Kentucky senators push to change law making gun ownership illegal for medical marijuana patients

Status
Not open for further replies.
Already federal. Duplication, just like Illinois gun dealer licensing. (which must be working since most gun shops in my area have closed down)
 
Not sure how a state can "fix" it. This is a federal law which the person should have known about before running out to get a med marijuana card. I think the vast majority of them got the card being cute looking for a work around to do what they want, rather than it really being medically required. Then, got caught up by the federal law.
 
I’m no proponent of marijuana. But, I personally would think that people should have enough sense to not mess with a firearm when they are doing something that is mind altering… But, I suppose if it’s mind altering, then they don’t have any sense… And another part of me wants to say that the second amendment right is a second amendment right…
 
According to Gallup, 15% of Americans use Marijuana.

Also from Gallup: "...Thirty-two percent of US adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 44%, report living in a gun household."

Now, I'll have to add, I suspect that the percentage of citizens who use Marijuana is appreciably higher than 15%, but even 15%, is over 45 million people. I don't know what the overlap is for the 2 groups, but is must be considerable.
 
As far as weed and guns goes, the govt might as well make it illegal for alcohol consumers to own firearms… it would make as much sense.
Ohio voters voted for legal recreational weed, no medical card needed.
Sales started in August, and Ohioans have spent over $250 million… Wonder if any of them own guns?
While I agree with you, I am loath to give Big Brother any ideas...
 
Politically, it's a "clever" move, to create a State law that merely duplicates an existing federal one. A pointless waste of resources in my opinion, but that's between the State's citizens and their government.

For the purposes of Legal, here at THR, this is going to be a complicated topic to keep open. The legislation is speculative at best, which makes it hard to cite here. And, it's already too tainted with politics, too--also not THR fare.
 
I don't think the state can do any kind of fix on this law because it's a federal law, they will need to succeed from the union before changing this law.
If you need a medical marijuana card you have bigger problems than personal protection.
 
I’m going to preface this by saying I’m not a marijuana user. I’m pretty well stone sober unless you count caffeine, and I don’t recommend the use of; or especially the abuse of; any substance whether it be illegal substances or Doritos and pork rinds.

Only way around the med card is to make it totally illegal at the state level. Still illegal federally, but no card to disqualify the person. Truthfully I would support the legalization if for no reason other than tax revenue, which is off topic, but would easily generate more revenue than firearms, ammo, and hunting permit sales generate. Or here’s an idea, sell the med cards at a federal level for a grand each. That 45 million people would clear the national debt in a few years, especially with tax revenue from sales of “product” and related stuff.

The bigger question at play here is do we really want marijuana users owning and/or having access to firearms. Typically people using marijuana are more calm and content than users of things like cocaine or alcohol. By comparison I think there’s some footing there for argument in favor of allowing sales/posession. If the worse thing by comparison is legal but ill advised why should the lesser be illegal but equally ill advised.
 
With the medical card yes I think that was in their minds . All medical card states. It is happening now with refusals to sell to card holders . I can only imagine confiscation will be there next attempt.
 
I think people need to force the government, federal on down, to defecate or get off the pot with respect to marijuana.

Either it's legal or it's not. Either it's a viable medical drug or it's not. The Form 4473 doesn't prohibit legitimate users of medically prescribed narcotics such as codeine or morphine, so why should marijuana be any different if it's also a viable medical drug?

Even in states that have "legalized" it, they haven't, really. They've simply set themselves up as the only legal distributors while also enacting other laws that can be used to prosecute others who don't buy from their distributors.

Kentucky doesn't need to do this because it's already against federal law to purchase if one is a user of marijuana for any reason (Form 4473, question 11(e)).


THAT SAID...I'm not sure about a person who happens to already be firearms owner and THEN uses marijuana. Especially if they're not under the influence when using a firearm. I just haven't looked that up recently. I'll leave that to you.

This very subject is being challenged in the courts and will likely eventually make it to the Supreme Court some day. In August 2024, for example, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecution had violated Paola Connelly's right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment citing a landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights.

Engelhardt said that while the government may be allowed to bar someone currently under the influence of drugs from having weapons, "there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence."


I don't know where Kentucky is trying to go with this. I haven't looked into the background on it. It SOUNDS like something a minority gun control clique is trying to push through some form of state gun control that may give them leverage on existing gun owners.

Kentucky isn't part of the 5th Circuit, so this decision doesn't directly affect them. However, that doesn't mean that this decision cannot be used to help sway the 6th Circuit, should a similar case work its way up there.
 
Personally I feel like if you want to drink and own guns fine, don't handle them while intoxicated. If you want to smoke Marijuana and own guns fine, again don't handle while intoxicated.
Where i think the difficulty with Marijuana lies is in the detection. It stays in your system for long enough that it makes it difficult for either party to prove when a person was or wasn't intoxicated.
 
It's death by a thousand cuts. Let's legalize gun ownership for marinara users? What will the states do next? If gun crime increases due to the legalization of marijuana believe me it won't be the legislators that allowed this to happen that will be blamed. The media will blame all on gun owners and gun orgs. Gun owners are responsible for all laws even indirectly directed to guns. Not by our choice.
 
Personally I feel like if you want to drink and own guns fine, don't handle them while intoxicated. If you want to smoke Marijuana and own guns fine, again don't handle while intoxicated.
Where i think the difficulty with Marijuana lies is in the detection. It stays in your system for long enough that it makes it difficult for either party to prove when a person was or wasn't intoxicated.

No, this is a misunderstanding.

Law enforcement was never interested in determining whether or not a person was actually intoxicated with THC. They only cared about whether or not a person had consumed it, because that was what the laws revolved around. To that end, testing looked for THC metabolites and not THC itself. The metabolites are what's left in the body after it's metabolized the THC in the process of eliminating it from the body. These metabolites may remain in the body for several days or a few weeks, long after the actual intoxicating THC has been eliminated.

So this is not comparable to blood alcohol level testing, where the tests are measuring the actual alcohol content in the blood...because it's the alcohol which is the intoxicant and therefore this is a measure of a person's actual level of intoxication.

For intoxication testing for marijuana/THC use, you have to actually test the blood for THC content. And I don't know of any state yet which has laws on the books for this, including what levels are considered "intoxicated".
 
If gun crime increases due to the legalization of marijuana believe me it won't be the legislators that allowed this to happen that will be blamed.

Medical Marijuana been around for almost 30yrs. (1996). Recreational has been legal in some states for over a decade (2012).
I do not see the rivers of blood running down the street.
Personally I am more worried about Joe Blow with his 12pack and prescription for Xanex than someones parents managing chronic pain or whatever the reason is.

Course its still illegal in my state so there is no confusion.
 
But, I personally would think that people should have enough sense to not mess with a firearm when they are doing something that is mind altering…

All the gun ranges in Vegas have signs on the doors:

“If you smell like weed, you may not proceed.”

So. No. Having sense is asking a bit much. Many of these places cater to tourists and have full auto packages etc to celebrate your time in Vegas.
 
I think people need to force the government, federal on down, to defecate or get off the pot with respect to marijuana.

Either it's legal or it's not. Either it's a viable medical drug or it's not. The Form 4473 doesn't prohibit legitimate users of medically prescribed narcotics such as codeine or morphine, so why should marijuana be any different if it's also a viable medical drug?

.
I do agree that the federal gov needs to move on this or make it a prescriptible medical drug.
That's the problem the government won't make a decision.
Our range is just over the state line in Indiana from Kentucky & this concerns many of our members.
 
I don't think the state can do any kind of fix on this law because it's a federal law, they will need to succeed from the union before changing this law.
If you need a medical marijuana card you have bigger problems than personal protection.

I'm not sure how to read this, is there a such thing as a Federal medical marij card? If not, I don't see the point in the 1st sentence.

It's against Federal law to be in this Country illegally but some States allow it and the Federal .gov selectively enforces their law as they wish.
 
Last edited:
The point is that the 4473 question is Federal and no state law permitting usage can change that. I agree that we need to decide this but the bumbling idiots we elect cannot get simple things done - kind of like Scotus and its inability to clearly state the 2nd Amendment as compared to decisions about Humpford Dumpdoodle did in 1792.
 
I’m no proponent of marijuana. But, I personally would think that people should have enough sense to not mess with a firearm when they are doing something that is mind altering… But, I suppose if it’s mind altering, then they don’t have any sense… And another part of me wants to say that the second amendment right is a second amendment right…
People handle firearms all the time if they consume alcohol, fluoxetine, tobacco, caffeine, etc. All of that is mind altering. The only difference is that it is "legal." If someone can responsibly consume the devil lettuce, then there should be no problem. Especially since plenty of people legally consume other mind-altering drugs that are legal and do far more than funky ditch grass.

Amazingly, I can go to SHOT Show's Industry Day At The Range and then do a pub crawl up and down the Vegas strip and get plastered. And my 2A rights are not violated. But if I even touch a literally weed, BAM, rights violated.

Enough of Uncle Sam watching over society like helicopter parenting karens. Let people be free. You can't mandate responsibility via legislation.

You think criminals right now care about being baked, handling firearms, and committing crimes? Nope. They don't care. Only the law-abiding do. The very fact that people who jump through the hoops get screwed proves that laws only hurt the law-abiding, not the criminals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top