Ban on Gun Sales To MJ Card Holders UPHELD - Fed Court Rules

Actually, that makes sense to me. Though the various states have made marijuana use legal, the use thereof is still a violation of Federal law.

The true usefulness of marijuana in treating ANYTHING is pretty questionable. The laws making the use thereof legal is just pandering to the pot heads.

The 9th Circuit. What other decision could be the result? The Slope downhill continues. Commonsense be damned.

You think our society would be more worried about alcohol.

What does this mean if a person with a medical card uses a gun in self defense?

Its in line with current Federal law.

Marijuana is listed as a controlled substance, ie... illegal

the 4473 asks if the buyer uses illegal drugs, a YES answer will stop the sale. Nothing new here just a confirmation of current law

Here's a link to the actual decision:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf

That way everyone can read what the court actually wrote.

So in a nutshell, the person sued and the case was dismissed, they appealed and the dismissal was upheld.......

Nothing new here it falls in line with current federal law

The panel held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to federal firearms licensees, which prevented plaintiff from purchasing a firearm, directly burdened plaintiff’s core Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel nevertheless held that the fit between the challenged provisions and the Government’s substantial interest of violence prevention was reasonable, and therefore the district court did not err by dismissing the Second Amendment claim.

Click to expand...

What level of scrutiny does that fall under on a scale of 1-10; 1 being 'rational basis' and 10 being 'strict scrutiny' as specifically laid out in Heller as The Test by which RKBA laws are to survive review? I know they *say* "intermediate scrutiny," but...

What are we, like 12:2 or so for even feigned attempts at proper application of Heller at the district courts, now? There was the Taser case...I'm drawing a blank on any others that weren't DC or Chicago. Has there been any other issue so clearly ruled upon by SCOTUS that was immediately so utterly ignored by most district courts afterward since the Antebellum period? (Alcohol Prohibition maybe, though they did at least bother to pass an Amendment after being shown the door?)

Me, I'm curious how an MJ card defines one as a "user or addicted person" without testing being involved. Neither the 4473 nor the statute say anything about *intent* to be a user or addicted person, so if the cardholder can claim innocence & the feds don't counter by proving them to be an active user & therefore prohibited person...sure seems like you couldn't blanket deny them solely by virtue of a card they applied for. It's akin to going after an SBR builder on circumstantial constructive intent, and using the approved Form 1 they submitted as your primary evidence of subsequent illegal manufacture (it is addicting, after all ).

Question; what happens if a state passes a law saying that no MJ card is necessary (full bore legalization, which is inevitable in one or more states at the rate things are going) or automatically makes all driver's license holders eligible? Are they all PP's now by virtue of having the same access to the drug as MJ card holders, or are we (again) pretending intent alone determines whether they are active users & disqualified from purchases? I'd also like to see the next case be someone who *was* on a MJ list but has lapsed their "treatment" and wishes to be removed from NICS denials going forward, since I suspect their name is persistently on the list as seems to be the case for all disqualifications.

TCB

MY question,is if the MJ is prescribed by a Dr. isnt that a part of "doctor & paitent confidentality " ? If someone is getting opiates fron a doctor that is no problem ? Looks like an attempt to deny people of their rights any way posible .

Is this the first test case by a medical marijuana MMJ card holder?

This issue has been out there since some states decided to legalize marijuana.

ATF Open Letter to all Federal Firearms License holders (gun dealers), 21 Sep 2011:

"During a firearms transaction, a potential transferee may advise you that he or she is a user of medical marijuana, or present a medical marijuana card as identification or proof of residency. As you know, Federal Law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), prohibits any person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))" from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition. Marijuana is listed in the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I controlled substance, and there are no exceptions in Federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by State law. ....any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. ... Further, if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have "reasonable cause to believe" that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. ...."

Signed by Arthur Herbert, Assitant Director, Enforcement Programs and Services.

MY question,is if the MJ is prescribed by a Dr. isnt that a part of "doctor & paitent confidentality " ? If someone is getting opiates fron a doctor that is no problem ? Looks like an attempt to deny people of their rights any way posible .

Click to expand...

It is my understanding that DRs cannot "prescribe" Marijuna as it is a controlled substance.
They issue or write a "recommendation" which is not actually a "prescription ".

The courts have ruled that a felon cannot be charged with failure to register a firearm as that would be forced self incrimination?

How about a MM user and the 4473? Would answering Yes, to the use of marijuana be self incrimination as well?

How about a MM user and the 4473? Would answering Yes, to the use of marijuana be self incrimination as well?

Click to expand...

18 U.S.C. 922

(a) It shall be unlawful—...

(6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

Click to expand...

This is the same reason Straw Purchases are illegal. There's no actual law against straw purchases, the crime is lying on the federal form 4473. You've no right to avoid self incrimination when making sworn statements on a federal firearm application form. You DO have a right to not self-incriminate by not attempting to purchase a firearm and filling out a 4473 in the first place.

Why should having a laminated index card disqualify one on a 4473?

It does not ask, "Do you have a license to purchase marijuana?" It asks "Do you
Use marijuana?"

Already on some federal forms..................

It is my understanding that doctors in states where medicinal marijuana is legal under state law issue scripts (just as you would for a splint, etc.) which can then be filled by a dispensary. Scripts are not considered prescriptions under federal drug laws.

Issuing a prescription is governed by federal law and as marijuana is illegal under federal law, then issuing such a prescription can result in having your federal prescribing privileges revoked (and/or possible fines, jail time, etc. ).

boom boom said:

Scripts are not considered prescriptions under federal drug laws.

Issuing a prescription is governed by federal law and as marijuana is illegal under federal law, then issuing such a prescription can result in having your federal prescribing privileges revoked (and/or possible fines, jail time, etc. ).

Click to expand...

The work "script" is a term commonly used in the medical profession and is short for prescription. Writing a script is no different than writing a prescription.

As far as having federal prescribing privleges revoked, jail time, fines, etc.; pretty unlikely. Medical marijuana has been legal in some states for quite a few years now and to the best of my knowledge, no doctor has ever been punished for prescribing it. As a matter of fact, there have been very few Federal raids on State legal marijuana operations.

The word is "recommendation" , not script or prescription.

They recommend to whomever issues the MM card (the State), that their patient be given permission by the State to purchase use MM.

It is not a prescription.

Yes, it is a prescription recognized only by the State.

Although it's unlikely a physician would be prosecuted for approving marajuana use it is illegal for a physician to prescribe a controlled drug to one using a substance illegally be it heroin, marijuana, the various opiates, etc. Physicians are prosecuted for illegal prescribeing of controlled drugs.

It is my understanding that currently Congress has blocked funding for federal DEA prosecutions related to state-legal marijuana, which should mean no prosecutions of physicians and patients over medical marijuana.

I don't know if that relates to ATF prosecutions of confirmed MMJ card holders who are also admitted to having guns. Does anyone?

Having a card does not necessarily mean you are using marijuana, just like having a prescription from a doctor doesnt mean you are taking the medicine prescribed or even filled the prescription. Im sure there are people who get the card and then change their mind about using marijuana or use it but havent used it in over a year.

Why would you have a card and not use it? Why would you use the card as a form of ID?
...

If you use it and have firearms it's my understanding you are in violation of federal law.
...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Grumulkin said:

Yes, it is a prescription recognized only by the State.

Although it's unlikely a physician would be prosecuted for approving marajuana use it is illegal for a physician to prescribe a controlled drug to one using a substance illegally be it heroin, marijuana, the various opiates, etc. Physicians are prosecuted for illegal prescribeing of controlled drugs.

Click to expand...

In CA, it is NOT a prescription. It is a recommendation.

That recommendation is then used to apply for a MMIC (Medical Marijuana Identification Card.)

The MMIC is administered by the California Dept of Public Health.

The MMIC is what allows the patient to buy and posses certain amounts and for the dispensary to sell it to them and be protected by Prop 215 and SB 420 (yes, really, SB420)

X-Rap said:

Why would you have a card and not use it? Why would you use the card as a form of ID?
...

Click to expand...

Q1)Why would you have a Passport and not use it? I have had prescriptions for vicodin that Ive never filled. I hate that stuff- cant sleep and acetaminophen isn't good with other cholesterol meds.

Q2) In CA, its a state issued photo I.D card. (Considering some of the crazy lines at the DMV, it very well could be easier to get a state issued photo MMIC than to get an state issued photo I.D. from the DMV)



Everything above can be verified here.

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/MMP/Pages/MMP Top 3 Questions.aspx




From the ruling:

But it is eminently reasonable
for federal regulators to assume that a registry cardholder is
much more likely to be a marijuana user than an individual
who does not hold a registry card.

Click to expand...

Is it really eminently reasonable to make that assumption?

By that logic, it seems it could be argued that if someone is in an 'alcohol and substance' program that it would be a reasonable assumption that they are much more likely to be using drugs and not just alcohol.


And as I mentioned above, why have a passport if you are going to use it? Ive needed and used mine only one time but its good for 10 years.

The fact that I have it doesn't make me much more likely to travel outside the U.S. In fact, I have no intention of traveling outside the U.S. in the foreseeable future.



Come to think of it.... Ive used it as I.D. in the U.S. about a half dozen times but only once as a passport.