Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

Discuss the 2nd Amendment and issues that relate to our right to keep and bear arms.
User avatar
AZ1
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 156
Joined: May 19th, 2018, 5:48 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Arizona

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#16

Post by AZ1 »

I'm not your buddy, pal.


User avatar
YNOTAZ
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 1554
Joined: June 3rd, 2018, 10:01 am
Reputation: 8
Location: NW Valley

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#17

Post by YNOTAZ »

TheRifleman wrote: July 31st, 2018, 10:45 am You're answering a question that was not asked. The question was, "Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?" Simply having a mmj card does not make you an unlawful drug user. Those aren't my words, they aren't the words of some quack journalist playing lawyer, those are the words of three circuit Court of appeals judges.
The 9th Federal Circuit Court has upheld the ATF’s interpretation on possession of a medical marijuana card as “intermediate proof” that you have no right to possess, transfer or purchase firearms and ammunition.

For the untrained eye, when they gave that ruling they said no “right to possess FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION”.

No right to possess seems pretty clear to me. If you find a different quote from the ruling publish it.

I will be happy to be proven wrong. Until then as much as I hate to say it, I will abide by the 9th Circus court ruling.
User avatar
Harrier
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 907
Joined: May 26th, 2018, 7:47 pm
Reputation: 7
Location: Right Here

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#18

Post by Harrier »

What ^^ he said ^^...

In the example cited above, the case Wilson v Lynch, (which is IMO quoted somewhat out-of-context and not really relevant to the OP's question).

The way I read it was that essentially... She claimed several of her constitutional rights were violated when she was denied the purchase of a gun because the FFL was aware of her MM card and the ATF's Open Letter... the court said her various claims didn't apply and she wasn't harmed therefore she had no right to sue, they dismissed the case, so she appealed.

The Appeals Court upheld the original NV District Court decision to dismiss the case because the court determined the plaintiff didn't have standing to sue. I didn't see anywhere that they ruled on her ability to have a MM card and possess guns at the same time.

The appeals court agreed with the first court and described why, mentioning that she didn't admit to either using MJ or Possessing a gun so she was not in danger of criminal prosecution. They further stated that she also didn't fit within the scope of a previous case ruled on by the 9th circus. In over 30 pages of opinion, they go thru every claim of rights infringement she made and dismiss them one by one and cite various applicable cases and the reasons why. They also cite what NV state MM law is, how one goes about getting a NV MM card, and steps to renew it yearly, what position the ATF takes on MM, the Open Letter sent to FFLs and the specifics of her attempt and denial to buy a gun... so all the circumstances are pretty clear for anyone with a higher level of reading comprehension and the patience to go thru it all.

Personally, I'm not sure I believe her claim that she obtained the card as a political protester supporting others rights and that she didn't really use the substance.... but its possible I suppose, anyway the court took her at her word and that was included in the reasoning why the various laws didn't do her any harm. However I wonder what causes a person go to all the trouble and expense to get a Dr to prescribe a MM card, renew it every year and then claim they were only a political protester and never actually used it.... This also brings up questions of medical malpractice, fraudulent filing of state forms, are there dispenser records, etc.

She claimed Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 (which is definitions used in the rest of the title) and the ATF "open letter" to FFL's infringed on her various rights.. the panel indicates on Pages 14-15 that she is prohibited from buying a gun by that title's definitions but it doesn't prevent her from possessing one previously acquired before getting her MM card, therefore it doesn't harm her. I don't think they are commenting on her blanket right to possess, but on how the specific definitions don't apply to her claim of injury
It seems a little confusing that they indicate she could have possession of previously owned firearms if purchased before getting a MM card, and then they say " ...Wilson could acquire firearms and exercise her right to self-defense at any time by surrendering her registry card..." .

Although they indicate she could restore her rights to buy & use a gun, by surrendering the MM card, it seems they are implying that she can't possess (use) one while having the MM card, but they don't actually say that, nor what is the status of her or the guns from the time she acquires a MM card until she gives it up.
Nowhere do I see them saying here possession of a MM card and a gun at the same time is OK as long as she isn't a user. I think someone needs to go back and re-read the entire opinion if that was the implication...

and since a link wasn't provided for others to read for themselves... here is the link (and I also attached the pdf)

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -15700.pdf

...oh yeah... and Bill said he didn't inhale, so I believe him.
Attachments
MM Court Opinion 14-15700.7z
(126.17 KiB) Downloaded 279 times
User avatar
TheRifleman
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 25
Joined: May 19th, 2018, 3:01 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Phoenix

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#19

Post by TheRifleman »

Not sure what country you love in, but here in the US we don't make laws telling us what we can do before we can do it - we look to laws to determine what we can't do. The ATF has not, and cannot, issue any lawful regulations to prevent someone from BUYING a firearm simply because they have a marijuana card. There aren't laws stating as such either. Having a marijuana card does not make you an unlawful user of drugs. So what exactly is preventing a mmj card holder from purchasing a firearm?

You claim the NV case states as much, but in that process you draw an inference (based on who knows what) that the panel implies she's a prohibited possessor. The case is about the ATF's ability to restrict sales from FFL's to people they are aware have a mmj card. As part of that analysis, they repeatedly say the mere possession of a mmj card does not make you an unlawful drug user/ prohibited possessor. The ATF letter prevents the sale of a firearm to a person they are aware is in possession of a mmj card. Notice it stops short of saying a person who is in possession of a card should check the unlawful user box - they simply state an unlawful user should check that box. If the FFL isn't aware of the card, then the letter doesn't apply. If the letter doesn't apply and the person is not an unlawful drug user, then there's nothing preventing the purchase of the firearm. No court needs to tell us it's ok.

"By citing to the link between unlawful drug users and
violence in this case, however, the Government incorrectly
conflates registry cardholders with unlawful drug users.
While these two categories of people overlap, they are not
identical."

"With respect to Wilson, this inquiry is straightforward:
because Wilson insists that she is not an unlawful drug user,
a convicted felon, or a mentally-ill person, she is not a person
historically prohibited from possessing firearms under the
Second Amendment. Accordingly, by preventing Wilson
from purchasing a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R.
§ 478.11, and the Open Letter directly burden her core
Second Amendment right to possess a firearm..."

The federal statute outlawing the purchase of a firearm by a drug user (922(g)(3)) is the exact same statute as the one outlawing the possession of firearms. It's impossible to be a lawful possessor but an unlawful purchaser. If she was prohibited from purchasing a firearm, the court's analysis would have ended right there.
User avatar
Flash
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: May 16th, 2018, 1:56 pm
Reputation: 5

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#20

Post by Flash »

Ah, but the person is an unlawful user if they have a medical marijuana card. Why? Because of the statement on Form 4473 11.e

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

Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal Law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medical or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

Therefore, if you check the "no" box, you're in violation of Federal law. If you check yes, you're denied. Take your pick.

There is absolutely no ambiguity in this at all. It's very clear.
User avatar
AZ Husker
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 626
Joined: May 16th, 2018, 7:49 am
Reputation: 6
Location: Springfield, MO

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#21

Post by AZ Husker »

What the form DOESN'T ask is when you used it. I'd venture a guess that many here have partaken in the past. I have a valid scuba card, but haven't been diving in years.
User avatar
knockonit
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 3542
Joined: May 23rd, 2018, 3:23 pm
Reputation: 23
Location: Phoenix,

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#22

Post by knockonit »

yep, seems everyone wants to be a lawyer, problem is lawyers aren't really lawyers they purveyors of the non truth,
the justice system is broken badly, one can buy justice, just have to know who, and where and when.

in a case of this, its simple, know someone that has a card, use theirs if you must, i know i would again if going thru chemo. it works for the nausea,
happy hump day
Rj
User avatar
TheRifleman
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 25
Joined: May 19th, 2018, 3:01 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Phoenix

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#23

Post by TheRifleman »

Flash wrote: August 1st, 2018, 1:01 pm Ah, but the person is an unlawful user if they have a medical marijuana card. Why? Because of the statement on Form 4473 11.e

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

Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal Law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medical or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

Therefore, if you check the "no" box, you're in violation of Federal law. If you check yes, you're denied. Take your pick.

There is absolutely no ambiguity in this at all. It's very clear.
The fact you're so sure if yourself when you're flat out wrong is the best part of this post. Read the quotes from the case in my post above, which apply actual logic to the situation instead of making the ASSumption that every mmj card holder actually uses marijuana. There's no requirement to use marijuana to obtain, keep, or renew the card, so simply having a mmj card does not mean you use marijuana. If you don't use marijuana, why would you check a box saying that you do?
User avatar
Flash
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: May 16th, 2018, 1:56 pm
Reputation: 5

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#24

Post by Flash »

TheRifleman wrote: August 1st, 2018, 7:45 pm
The fact you're so sure if yourself when you're flat out wrong is the best part of this post. Read the quotes from the case in my post above, which apply actual logic to the situation instead of making the ASSumption that every mmj card holder actually uses marijuana. There's no requirement to use marijuana to obtain, keep, or renew the card, so simply having a mmj card does not mean you use marijuana. If you don't use marijuana, why would you check a box saying that you do?
Unfortunately for you, you're the one flat out wrong. I quoted the 4473 which states use and possession of marijuana.

Somehow you converted that to read ownership of a card. You need to read better.
User avatar
storage_man
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 409
Joined: May 19th, 2018, 5:53 am
Reputation: 4
Location: Phoenix

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#25

Post by storage_man »

One can never argue with a Blind Person (or a legal expert). Can't see Black/White or Colors.
User avatar
TheRifleman
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 25
Joined: May 19th, 2018, 3:01 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: Phoenix

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#26

Post by TheRifleman »

Flash wrote: August 2nd, 2018, 12:01 pm
TheRifleman wrote: August 1st, 2018, 7:45 pm
The fact you're so sure if yourself when you're flat out wrong is the best part of this post. Read the quotes from the case in my post above, which apply actual logic to the situation instead of making the ASSumption that every mmj card holder actually uses marijuana. There's no requirement to use marijuana to obtain, keep, or renew the card, so simply having a mmj card does not mean you use marijuana. If you don't use marijuana, why would you check a box saying that you do?
Unfortunately for you, you're the one flat out wrong. I quoted the 4473 which states use and possession of marijuana.

Somehow you converted that to read ownership of a card. You need to read better.
So when you said, "Ah, but the person is an unlawful user if they have a medical marijuana card" you didn't mean that a person is an unlawful user if they have a medical marijuana card?
User avatar
Flash
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: May 16th, 2018, 1:56 pm
Reputation: 5

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#27

Post by Flash »

Having a card doesn't make you unlawful. Use and possession does.
User avatar
17-21-23
Banned
Banned
Posts: 300
Joined: July 2nd, 2018, 12:03 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: APACHE JUNCTION

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#28

Post by 17-21-23 »

W/O coming off subject too much, You do not want to be caught violating a federal law while in possession of a firearm. If you are in possession of a bag of weed, it's good idea not to have a firearm in your possession too.
User avatar
Arizonajeff
New to ArizonaShooting.org
New to ArizonaShooting.org
Posts: 10
Joined: July 22nd, 2018, 6:46 pm
Reputation: 0
Location: North phoenix

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#29

Post by Arizonajeff »

The issue we should be arguing is why should this even be an issue. Both needing to get permission to buy a weapon or smoke dope is stupid. These laws are unjust and should be ignored as was said by a smart man years ago. We all fear the ramifications of doing this though. The older I get the more it bothers me. Our freedoms are being eroded away as we argue amongst ourselves.
User avatar
redj
ArizonaShooting.org Member
ArizonaShooting.org Member
Posts: 220
Joined: May 19th, 2018, 10:00 am
Reputation: 0
Location: Sonoran Desert

Re: Can I by law have a Medical Marijuana card and have firearms?

#30

Post by redj »

Arizonajeff wrote: August 7th, 2018, 6:24 pm The issue we should be arguing is why should this even be an issue. Both needing to get permission to buy a weapon or smoke dope is stupid. These laws are unjust and should be ignored as was said by a smart man years ago. We all fear the ramifications of doing this though. The older I get the more it bothers me. Our freedoms are being eroded away as we argue amongst ourselves.
The problem with the theory that these laws should be ignored is fine.
The problem is that the Feds won't ignore them.
Post Reply