Medical marijuana = no gun purchase

[xsubsailor]

This just might be an interesting thread. 

A federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the 2nd Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/31/appeals-court-upholds-ban-on-gun-sales-to-medical-marijuana-card-holders.html

[TrickyNicky]

Interesting. A court ruling already ruled it a violation to not issue a carry permit to an otherwise qualified applicant maybe 5-8 years ago IIRC. One more reason I shake my head at MMJ databases. It isn't a prescribed medication*, it is a recommended treatment, none of anyone's business beyond the doctor, the dealer(provider) and the consumer.

 

 

 

Not for 98.9% of the people I knew with MMJ 

[A.J. Holst]

Change the verbiage from, "Do you use illegal drugs," to "Do you illegally use drugs"

 

[monkeylizard]

9 minutes ago, Gotthegoods said:

Change the verbiage from, "Do you use illegal drugs," to "Do you illegally use drugs"

 

Depends on whose laws you're looking at. Though some states have decriminalized it, the fed has not. Since it's a fed form, rephrasing that question makes no difference.

Edited August 31, 2016 by monkeylizard

[A.J. Holst]

"Do you use drugs illegally?"

The Rule of Law is flexible, elastic and open to interpretation.

Phrase it just right...

[Oh Shoot]

5 minutes ago, Gotthegoods said:

"Do you use drugs illegally?"

The Rule of Law is flexible, elastic and open to interpretation.

Phrase it just right...

If you smoke pot, he correct answer, according to federal law, is still YES, and it is the federal government that is asking the question.

- OS

Edited August 31, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[xsubsailor]

 It reads:.  Are you an unlawful user of.......................................so as oh shoot said, the answer is yes.

 

 

 

[monkeylizard]

27 minutes ago, Gotthegoods said:

"Do you use drugs illegally?"

The Rule of Law is flexible, elastic and open to interpretation.

Phrase it just right...

Whether it's phrased in a way to make the product or the action the illegal part makes no difference in fed law. As OS and xsub said, if a person uses marijuana for any reason (medical, recreational, religious, or other), they're using an illegal drug and using a drug illegally as far as the feds are concerned.

Edited August 31, 2016 by monkeylizard

[56FordGuy]

Over half the country (if you count DC) has legalized marijuana in some form. 25 states and Washington DC have legalized it for medical use, and four of those 25 have legalized it for recreational use. I believe three more states are set to vote on it this year.

This is a situation where the states are exercising their rights to legalize it, and I feel like the Feds should respect those rights. We all know better than to expect that though. The tide seems to be turning on marijuana legalization, and I suspect the next 5 years will bring significant changes. If TrickyNicky's memory is correct about the carry permit ruling, then I hope we'll see this appealed to the Supreme Court. I hope that anyway, but it would have firmer ground to stand on if there was a similar ruling already.

[DaveTN]

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

If I was a user of medical marijuana for pain I would answer “NO”, and not have a bit of problem with that.

 Sounds to me like someone wanted this case brought; or they were high when they were filling the form out.

 I doubt the SCOTUS will hear this case. Unless they just want to rule on it so they can say they are doing everything they can.

[monkeylizard]

That would still count as lying on the fed form.

[xsubsailor]

6 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

That would still count as lying on the fed form.

Agreed

[DaveTN]

5 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

That would still count as lying on the fed form.

Has a court ruled that?

 

[xsubsailor]

Letter to FFLs from ATF.

It's a pdf so I can't give a direct link. Go to link, click on read letter and then atf letter. The last part of the second from last paragraph explains why the FFL would not sell the weapon.

https://nationalallianceformarijuanaprevention.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-and-firearms-say-no-to-guns-and-weed/

[bersaguy]

I think the Feds are just looking for another way to gain more gun controls. I bet half or more of the Feds wanting the law probably smoke it themselves..............jmho

[TrickyNicky]

It was a state court in Oregon, but it reads as though the court ruled, it went to appeals, and they upheld their ruling OK of the carry permit and the MMJ.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/A-gun-permit-and-a-medical-marijuana-card-2375446.php

 

Like Dave, I would have no problem marking the correct box and moving on with my day. As mentioned by others, thats a no-no.

 

Stupid laws get ignored, I think I read that here...

[Sunfish]

What a man or Woman does with the money that they work for is their business. The graveyard is full of people that alcohol killed and the government made money on every one of them. I do not use any illegal substance but have no problem lying to someone who has been lying to me my entire life. All men are not created equal  

Edited September 1, 2016 by Sunfish

[JAB]

20 hours ago, Gotthegoods said:

Change the verbiage from, "Do you use illegal drugs," to "Do you illegally use drugs"

 

The answer would still be 'yes'.  As others have stated, as federal law regulates gun sales, as federal law prohibits selling a firearm to a person who uses illegal drugs and since marijuana is federally illegal the feds can deny gun sales based on this even though it is legal within the state and these aren't exactly people buying a baggie on the street corner.  Yet another example of the federal government overstepping what should (Constitutionally) be their (very limited) authority - the very thing the Second Amendment was put in place to help prevent in the first place.  In other words, the feds are more or less using these laws in ways they shouldn't be used in order to punish both the states (for daring to go against the almighty fed on the marijuana issue) and the users (for daring to think that they should have individual freedoms) as well as yet another way to curb gun sales to American citizens.

Edited September 1, 2016 by JAB

[JAB]

9 hours ago, Sunfish said:

What a man or Woman does with the money that they work for is their business. The graveyard is full of people that alcohol killed and the government made money on every one of them..

I agree for the most part.  Playing devil's advocate*, however, alcohol doesn't stay in the system very long.  If you submit to a breathalyzer test or a blood alcohol test and it shows alcohol in your system, especially a significant percentage (as in more than would be explained by taking a dose of cold medicine, for example) then you have consumed alcohol within the last, several hours.  Therefore, if you test positive for significant BAL and you are carrying a gun then you are carrying while 'impaired' or 'intoxicated' which is illegal in many places.  On the other hand, marijuana stays in the system and will show up on drug tests for weeks or even months after use.  That makes it much more difficult to determine if someone is carrying/driving/operating a boat while intoxicated or impaired by marijuana.  In other words, if someone is driving drunk, carrying a gun in public while drunk or so on and they test positive for alcohol in their blood then there isn't much wiggle room to avoid prosecution unless they have a really good lawyer who can trip the lab techs, arresting officers or so on up on the witness stand.  With marijuana, however, the person could argue that he tried marijuana a week before at a party and hadn't touched it since and there is no way to really prove he is lying (which could mean a guilty person could avoid prosecution) or telling the truth (which could mean a person who is innocent of the crime of which they are accused is prosecuted.)  So, while I agree that I don't give a rat's hairy posterior if someone wants to roll up and smoke a Cheech and Chong sized joint and then order 5 pizzas and 50 hotwings I don't want that same person stoned out of their gourds and driving on the streets where I am driving or carrying a gun in a place where I could be arrested, lose my permit, face fines and so on for having one, damn beer with my handgun in my pocket.

*I am, of course, not a doctor, a lawyer or an expert on intoxicants and their impact on the human body

Edited September 1, 2016 by JAB

[Omega]

4 minutes ago, JAB said:

I agree for the most part.  Playing devil's advocate*, however, alcohol doesn't stay in the system very long.  If you submit to a breathalyzer test or a blood alcohol test and it shows alcohol in your system, especially a significant percentage (as in more than would be explained by taking a dose of cold medicine, for example) then you have consumed alcohol within the last, several hours.  Therefore, if you test positive for significant BAL and you are carrying a gun then you are carrying while 'impaired' or 'intoxicated' which is illegal in many places.  On the other hand, marijuana stays in the system and will show up on drug tests for weeks or even months after use.  That makes it much more difficult to determine if someone is carrying/driving/operating a boat while intoxicated or impaired by marijuana.  In other words, if someone is driving drunk, carrying a gun in public while drunk or so on and they test positive for alcohol in their blood then there isn't much wiggle room for them to avoid prosecution.  With marijuana, however, the person could argue that he tried marijuana a week before at a party and hadn't touched it since.  So, while I agree that I don't give a rat's hairy posterior if someone wants to roll up and smoke a Cheech and Chong sized joint and then order 5 pizzas and 50 hotwings I don't want that same person stoned out of their gourds and driving on the streets where I am driving or carrying a gun in a place where I could be arrested, lose my permit, face fines and so on for having one, damn beer with my handgun in my pocket.

*I am, of course, not a doctor, a lawyer or an expert on intoxicants and their impact on the human body

Oxy stays in your system for sometime as well and its prescribed and abused much as any other drug.  The bottom line is that MJ needs to be treated as any other schedule II drug (Schedule I now) and decriminalized.  The Feds just don't want to admit they are wrong so they keep it illegal.  Personally, I would rather have to deal with potheads than drunks, carrying or not.

[Oh Shoot]

19 minutes ago, JAB said:

The answer would still be 'yes'.  As others have stated, as federal law regulates gun sales, as federal law prohibits selling a firearm to a person who uses illegal drugs and since marijuana is federally illegal the feds can deny gun sales based on this even though it is legal within the state and these aren't exactly people buying a baggie on the street corner.  Yet another example of the federal government overstepping what should (Constitutionally) be their (very limited) authority - the very thing the Second Amendment was put in place to help prevent in the first place.  In other words, the feds are more or less using these laws in ways they shouldn't be used in order to punish both the states (for daring to go against the almighty fed on the marijuana issue) and the users (for daring to think that they should have individual freedoms) as well as yet another way to curb gun sales to American citizens.

TN does it too. TICS will deny purchase for an alcohol related offense within the last year -- it is considered "addiction" under 39-17-1316.

- OS

[JAB]

15 minutes ago, Omega said:

Oxy stays in your system for sometime as well and its prescribed and abused much as any other drug.  The bottom line is that MJ needs to be treated as any other schedule II drug (Schedule I now) and decriminalized.  The Feds just don't want to admit they are wrong so they keep it illegal.  Personally, I would rather have to deal with potheads than drunks, carrying or not.

From what I can find, Oxy stays in the system for about three days.  Marijuana stays in the system for months and, again from what I could find, can be detected by a simple urine test for about three weeks.  Still not really all that comparable.

Also, although it is little known, aren't there still laws under which a person can be charged with 'driving under the influence' or similar violations even for prescription drugs for which they have a legal prescription?  I am pretty sure that is the case.  Heck, I think there are some states that are even looking at criminal charges for operating a motor vehicle when a person is too sleepy.

As for your last statement, it depends on the pothead and the drunk.  As I said, I have never smoked pot myself but have been around plenty of people who did.  I started out at UT as an Art major then switched to English and Anthropology - I have literally been on the roof of the Art and Architecture building with friends who were smoking pot between classes and not smoking made me the odd man out in that environment (although I never experienced 'peer pressure' to smoke it as my friends would offer and when I declined they would be like, "Cool.  More for me.")  The idea that pot never makes a person confrontational - especially a person who is prone to becoming paranoid when smoking - is a total myth.  Further, while some people are "instant a-holes, just add alcohol" I know plenty of people who are laid back and mellow when they drink.  The point, however, wasn't necessarily how the two substances might change personality.  The point was the level of responsible behavior exhibited by the two and, honestly, while neither might be very responsible (as in exhibiting safe gun-carrying behavior) in my experience I would trust a non-confrontational drunk to be responsible enough to carry a gun much more than I would trust a non-confrontational person who is stoned out of their gourd on pot.

Edited September 1, 2016 by JAB

[Omega]

Yes, you can be charged for being impaired even if you have a prescription for said substance.  But you don't get denied a drivers license if you use drugs; of course its been awhile and the questionnaire for a DL may of changed but I don't recall them asking. 

This site gives a good run down on detection times, which for a casual user of marijuana is 1-5 days, the 30 days is for chronic users.

http://www.ohsinc.com/info/detection-time-frame/

 

 

[JAB]

22 minutes ago, Omega said:

Yes, you can be charged for being impaired even if you have a prescription for said substance.  But you don't get denied a drivers license if you use drugs; of course its been awhile and the questionnaire for a DL may of changed but I don't recall them asking. 

This site gives a good run down on detection times, which for a casual user of marijuana is 1-5 days, the 30 days is for chronic users.

http://www.ohsinc.com/info/detection-time-frame/

 

 

You can't be denied a license for using drugs?  Actually, you can although not exactly in the way you mean.  A person can absolutely lose their license for a period of time for driving while impaired and if that person tries to get their license reinstated before the time to which they are sentenced to be without a license is up they will be denied a license for drug use (while operating a vehicle.)

As for the detection time chart that is interesting but that still doesn't negate the fact that the person who is arrested for driving under the influence, chronic user, casual user or whatever could claim that they had not used pot that day and there would be no way to prove or disprove what he or she is saying.  Further, I would guess that a person who has a medical marijuana card probably needs to use marijuana on a daily or almost daily basis (and I am not denying that they could have a very real, very valid need) which would likely put them in the 'chronic user' category.

Further, as I stated above, I knew people who smoked so much pot that they actually smoked between classes at college.  They smoked it more or less every day and sometimes several times a day and so would have fallen into the 'chronic' category.  However, that doesn't necessarily mean they were always high nor that they drove while high.

It isn't an easy issue because, while there are definitely 'abusers' I do believe there are also very valid, medical uses.  Heck, I even have a personal anecdote about that.  I have had life-long stomach issues and sometimes wake up feeling a bit queasy.  Well, back in the '90s there was a friend of mine who lived near me and worked where I worked.  Her car wasn't all that reliable so I would often give her a ride to and from work.  Usually she wasn't quite ready when I would get there so I would go up to her apartment to wait for her to finish getting ready.  Well, she would often 'wake and bake'.  This meant that the smoke, etc. was gone by the time I got there but the smell was still in the air and I noticed that, just from the smell, my queasiness would always almost instantly go away, my stomach would settle and I would be fine for the rest of the day.

Even with medical applications aside, I am very much a proponent of individual rights and the idea that the government doesn't have the right to tell people what they can do with their bodies (whether that be smoking pot or having an abortion.)  The problem comes when a person creates a hazard for others by drinking, smoking pot or whatever while driving and so on.

Edited September 1, 2016 by JAB

[Omega]

7 minutes ago, JAB said:

You can't be denied a license for using drugs?  Actually, you can although not exactly in the way you mean.  A person can absolutely lose their license for a period of time for driving while impaired and if that person tries to get their license reinstated before the time to which they are sentenced to be without a license is up they will be denied a license for drug use (while operating a vehicle.)

As for the detection time chart that is interesting but that still doesn't negate the fact that the person who is arrested for driving under the influence, chronic user, casual user or whatever could claim that they had not used pot that day and there would be no way to prove or disprove what he or she is saying.  Further, I would guess that a person who has a medical marijuana card probably needs to use marijuana on a daily or almost daily basis (and I am not denying that they could have a very real, very valid need) which would likely put them in the 'chronic user' category.

Well yea, anyone's driving privileges can be denied for many things including dead-beat dads which have nothing to do with driving.  MJ as most any other drug except maybe PCP, which they say can have affects way after use, wears off.  And while a urine test would show MJ use that does not mean impairment.  I bet police would be able to tell if impairment exists due to any reason, heck they have to have a reason to pull you over in the first place.