The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old September 30, 2011, 04:37 AM   #1
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
ATF says medical marijuana users can't buy guns of any kind

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?
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 07:19 AM   #2
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,655
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:

Quote:
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 07:43 AM   #3
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,660
Quote:
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.
zukiphile is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 07:46 AM   #4
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,565
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.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 09:10 AM   #5
carprivershooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2008
Location: Michigan, Upper Pennsula
Posts: 396
Gun ownership and marijuana

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.
__________________
CarpriverShOOter
Finch, I don't like guns. Reese, Me either but if someone has to have guns I'd rather it be me. (Person of Interest).
No trees were destroyed in the posting of the this message
carprivershooter is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 09:21 AM   #6
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
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.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 09:39 AM   #7
carprivershooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2008
Location: Michigan, Upper Pennsula
Posts: 396
Medical weed

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.
__________________
CarpriverShOOter
Finch, I don't like guns. Reese, Me either but if someone has to have guns I'd rather it be me. (Person of Interest).
No trees were destroyed in the posting of the this message
carprivershooter is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 09:54 AM   #8
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,855
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 10:01 AM   #9
silentargus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2010
Posts: 146
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.
silentargus is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 10:35 AM   #10
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,019
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?
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 10:57 AM   #11
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: IN
Posts: 1,816
Federal -vs- State... The ATF trumps...
__________________
"You haven't lived until you've died." - various
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 11:43 AM   #12
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
Quote:
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).

Last edited by Frank Ettin; September 30, 2011 at 01:02 PM.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 11:50 AM   #13
Mr. James
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2001
Location: The Old Dominion
Posts: 1,521
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.
__________________
"...A humble and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. li

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." —Frederic Bastiat

Last edited by Mr. James; September 30, 2011 at 03:07 PM.
Mr. James is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 01:07 PM   #14
Stressfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
Quote:
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?
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott
Stressfire is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 01:17 PM   #15
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
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.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 01:35 PM   #16
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaz88
Quote:
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.
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.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 01:42 PM   #17
orangello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
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.
orangello is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 01:46 PM   #18
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
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?
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 01:48 PM   #19
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
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.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 02:22 PM   #20
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,827
Quote:
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!
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA NROI Range Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 02:23 PM   #21
SHNOMIDO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 423
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.
SHNOMIDO is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 02:35 PM   #22
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,923
BTW, this topic was extensively discussed here and here.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don P
Quote:
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...
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.

Last edited by Frank Ettin; September 30, 2011 at 07:32 PM.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 03:23 PM   #23
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
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..
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 03:40 PM   #24
jibberjabber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2011
Posts: 178
don't bogart those rounds

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.
jibberjabber is offline  
Old September 30, 2011, 04:01 PM   #25
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,019
Quote:
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!
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
atf , gun dealer , guns , gunshop , marijuana

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13834 seconds with 7 queries