation Congress had this power; but the state legislatures had it also. The power of legislating given them within the ten miles square is exclusive of the states, because it is expressed to be exclusive. The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislature before, both shall exercise it; unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that by the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it. But there are no negative words here. It rests, therefore, with the states."

I'm sure you remember that knownothing James Madison?

“[The Constitution] was constantly justified and recommended on the ground that the powers not given to the government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the [10th] amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, ‘that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Debating what rights are God Given, gets us off topic.

It is clear for this discussion, the interaction of the courts, states and Fed. government are more important that abstract opinions of what one poster thinks are immutable laws of liberty. It is clear that a social consensus, expressed through the mechanisms of the country is what is important.

So let's get back to that. How does current laws, courts, blah, blah, etc. speak to the issue.

[Chaz88]

It is clear that a social consensus, expressed through the mechanisms of the country is what is important.

So is it the social consensus that what was, what should be, and what could be is not worthy of consideration in light of what is? Shall we not bring attention to how the status quo of what is might not be what should be? Part of changing current law through the mechanisms of the country is pointing out where the status quo might not be acceptable to the social consensus. If history and historical intentions are not worthy of consideration in the process then we do not have a social consensus just a judicial directive.

On another note there have been many quotes, from historical figures, of a similar nature on this site when strictly defending the second amendment. Is that the only historically relevant part of the constitution?

[pnac]

Acknowledging the fact that the Feds won't recognize State laws if they conflict with US law, or US policy in some cases, and the Feds have the "guns", so to speak, we have no choice but to accept that the Gov't can do anything they damn well please... for the time being.

Might makes right, power comes from the barrel of a gun, etc. Eat the crumbs they give you and be thankful!

[American Made]

"Debating what rights are God Given, gets us off topic."
---------------------------------------------------------

I respectfully disagree. It should be made clear that I could care less about marijuana (outside of cheech and chong movies) that is.

"The few cases wherein these things (proposed Bill of Rights) may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude where the want of them will do evil…I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government…”

And..yet, we have this same federal government dictating whom or what may own said firearm. Is not protection of ones self a natural right?

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

----------------------------------------
It is clear that a social consensus, expressed through the mechanisms of the country is what is important.
-------------------------------------------
Look, it is an indisputable fact that the Federal Government has escaped from the confines of the Constitution. Placing the genie back in the bottle is the main issue here.

I do not sir, question their right of medical pot use. Because there is a right older, even, than this, and one more inalienable - the right that every man has to defend his home and to protect those who are dependent on him. This would imply firearm ownership.....

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I want us to stay on this specific issue and not wander into general political theory. That should be clear.

Does the general right to defend yourself invalidate every restriction of gun ownership based on criminal behavior or mental capacity? Who claims that?

The specific is the conflict between the state and Fed. marijuana laws.

And I don't want to start a debate on whether X or Y liberty is immutable or a social consensus in this thread.

I'm feeling we are done with the marijuana issue. The Feds trump state medical marijuana. That's that. If you want to start a more general thread, go ahead.

If you have more to say on the specific go ahead or if not, start another thread.

[American Made]

I want us to stay on this specific issue and not wander into general political theory. That should be clear.

Does the general right to defend yourself invalidate every restriction of gun ownership based on criminal behavior or mental capacity? Who claims that?

The specific is the conflict between the state and Fed. marijuana laws.

And I don't want to start a debate on whether X or Y liberty is immutable or a social consensus in this thread.

I'm feeling we are done with the marijuana issue. The Feds trump state medical marijuana. That's that. If you want to start a more general thread, go ahead.

If you have more to say on the specific go ahead or if not, start another thread.
========================================================


We come now to a more particular and detailed examination of the question, "Who is the final judge, or interpreter in constitutional controversies?"

Let us now inquire what "constitutional controversies" the federal courts have authority to decide, and how far its decisions are final and conclusive against all the world.

The Constitution provides that "the judicial powers shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State and the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects."

The Constitution provides that "the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens and subjects of any foreign State."


It will be conceded on all hands that the federal courts have no jurisdiction except what is here conferred. The judiciary, as a part of the Federal Government, derives its powers only from the Constitution which creates that government. The term "cases" implies that the subject matter shall be proper for judicial decision; and the parties between whom alone jurisdiction can be entertained, are specifically enumerated. Beyond these "cases" and these parties they have no jurisdiction.

There is no part of the Constitution in which the framers of it have displayed a more jealous care of the rights of the States, than in the limitations of the judicial power. It is remarkable that no power is conferred except what is absolutely necessary to carry into effect the general design, and accomplish the general object of the States, as independent States. The federal tribunals cannot take cognizance of any case whatever in which all the States have not an equal and common interest that a just and impartial decision shall be had. A brief analysis of the provisions of the Constitution will make this sufficiently clear.

Cases of these kinds are simply the carrying out of the compact or agreement made between the States, by the Constitution itself, and, of course, all the States are alike interested in them. For this reason alone, if there were no other, they ought to be entrusted to the common tribunals of all the States. There is another reason, however, equally conclusive. The judicial should always be at least co-extensive with the legislative power; for it would be a strange anomaly, and could produce nothing but disorder and confusion, to confer on a government the power to make a law, without conferring at the same time the right to interpret and the power to enforce it.


This brief review of the judicial power of the United States, as given in the Constitution, is not offered as a full analysis of the subject; for the question before us does not render any such analysis necessary. By design has been only to show with what extreme reserve judicial power has been conferred, and with what caution it has been restricted to those cases, only, which the new relation between the States established by the Constitution rendered absolutely necessary. In all the cases above supposed, the jurisdiction of the federal courts is clear and undoubted; and as the States have, in the frame of the Constitution, agreed to submit to the exercise of this jurisdiction, they are bound to do so, and to compel their people to like submission. But it is to be remarked, that they are bound only by their agreement, and not beyond it. They are under no obligation to submit to the decisions of the Supreme Court, on subject matter not properly cognizable before it, nor to those between parties not responsible to its jurisdiction.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We come now to a more particular and detailed examination of the question, "Who is the final judge, or interpreter in constitutional controversies?"

No, the thread is over - thank you. I guess my post wasn't clear.

Closed.