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/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf
...oh yeah... and Bill said he didn't inhale, so I believe him.
