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.