The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Hazcat on September 29, 2011, 11:56:24 AM
-
'There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes,' ATF official says
By MATT VOLZ
HELENA, Mont. — Firearms dealers in states that allow medical marijuana can't sell guns or ammunition to registered users of the drug, a policy that marijuana and gun-rights groups say denies Second Amendment rights to individuals who are following state law.
Federal law already makes it illegal for someone to possess a gun if he or she is "an unlawful user of, or addicted to" marijuana or other controlled substances.
A Sept. 21 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, issued in response to numerous inquiries from gun dealers, clarifies that medical marijuana patients are included in that definition.
"There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law," said the letter by Arthur Herbert, the ATF's assistant director for enforcement programs and services.
--SNIP--
The clash between state and federal drug laws has led to lawsuits and criminal cases in some of the 16 states that have legalized medical marijuana use.
Officials in two Oregon counties have said they'll appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after state judges said sheriffs couldn't deny concealed handgun licenses for medical marijuana patients.
The Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court said the state law that authorizes concealed handgun permits is separate from the federal law that outlaws gun possession by drug users, and the state gun law doesn't address medical marijuana use.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44712648/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.ToR9QGEW6eE
More at link
-
Should be the same standard as for any other prescribed medication.
-
Should be the same standard as for any other prescribed medication.
I agree. I can see this ruling 'giving' ATF a whole new opening for them to exploit.
-
Should be the same standard as for any other prescribed medication.
no it shouldn't, its still illegal under federal law. question 11e asks about pot and other illegal drugs, not just illegal drugs
I was wondering how long it would take for them to do this.
-
no it shouldn't, its still illegal under federal law. question 11e asks about pot and other illegal drugs, not just illegal drugs
I was wondering how long it would take for them to do this.
Just so I understand you, you're saying that if the Feds decide that, Coumadin (as an example) is illegal on the Federal level while it remains legal at the state level, that those who take it should be denied their 2-A rights?
How about Ibuprofen? Tylenol? Lasix?
I just want to make sure I'm not mis-characterizing what you're saying.
-
I will grant TAB is correct that the question specifies weed.
An important factor would be whether it says "use" or "abuse". ( I don't remember the specific phrasing )
Use of prescribed substances as directed is not abuse.
Granted, it is weasel wording but turnabout is fair play
-
Exact quote from the 4473...
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
-
If it's legally prescribed then you are not an illegal user.
It has also been proven that it is not possible to become "addicted" to weed as with tobacco or morphine so the answer again would be no.
-
If it's legally prescribed then you are not an illegal user.
Not according to the feds. They say it is all illegal.
-
Exact quote from the 4473...
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Regardless of the truth, the correct answer would be no!
Read the 2nd Amendment. None of these conditions existed in 1787....
no argument from me Haz...but the 4473 form is ludicrous!
-
just throwing it out there
what is the difference if it was alcohol
comes down to "under the influence "
can not use firearms when under the influence alcohol or any other medication, why not tread marijuana the same way
-
just throwing it out there
what is the difference if it was alcohol
comes down to "under the influence "
can not use firearms when under the influence alcohol or any other medication, why not tread marijuana the same way
In my highly educated opinion in both arenas, there is no difference!
I'm toast on booze for the most part and twenty years ago or more, I was more than functional when I smoked pot!
America needs to get over this issue!
-
wonder how much crime rates would reduce ( and how much tax the Gov would get) if they treated marijuana the same as alcohol
there are i think 2 or 3 countries that have done that and crime rates had fallen in a lot of area's
-
I have zero experience with either, but feel like it should be treated like any other prescription. Based off of watching a lot of History Channel and the like, there are no countries where marijuana is legal; although, it has been decriminalized in several. Decriminalization is also how it works in states that allow it for medical purposes.
The federal government is a bit hypocritical on the issue too since they have a list (down to four) of people they grow it for and send it to. These people are pretty much legal to smoke it anywhere tobacco can be smoked.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/09/us_government_provides_marijua.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2011/09/us_government_provides_marijua.html)
Should have known Ole' Miss would be the government's pot grower.
I'm a bit mixed on the legalization issue, but the current system isn't working. Other than the border problems and people shooting each other over it (a product of it's legal status), there are much scarier drugs out there like meth and crack.
-
Here is the thing with pot, its a class 1 narc. which means you can't even do studys on it.
here is a qoute strait from the dea site
Schedule I Controlled Substances
Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Some examples of substances listed in schedule I are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), peyote, methaqualone, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“ecstasy”).
Its not a class 2 or 3 witch have a medical use( alteast according to the dea)
-
We will concede that the DEA is wrong in this case (as I feel they are in the whole War On Drugs).
The ATF's own form 4473 specifies "unlawful use of, or addition to" as the dis-qualifier and a medical marijuana user is neither.
By it's own specifications, the ATF is wrong in this restriction.
As far as the 2A not having been formed when drug use was prevalent, it was not unknown then.
However, the restriction should be not on the use of a substance, but the illegality of it's use as illegal acts makes one a criminal and that is the restriction.
I feel that the intent of the 2A was so honest and honorable men could be armed for all the usual reasons and several of the writings of the Founding Fathers support this.
However this also might not be accurate. I'd not be surprised if the Founding Fathers would require most criminals to go defenseless where they to keep away from the populace in general and survive in the wilderness.
-
Here is the thing with pot, its a class 1 narc. which means you can't even do studys on it.
here is a qoute strait from the dea site
Its not a class 2 or 3 witch have a medical use( alteast according to the dea)
That is meaningless, it lists Peyote, however members of the Native American Church have been exempted by SCOTUS under 1st amendment grounds.
They are free to gather and use peyote as they please.
-
That is meaningless, it lists Peyote, however members of the Native American Church have been exempted by SCOTUS under 1st amendment grounds.
They are free to gather and use peyote as they please.
The Indians are also a separate nation.
On the MaryJane side. It only rules that an FFL dealer cannot sell to a 'user'. He should still be able to buy from an individual under state laws.
-
The Indians are also a separate nation.
On the MaryJane side. It only rules that an FFL dealer cannot sell to a 'user'. He should still be able to buy from an individual under state laws.
It applies off the Reservation as well.
-
thing is though
forgot how long and the history behind Tobacco and alcohol, if someone tried to introduce those products today it would never happen and they would end up getting treated the same as weed or other illicit drugs.
-
This discussion is missing the point. The ATF has disqualified an entire class of users. They did not say anyone under the influence - they said anyone who at any time uses medical marijuana. You could be clear of its use, but have a card saying you can use it, and the ATF has disallowed your possession or use of firearms even when straight.
That is yet another trampling of rights by .gov.
-
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the authority to regulate and/or prohibit drugs? Nowhere. They have no jurisdiction over the matter. The proper answer to the question is no, because you are not an illegal user under STATE LAW which is supreme.
-
The Federal gov't has made THC illegal, just because a few states have decided to look the other way is moot. At the Federal level the ATF has a requirement listed on the 4473. Saying no while using with a medical card is perjury. Some of the people that get those cards are in a lot of pain and require something. Having said that, there is a bit of a cottage industry pumping those cards out to just about anybody that asks. There are plenty of Drs that will issue a card for the right fee.
Gayle's aunt recently got one and has a couple dozen plants at the house (another reason I will not be visiting again, I like my job). She has had chronic back and joint problems for years. She was on so many pain meds she was unable to function. from what gayle said, she's not taking as many but the pot helps. Guess what? She has a lifetime CCW permit from the state. Her semi-annual requal is a joke. She can barely hold the weapon up and pull the trigger (G26). As long as she gets two out of the mag on a target, anywhere, she passes. She is constantly saying people are stealing from her, most of the time she's misplaced something. She had some people living with her that did steal stuff, money, medications, and at least four pistols that we can identify. One was recently recovered after a robbery. She's a great person, but do you want someone like that with a weapon?
Personally I think that anyone who has a dibiliating condition that requires significant, long-term, narcotic therapy should really evaluate whether they are capable of safely operating firearms, cars, and other machinery. I'm headed down that road and in a few years, hopefully a lot of years, will probably need to make that choice. As much as I like to shoot, if I can't do it without lots of medications that cloud my judgement I don't think it's safe anymore.