Guns and mj cards

[YNOTAZ]

Yes, the case has multiple facets. One was that simply possessing a mmj card, with no other proof of use, is not proof in itself.

I still can't find that facet anywhere in the ruling. Not saying you're wrong but I can't find it as a legal footing to dispute the ATF letter to all FFLs.

This question has come up in several shooting forums, several times, in several different fashions. If you have the specific facete of that case addressing having an MMJ card NOT being a relevant implication of MJ use. I would like the reference, because I always refer back to the ATF letter and that I have not found any court ruling to dispute it.

 

[MarkItZero]

Since the feds look the other way on the dispensaries having armed guards I can't imagine a run of the mill user has much to worry about.

Also the dispensary in Bisbee is located within eye sight of a Border Patrol station. I've never heard of anything coming from that.

 

[Ben7]

It’ll be interesting to see what happens when MJ becomes legal on the federal level. It’s only a matter of time. Doesn’t seem to be a priority now, but I’d guess in the next 5-10 years it’ll go through.

 

[Manitu]

A good friend a toker and shooter both. He has state issued mj permission slip. The state also sent him his ccw renewal time reminder, left hand right hand? Seems they could not know as the state issues both?

 

[QuietM4]

A good friend a toker and shooter both. He has state issued mj permission slip. The state also sent him his ccw renewal time reminder, left hand right hand? Seems they could not know as the state issues both?

That is interesting...Q#7 on the CCW application says "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance?".

Now, the Fed's consider mj a controlled substance...but does AZ?

 

[kenpoprofessor]

Since the feds look the other way on the dispensaries having armed guards I can't imagine a run of the mill user has much to worry about.

Also the dispensary in Bisbee is located within eye sight of a Border Patrol station. I've never heard of anything coming from that.

Armed guards are illegal in AZ according to the ARS.

Article 2 Section 26 - Bearing arms
26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[TheAccountant]

Since the feds look the other way on the dispensaries having armed guards I can't imagine a run of the mill user has much to worry about.

Also the dispensary in Bisbee is located within eye sight of a Border Patrol station. I've never heard of anything coming from that.

Armed guards are illegal in AZ according to the ARS.

Article 2 Section 26 - Bearing arms
26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

A great legal interpretation from someone who doesn’t even know the difference between the state constitution (what was quoted) and its body of statues (ARS).

 

[kenpoprofessor]

Since the feds look the other way on the dispensaries having armed guards I can't imagine a run of the mill user has much to worry about.

Also the dispensary in Bisbee is located within eye sight of a Border Patrol station. I've never heard of anything coming from that.

Armed guards are illegal in AZ according to the ARS.

Article 2 Section 26 - Bearing arms
26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

A great legal interpretation from someone who doesn’t even know the difference between the state constitution (what was quoted) and its body of statues (ARS).

I haven't found anything to imply it's legal, please post a link to the relevant information.

Oh, forgot, I found this, but it still lacks relevant wording to override the the first.

https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=26

26-123. Maintenance of private troops prohibited; violation; classification

A. No person, partnership or corporation shall maintain troops under arms, but this section shall not be deemed to prohibit a business, plant or firm from maintaining armed guards for protection of their property from damage or loss, or formation of a state police or highway patrol, or the existence of county and municipal police forces and sheriff's posses.

B. Any person violating this section is guilty of a class 5 felony.

Clyde

 

[TheAccountant]

Armed guards are illegal in AZ according to the ARS.

Article 2 Section 26 - Bearing arms
26. Bearing arms

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

A great legal interpretation from someone who doesn’t even know the difference between the state constitution (what was quoted) and its body of statues (ARS).

I haven't found anything to imply it's legal, please post a link to the relevant information.

Oh, forgot, I found this, but it still lacks relevant wording to override the the first.

https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=26

26-123. Maintenance of private troops prohibited; violation; classification

A. No person, partnership or corporation shall maintain troops under arms, but this section shall not be deemed to prohibit a business, plant or firm from maintaining armed guards for protection of their property from damage or loss, or formation of a state police or highway patrol, or the existence of county and municipal police forces and sheriff's posses.

B. Any person violating this section is guilty of a class 5 felony.

Clyde

It’s legal and unless something says it isn’t - not the other way around. The Constitution is clarifying that there are not constitutional protections granted to individuals or corporations to form an armed group. It’s not saying they’re prohibited. Armed security companies are regulated under ARS Title 32, Chapter 26.

 

[kenpoprofessor]

It’s legal and unless something says it isn’t - not the other way around. The Constitution is clarifying that there are not constitutional protections granted to individuals or corporations to form an armed group. It’s not saying they’re prohibited. Armed security companies are regulated under ARS Title 32, Chapter 26.

They are regulated, but I see nothing to contradict what I've already posted, there's no cutouts or provisions for it. If they work for a company or an individual, that's an "armed body of men", correct?? It's a contradiction I've already asked about, in person, to some of our legislators in the state, and they know zip about any of it. The mere fact they are regulating it means they are "authorizing" it.

Clyde

 

[TheAccountant]

It’s legal and unless something says it isn’t - not the other way around. The Constitution is clarifying that there are not constitutional protections granted to individuals or corporations to form an armed group. It’s not saying they’re prohibited. Armed security companies are regulated under ARS Title 32, Chapter 26.

They are regulated, but I see nothing to contradict what I've already posted, there's no cutouts or provisions for it. If they work for a company or an individual, that's an "armed body of men", correct?? It's a contradiction I've already asked about, in person, to some of our legislators in the state, and they know zip about any of it. The mere fact they are regulating it means they are "authorizing" it.

Clyde

… and there’s nothing saying they can’t. You need to study up on role of the Constitution and work on your understanding of logic as well. They don’t know zip about any of it because you’re asking a question about an issue that doesn’t exist.

 

[BriannaHuffx]

I let mine expire before filling out the 4473 just to be safe. Didn't want to deal with weird gray areas or open myself up to issues later.

 

[MarkItZero]

I let mine expire before filling out the 4473 just to be safe. Didn't want to deal with weird gray areas or open myself up to issues later.

Thankfully you didn't make any posts about it on a public forum either....

 

[Tacticalplinker]

employ an armed body of men.

Since our government can't define what a woman is, can they define what a man is?

Does this law apply to women? What about a man who identifies as a woman, or a woman who identifies as a man?

After all, we have a Democrat attorney general, governor, both senators and several state representatives.

Also, doesn't the 2nd Amendment contradict this law? You know that part about a "well regulated militia"? Speaking of which, would it also make non-govt/non-state militia's illegal? Then again, the word militia and text of the 2nd Amendment as a whole cannot be agreed upon or defined either.

Anyway... On topic... if the issue of being a "legal" Marijuana user/medical card holder and a gun owner/potential gun owner has not been tried in court, I'd hate to be the guinea pig for setting that legal precident, one way or the other.

What about mental illness and other "mind altering" substances like alcohol or even more powerful drugs, including legal prescriptions, beyond Marijuana (legal or otherwise)? It's a f***ing rabbit hole with a million variables along the way.

I know form 4473 does ask mental illness and drug use questions, it's not just Marijuana.

 

[Flash]

C2 in Tempe has signs up stating that if you smell of booze or MJ or are on prescription drugs, you won't be allowed to shoot.

AFAIK, they have only turned away people with MJ or booze smell on them.