Guns and mj cards

[Hart Pheobe]

Now I have 2 conditions on the list qualify for medicinal mj. If I get card I can't fill out form honestly as sales are prohibited. Already owned guns what is the status, gotta get rid of them? Noticed my cvw renewal form had some new mj questions. So if I go the card route no new purchases, but I have several existing guns, no clear idea about those. So??.?

 

[omegaman]

MJ is federally illegal = no guns if your hopped up on the reefer. Also what is a cvw?

 

[Manitu]

Now I have 2 conditions on the list qualify for medicinal mj. If I get card I can't fill out form honestly as sales are prohibited. Already owned guns what is the status, gotta get rid of them? Noticed my cvw renewal form had some new mj questions. So if I go the card route no new purchases, but I have several existing guns, no clear idea about those. So??.?

Waiting for a court case to come up but appears you and anyone with a firearm and mj use is a prohibited possesor. I see no difference a good shoot is good a bad shoot is bad your meds should not come into play. Its of to drink at home to stupefication and blow up home intruders, but one toke over the line......

 

[Manitu]

.

 

[YNOTAZ]

Fedeal code 18 USC § 922(g) Possession or receipt of a firearm or ammunition by a prohibited person:

Definition from the Southern district federal court:
Drug user or addict - Inference of current use may be shown by evidence of recent use or possession or pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time (e.g., positive drug test; conviction for use or possession within past year.)

The rub is that the ATF has ruled that possession of a medical Marijuana card is enough to demonstrate use of Marijuana. The ATF "rule" is not law and has not been tested in court.

 

[YNOTAZ]

Fedeal code 18 USC § 922(g) Possession or receipt of a firearm or ammunition by a prohibited person:

Definition from the Southern district federal court:
Drug user or addict - Inference of current use may be shown by evidence of recent use or possession or pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time (e.g., positive drug test; conviction for use or possession within past year.)

The rub is that the ATF has ruled that possession of a medical Marijuana card is enough to demonstrate use of Marijuana. The ATF "rule" is not law and has not been tested in court.

 

[OMart]

Yeah this is definitely a "weird" one because technically, MMJ use is protected by HIPAA but the Fed still says no bueno to marijuana.

 

[QuietM4]

The rub is that the ATF has ruled that possession of a medical Marijuana card is enough to demonstrate use of Marijuana. The ATF "rule" is not law and has not been tested in court.

It's been tested in court. Kamakeeaina v. Armstrong Produce, Ltd., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50863 (9th Cir. March 22, 2019). Possession of medical marijuana card alone does not prove marijuana use.

 

[Ballistic Therapy]

Why would you even need or want a " medical marijuana card " if anyone now days can just walk into one of the pot stores and buy what ever they want . No card needed from what I understand.

If you ask me , the medical marijuana card just incriminating evidence ?

 

[Cbvanb]

MJ is federally illegal = no guns if your hopped up on the reefer. Also what is a cvw?

Judging by his location I would guess it’s his “concealed veapons permit”.

 

[omegaman]

LMAO

 

[YNOTAZ]

The rub is that the ATF has ruled that possession of a medical Marijuana card is enough to demonstrate use of Marijuana. The ATF "rule" is not law and has not been tested in court.

It's been tested in court. Kamakeeaina v. Armstrong Produce, Ltd., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50863 (9th Cir. March 22, 2019). Possession of medical marijuana card alone does not prove marijuana use.

Are you sure you have the correct quote. It looks more like an age discrimination case, I couldn't find anything on MJ:

https://casetext.com/case/kamakeeaina-v-armstrong-produce-ltd

I think the ATF open letter saying "reasonable cause to believe" still stands. Someone taking the time to get a Medical MJ card would be reasonable cause to believe usage.

 

[mallic]

Why would you even need or want a " medical marijuana card " if anyone now days can just walk into one of the pot stores and buy what ever they want . No card needed from what I understand.

If you ask me , the medical marijuana card just incriminating evidence ?

Most weed shops keep half of the actually good for pain management stuff for med card only. Plus they give medical patients priority in line. Finally, no taxes other than sales on medical weed. Also CYA if work gets uppity about THC in your blood/piss.

 

[QuietM4]

The rub is that the ATF has ruled that possession of a medical Marijuana card is enough to demonstrate use of Marijuana. The ATF "rule" is not law and has not been tested in court.

It's been tested in court. Kamakeeaina v. Armstrong Produce, Ltd., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50863 (9th Cir. March 22, 2019). Possession of medical marijuana card alone does not prove marijuana use.

Are you sure you have the correct quote. It looks more like an age discrimination case, I couldn't find anything on MJ:

https://casetext.com/case/kamakeeaina-v-armstrong-produce-ltd

I think the ATF open letter saying "reasonable cause to believe" still stands. Someone taking the time to get a Medical MJ card would be reasonable cause to believe usage.

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.

The letter sent to all FFLs a few years back states that if an FFL has “reason to believe”, they are required to stop any transfer. Smell, mmj card, etc.

ATF “rules” are not laws…they are opinions. A court has to decide if it’s legal…but that usually only happens after you’ve been arrested.

 

[MarkItZero]

While not 100% legal it seems prosecutions are basically nonexistent

 

[Gunslinger808]

Yeah this is definitely a "weird" one because technically, MMJ use is protected by HIPAA but the Fed still says no bueno to marijuana.

I’ve had two customers I know of denied for having MJ cards since the state (AZ Dept. of Health) issues them, your info can be available to the FBI and NICS.
The reason I know is they unsuccessfully challenged their denials which gave the reason for denial.

 

[OMart]

I’ve had two customers I know of denied for having MJ cards since the state (AZ Dept. of Health) issues them, your info can be available to the FBI and NICS.
The reason I know is they unsuccessfully challenged their denials which gave the reason for denial.

The AZ Dept of Health sharing your Medical information is unlawful. That info is between you, your physician and their medical staff. I think this would make a very good court case. If they are sharing this info then by all means they should being sharing mental health information, which I am pretty sure they don't. I have had an active duty Airman who pissed hot for MJ, was disciplined and OSI did inform the the ATF or FBI. He was denied. Visits from both alphabet groups to see the paperwork, blah, blah. OSI told me if he kept clean for 12 months they would inform the ATF and his right to purchase could be restored. Kid thought because recreational use in AZ was legal that he could puff, not knowing Federal Law still considered unlawful.

Getting back to the med card though, and I know I am arguing state v federal law, but the form does say "unlawful user" and by all means, at a state level a med card would constitute a "lawful" user. Like I said, it is a very compelling court case.

 

[QuietM4]

Getting back to the med card though, and I know I am arguing state v federal law, but the form does say "unlawful user" and by all means, at a state level a med card would constitute a "lawful" user. Like I said, it is a very compelling court case.

Federal law will always trump state law...a little thing called The Supremacy Clause. Gun dealers don't have a State Firearms Licence...they have a FEDERAL Firearms Licence.

This topic comes up every 8-10 months on this board...the topic has been discussed ad nauseum.

 

[kenpoprofessor]

I’ve had two customers I know of denied for having MJ cards since the state (AZ Dept. of Health) issues them, your info can be available to the FBI and NICS.
The reason I know is they unsuccessfully challenged their denials which gave the reason for denial.

The AZ Dept of Health sharing your Medical information is unlawful. That info is between you, your physician and their medical staff. I think this would make a very good court case. If they are sharing this info then by all means they should being sharing mental health information, which I am pretty sure they don't. I have had an active duty Airman who pissed hot for MJ, was disciplined and OSI did inform the the ATF or FBI. He was denied. Visits from both alphabet groups to see the paperwork, blah, blah. OSI told me if he kept clean for 12 months they would inform the ATF and his right to purchase could be restored. Kid thought because recreational use in AZ was legal that he could puff, not knowing Federal Law still considered unlawful.

Getting back to the med card though, and I know I am arguing state v federal law, but the form does say "unlawful user" and by all means, at a state level a med card would constitute a "lawful" user. Like I said, it is a very compelling court case.

When I was in, they didn't start piss testing 'til like '83/ '84. I had a grand time on a TDY to Jever AB in Germany, got to spend a 3 day weekend in Amsterdam before they did. Woohoo, good times. :mrgreen:

Have a great, gun carryin', Kenpo day

Clyde

 

[Gunslinger808]

Arizona’s state health agency is not considered covered, therefore HIPAA regulations do not apply.

at a state level a med card would constitute a "lawful" user. Like I said, it is a very compelling court case.

In almost every case, a state law may be more prohibitive, but not less so.
That’s why mag and gun bans are hard to challenge at the state level, and honestly, if the federal government really wanted to they could shut down every states legal dispensaries with no state recourse.