Is this common? “Medical marijuana”

[WestKentucky]

I saw this headline pop up on the local news and I immediately got a bit nervous that the local LEO groups might just get us in the news for a Supreme Court case. Hopefully not, and I am certain that they have plenty legal counsel to run this through. Is this a common stance for law enforcement to take? Especially so publicly? Should I go ahead and get the popcorn on for when the local yayhoos get the show going?

Gun ownership prohibited for medical marijuana users, Hopkinsville Police adapts to legalization
https://christiancountynow.com/news...s-hopkinsville-police-adapts-to-legalization/

 

[MEHavey]

Marijuana -- for any reason -- makes you a prohibited person under federal law.
Card holder makes you an assumed user.
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf (See page 29)
> . . . the [ATF] Open Letter does not make a blanket assertion that all registry card users are marijuana users,
> it simply clarifies that a firearms dealer has “reasonable cause to believe” an individual is an unlawful user
> if she holds a registry card.

See also

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/rpt/2016-R-0239.htm#:~:text=ISSUE%20Can%20medical%20marijuana%20card%20holders%20buy%20firearms%20legally%20under%20federal%20law%3F&text=In%20August%2C%20a%20three%2Djudge,purchase%20a%20firearm%20(Wilson%20v.

Federal law trump state law.

 

[Laphroaig]

The last gun that I bought, after I filled out my 4473 and handed it to the guy, he looked at it and asked "do you have a medical marijuana card?" I said no, and he kept going about his business. I asked "if I would have said yes would that have killed this deal?" Answer was a simple "yep".

 

[Soonerpesek]

The last gun that I bought, after I filled out my 4473 and handed it to the guy, he looked at it and asked "do you have a medical marijuana card?" I said no, and he kept going about his business. I asked "if I would have said yes would that have killed this deal?" Answer was a simple "yep".

Can they really ask you a question that’s not on the form….?……and use your answer against you…?

That is BS on the dealer’s part, if you were to ask me…!!

 

[Laphroaig]

The question is on the form, as to whether you use drugs. I took it that he wanted to make sure that I knew that was illegal. Maybe he figured me for an old hippie or something. I wasn't offended.

Funny part is he had a goatee, earing, and some crazy looking hair. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I'm jus' sayin...

 

[shafter]

Marijuana use for any reason makes you a prohibited person because Marijuana is illegal at the federal level even if legal in your state.

I don't think it's heavily prosecuted but if they wanted to they could go after millions of gun owners, especially if local law enforcement was willing to cooperate and pass on information.

 

[rust collector]

When discussing transfers, it's good to revisit the 4473 to make sure you have the most recent version to (dis)cuss.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions There is a link on the referenced page to the actual form itself. Bear in mind that the form changes at different times, and with different agency interpretations or agendas.
Websites may not be updated immediately.

Then have a look at the statutory language that is ostensibly translated onto the 4473. Here's an article on federal marijuana law with citations to the law:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/federal-marijuana-laws.html It looks to me like any conviction for possession may be basis for imprisonment of up to a year. While that would be unlikely, the prohibition speaks to potential sentences rather than actual or likely sentences. The marijuana disqualifier, however, is not based upon conviction. The language is "unlawful user". and it does not distinguish federal from local law. Unless a transferee can fit into the category of a user who is complying with all applicable laws, the current scheme prohibits transfer. If someone has taken the trouble and expense of obtaining a medical marijuana authorization card, it isn't difficult to create a presumption of prohibition, and that suits the current regime just fine.

Another interesting development on this front is the availability and increasing popularity of beverages containing THC in specified dosages. THC last time I checked was tetrahydrocannabinol, which is the principal psychoactive agent (of 113 identified) of marijuana.

Enforcement of marijuana possession laws is relaxed in many jurisdictions, until they become a useful tool. Caution is advised.

 

[Savage30L]

Another interesting development on this front is the availability and increasing popularity of beverages containing THC in specified dosages. THC last time I checked was tetrahydracannabinol, which is the principal psychoactive agent (of 113 identified) of marijuana.

We have those in liquor stores here, and gummies in gas stations. Something's got to give. It wouldn't surprise me to see the new Trump administration push for legalization (or, at least, decriminalization) of marijuana.

I saw a graphic today on Zerohedge, showing firearms ownership rates by state. KY was shown at 56% (meaning 56% of residents are firearms owners). As an offhand guess, I'd say the Cannabis use rate is at least 25%. There is plenty of overlap here, as elsewhere.

 

[DT Guy]

Considering the amount of bounce in that particular ball, I'd say the local law enforcement agencies are probably in for a wild ride for a while:

Appeals Court Rules MJ User Cannot be Banned from Gun Ownership

Larry

 

[Soonerpesek]

The question is on the form, as to whether you use drugs. I

The medical ganja card question is not…..

That’s what I’m REFERring to…..

 

[Soonerpesek]

I wasn't offended.

That’s not what is at stake either….

 

[JohnKSa]

Can they really ask you a question that’s not on the form….?……and use your answer against you…?

An FFL can ask you anything they want to.
You don't have to answer any of their questions that you don't want to answer.
They don't have to sell to you if they don't want to.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

Lots of people here ran out to get their Med Marijuana card ASAP as they thought they were being cute (I would guess that 99% of them were not medical users). Then, got real unhappy when they could no longer buy a firearm. I would guess around 10% of the denials here are from that as it is all in the database and easy to cross check.

Same thing will happen in KY as this plays out. People should read/understand how their actions may impact them before they jump onto the next "cool" thing.

 

[LiveLife]

Gun ownership prohibited for medical marijuana users, Hopkinsville Police adapts to legalization

Marijuana -- for any reason -- makes you a prohibited person under federal law. Card holder makes you an assumed user.

Federal law trump state law.

5th Circuit just ruled on 1/6/25 on Supreme Court remand in US v Daniels under Bruen methodology - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460535#msg1460535

"Daniels’s § 922(g)(3) conviction is inconsistent with our “history and tradition” of gun regulation ... applications of § 922(g)(3) must accord with our nation’s history of firearm regulations, and disarming individuals solely for their prior, occasional, or habitual marihuana use does not.

The judgment of conviction is REVERSED and REMANDED"

And BTW, occasional and regular use of alcohol and being "under the influence" does not lead to disarming of "We the People".

 

[Double Naught Spy]

While I agree with the consistency of the 5th circuit ruling, it is only the 5th circuit and we still have the laws on the books.

 

[armoredman]

It is a huge step in the right direction!

 

[LiveLife]

it is only the 5th circuit and we still have the laws on the books.

5th Circuit ruling will affect one member of "We the People" right to keep and bear arms and perhaps for all of "We the People".

I just posted to inform THR members of latest development.

 

[dogtown tom]

Can they really ask you a question that’s not on the form….?……and use your answer against you…?

That is BS on the dealer’s part, if you were to ask me…!!

An FFL can ask any question he wants of a prospective buyer.
What are you going to use this gun for?
Where do you shoot?
Are those gang tattoos?
What you going to hunt?
Have you ever fired a gun?
Did you ever steal candy from children at Halloween?
Have you been drinking?
Do you hear voices in your head?

The buyer is not required to answer, and the dealer has every right to deny a sale or transfer for any reason that isn't considered discrimination by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For example...refusing to sell to a buyer because of their race, ethnicity or religion.

 

[dogtown tom]

The medical ganja card question is not…..

That’s what I’m REFERring to…..

ATF Guidance on Medical Marijuana Cards See fourth paragraph.

 

[dogtown tom]

While I agree with the consistency of the 5th circuit ruling, it is only the 5th circuit and we still have the laws on the books.

This.
Any FFL who relies on a court ruling is treading on thin ice. When you apply for an FFL, you agree to abide by all federal laws and ATF regulations. If I were to allow potheads to buy guns based on the recent 5th Circuit decision I would be stupid. The case is still active I believe.

Remember United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Co. ?
It took nineteen years before ATF changed regulations that got rid of "once a rifle, always a rifle".

 

[Double Naught Spy]

5th Circuit ruling will affect one member of "We the People" right to keep and bear arms and perhaps for all of "We the People".

No, the 5th Circuit ruling will not apply to all of We the People. That sort of ruling or law change will have to come from elsewhere.

 

[HHollow]

So I am confused. There are multiple 4473 issues that might federally prohibit a gun purchase.
Such as:
18 year old tries to buy a pistol
MJ card holder tries to buy any firearm
Reformed felon tries to buy any firearm
Illegal alien with DL tries to buy any firearm

In many states each of the above is allowed to own a firearm but has to buy it through private channels.

splaination?

 

[armoredman]

Not true - the 18 year old may receive a pistol from another in some states under some circumstances. That can vary from state to state, but federally, they may not purchase one through an FFL, which is what the 4473 addresses.
MJ card holder has been barred period, from purchasing any firearms, regardless of public or private sale, same with anyone who is a convicted felon, (who has not had their rights restored, an almost impossible task), or a criminal alien. No ownership, zip, zero, nada. Some states DO allow convicted felons to own BLACK POWDER single shot firearms for the express purpose of hunting, as that issue is not addressed federally, but anyone prohibited under GCA 68 is prohibited, no matter how the firearm is purchased.

 

[LiveLife]

... right to keep and bear arms ... perhaps for all of "We the People".

5th Circuit ruling will not apply to all of We the People. That sort of ruling or law change will have to come from elsewhere.

"Perhaps" after appealed to the Supreme Court?

 

[dogtown tom]

So I am confused. There are multiple 4473 issues that might federally prohibit a gun purchase.
Such as:
18 year old tries to buy a pistol

Only prohibited to acquire from a licensed dealer, not federally prohibited to possess.

MJ card holder tries to buy any firearm
Reformed felon tries to buy any firearm
Illegal alien with DL tries to buy any firearm

All those persons are prohibited federally from possessing a firearm.
It doesn't matter if they tried to buy from an FFL or some guy they met behind WalMart.

In many states each of the above is allowed to own a firearm but has to buy it through private channels.

States may be more or less restrictive, but federal law applies to every state.