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

[youngunz4life]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/30...ntcmp=trending

I was wondering about the legal aspects of this, and if it is in fact legal to deny someone with a lawful prescription of cannabis to purchase a weapon for self-defense? Prescription drugs are extremely dangerous and much moreso than people realize(can take yrs and yrs off your life if abused), yet it would be upsurd for gun dealers to receive instructions stating firearms can't be purchased by individuals with legal prescriptions of narcotics from pharmacies. This sounds like a quick fix or lazy approach to avoid updating their forms. Does anybody agree with this new strategy?

[Tom Servo]

It's not really new. On the federal level, marijuana is still illegal, despite the fact that some states allow its prescription. Therefore, even with a prescription that's legal under state law, a purchaser must answer "yes" on question 12 (e) on the 4473, and is therefore ineligible to buy a firearm from a licensed dealer:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled
substance?

The conflict between federal and state law on the matter is ripe for a lawsuit, but there hasn't been much headway on this yet.

[zukiphile]

The conflict between federal and state law on the matter is ripe for a lawsuit, but there hasn't been much headway on this yet.

There is the Sup. Ct. decision in Raich. I don't find the majority decision compelling, but it does hold in favor of a federal power to make illicit use that in not interstate or commercial.

As a social matter, I oppose MJ use, but as a legal matter I think an individual could plausibly argue in good faith by extension of existing law that his non-commercial use within his own state would allow him to answer "no" to that question.

The problem I see with getting a prescription is that I envision that rx being filled by someone for money. That's commerce.

[Uncle Buck]

I have met several people who claim to have medical marijuana cards and therefore been legal users. I would not want to shoot with any of them.

My first wife was advised by her doctor (back in 1985) to smoke it to help with the chemo. I had to sit outside while she smoked. It did help her and she actually gained about 20 pounds.

(I was stationed in Korea at the time and pot was available through the Korean pharmacies.)

But I see so much of this being abused. Bottom line, it is still a federal offense and you would be lying on the form.

[carprivershooter]

I am a addiction counselor. As you might guess I deal with medical marijuana and recovery. If you use medical marijuana you are not in recovery. You are looking for a legal way to continue to get high. As stated in other posts marijuana use is still a violation of federal law. But what we need to keep in mind is what do our state laws said about being under the influence of marijuana and in possession of a fire arm. In Michigan if you are caught under the influence of alcohol you can lose your CPL (concealed pistol license). If you are caught under the influence or possession of any control substance and a firearm you just added time to your sentence. Driving under the influence of a control substance you are charged with impaired driving prescribed or not. This issuse is more than just a can of worms, it's a bucket of worms. I do not want to shoot with anyone that is high, weed, booze, prescribed pain meds.

[vranasaurus]

My problem with medical marijuana is that it is smoked. I think we have the technology to refine the actual chemicals in marijuana that would be medically useful. The fact that people with marijuana prescriptions go and pick out what kind of marijuana they want renders it not a prescription.

A prescription should specify the actual medicine and dose. Marijuana prescriptions don't do that and are really problematic.

Marijuana prescriptions appear to be a way for people to get high when they want to.

[carprivershooter]

Some of the doctors I have talked to about this issue recommend their patients brew the marijuana into a tea, or vaporize it and breath the mist. Still getting high but not killing your lungs.




I don't have answers, just lots of questions.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The actual usage of marijuana is not our issue, nor is the how to use it.

A conflict between state and local laws would be relevant. The issue of legalization of marijuana for medical purposes and how that interacts with gun rights would be.

However, a general discussion of marijuana usage is not. This is a narrow line to walk.

[silentargus]

Is anybody really surprised by this? Not only is weed still illegal at a national level, but the ATF has always jumped on every chance it could get to further restrict access to guns. 2 + 2 = foregone conclusion.

[Chaz88]

Historically this might be more of an issue than some think, as related to the second amendment. Up to about the early 1900’s it was considered unconstitutional for the federal government to tell you what you could and could not put in your body. Also any such regulation was considered a state matter and the Feds were not supposed to be able to infringe on the state’s ability to decide such matters. Then some clever legal types figured out ways to start infringing on individual and state rights without technically violating the constitution. Sound familiar?

[Onward Allusion]

Federal -vs- State... The ATF trumps...

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by youngunz4life

I was wondering about the legal aspects of this, and if it is in fact legal to deny someone with a lawful prescription of cannabis ...

There is no such thing as a lawful prescription for marijuana. Under the Controlled Substances Act, it is a Schedule I drug and may not, under federal law, be lawfully prescribed.

So anyone using marijuana, even under a state medical marijuana program, is an unlawful user of a controlled substance for the purposes of 18 USC 922(g).

[Mr. James]

The Supremes settled this, rightly or wrongly, in Gonzales v. Raich in 2005. State laws to the contrary notwithstanding, possession, sale and use of marijuana is illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The nine robed poltroons used the Commerce Clause, one of the defendant's profferred challenges, to reach even home-grown marijuana cultivated exclusively for personal use (see the earlier, even more hideous abortion of justice titled Wickard v. Filburn).

Sorry, but under existing law, there is no way you can use marijuana and truthfully answer "no" to 4473 question 12(e).

The ATF is a malignancy ripe for extraction. I micturate upon it from a great height. Maybe someone can write Eric Holder a prescription for medical marijuana to ameliorate the necessary surgery and chemo for excising this tumor.

[Stressfire]

Sorry, but under existing law, there is no way you can use marijuana and truthfully answer "no" to 4473 question 12(e).

Yup, why is that a surprise?

[Chaz88]

Federal -vs- State... The ATF trumps...

Yes, in practice they do. But with strict adherence to the constitution many times the feds not only should not trump the state but are in fact violating, or at best circumventing, the constitution.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Chaz88

Yes, in practice they do. But with strict adherence to the constitution many times the feds not only should not trump the state but are in fact violating, or at best circumventing, the constitution.

Perhaps in your alternate universe.

Many of us live in the real world where what really counts in what happens in practice. The opinions of courts regarding, and the ways the courts apply, the laws and the Constitution affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on such matters do not.

[orangello]

I wonder, does it make any difference if the people get their pot directly from the federal government? Not like this would be the only example of the feds violating their own laws or anything.

http://news.yahoo.com/4-americans-po...070245907.html
Only four patients still qualify for the program.

[Chaz88]

Perhaps in your alternate universe.

Many of us live in the real world where what really counts in what happens in practice. The opinions of courts regarding, and the ways the courts apply, the laws and the Constitution affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on such matters do not.

So in your universe when the opinions of the courts compleatly trump the second amendment to the constitution that will be OK because that is what will be happening in practice in the real world?

Is it OK that much of what the fourth amendment originally encompassed has been slowly eroded but most do not even know it because it started many years ago and slowly became the norm for what now happens, in practice, in the real world?

[Chaz88]

I wonder, does it make any difference if the people get their pot directly from the federal government? Not like this would be the only example of the feds violating their own laws or anything.

I think there is maybe one person alive today that got into that program.

[Don P]

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled
substance?

And if you have a script for the weed then the answer to the above quote is NO. IMO anyone that answers yes to the above question and has the script is stupid and should not own a gun anyway. Now who's boging the splif!

[SHNOMIDO]

Im pro legalization, but i dont think medical marijuana users should be treated any differently from "street" marijuana users until the whole shebang from top to bottom is decriminalized.

Its better for a medical marijuana user to say, OK, i know, i cant carry or own firearms, than for him to get arrested and say "but but but...i have a prescription!"

just my opinion. I also agree on the prescription pills comment. I know a handful of people that are pretty whacked out on legal, prescribed for illness pills. I wouldnt go shooting with them.

[Frank Ettin]

BTW, this topic was extensively discussed here and here.

Originally Posted by orangello

I wonder, does it make any difference if the people get their pot directly from the federal government? Not like this would be the only example of the feds violating their own laws or anything.

http://news.yahoo.com/4-americans-po...070245907.html
Only four patients still qualify for the program.

Those four people are the only ones left in a long closed formal clinical trial. And they are now the only lawful users of marijuana.

Federal law allows for limited, lawful prescribing of drugs that can't otherwise be lawfully prescribed. It must be done under a formal research protocol and subject to oversight by an Institutional Review Board, as part of the clinical trial and investigation of new and novel drugs and therapies.

That what was done with marijuana in this case, and it's done all the time with other drugs. Are you suggesting that the government doesn't have a sufficient interest in the testing of new drugs to provide for a legal means for such drugs, which could not otherwise be lawfully distributed, to be used for investigational purposes?

Originally Posted by Chaz88

...So in your universe when the opinions of the courts compleatly trump the second amendment to the constitution that will be OK because that is what will be happening in practice in the real world?

Is it OK that much of what the fourth amendment originally encompassed has been slowly eroded but most do not even know it because it started many years ago and slowly became the norm for what now happens, in practice, in the real world?

First, understand that your opinion about these things is just your opinion. Everyone might not agree with you about what is right and what is wrong. If there's a disagreement about the way a law should be applied, the matter is resolved in court. That's what courts are for and what they do.

Second, it is a fact that in the real world your conduct will subject to the laws as applied by courts. You may think they are wrong, and you may object; but at the end of the day you will bump up against reality.

Third, if you don't like the way things are, our system includes means of changing things. Legislatures can change the law, and court decisions can be challenged. But there's no guarantee that your view of the way the world ought to be will hold sway.

Fourth, if you think you will want to change things, you will first need to clearly understand the way things are, how and why they got to be that way, the mechanisms available to try to make changes and how to effectively use those mechanisms. You need to understand the real world.

Originally Posted by Don P

And if you have a script for the weed then the answer to the above quote is NO...

But that would be the wrong answer, unless you are one for the last four lawful users under the now closed clinical trial. Under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is a Schedule I drug and may not, under federal law, be lawfully prescribed, so no one, except one of those four people can be a lawful user under federal law.

[BGutzman]

legal to deny someone with a lawful prescription of cannabis to purchase a weapon for self-defense

The research from the most apolitical labs indicates it has no medical revelance, it seems only labs with a certain leaning have found other evidence.

It is illegal, being popular doesnt change the facts..

[jibberjabber]

I don't want to see anyone mix firearms with something which may lead to a non-sober state. Accuracy may suffer as a result.

[Chaz88]

First, understand that your opinion about these things is just your opinion. Everyone might not agree with you about what is right and what is wrong. If there's a disagreement about the way a law should be applied, the matter is resolved in court. That's what courts are for and what they do.

Second, it is a fact that in the real world your conduct will subject to the laws as applied by courts. You may think they are wrong, and you may object; but at the end of the day you will bump up against reality.

Third, if you don't like the way things are, our system includes means of changing things. Legislatures can change the law, and court decisions can be challenged. But there's no guarantee that your view of the way the world ought to be will hold sway.

Fourth, if you think you will want to change things, you will first need to clearly understand the way things are, how and why they got to be that way, the mechanisms available to try to make changes and how to effectively use those mechanisms. You need to understand the real world.

I apologize I just noticed you have a larger post count than me. You win!