Posted on 06/28/2018 3:25:58 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
**** Warning **** Website has font big enough to read from mars
The legalization of medical marijuana comes with a big issue for Oklahoma's gun owners. If you want to get medical marijuana, you can't own or buy a gun.
Federal law prohibits any person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" from possessing firearms or ammunition. The law covers everything from owning, shipping, transporting or receiving any firearms or ammunition.
There are no exceptions in the law for medical marijuana users.
Some gun shop owners we talked to are a little concerned.
6/27/2018 Related Story: Medical Marijuana Applications Coming July, State Health Department Says
"That was my initial reaction - my gosh, we might lose some business," said Austin Warfield, owner of C.O.P.S. Gun Shop.
"We might lose some gun sales because if someone has a medical marijuana card, they won't be able to purchase a gun."
Warfield said they will be making sure any transaction in their store is legal.
"Well, they fill out the state or federal form 4473 background check," he said. "On that form is a question, are you addicted to marijuana or any other drugs."
Question 11.e. on that form asks:
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 medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
The ATF recommends current gun owners make a plan about what they are going to do with their weapons before getting a medical marijuana license.
What is a “mute point?” A point you can’t hear?
Not singling you out, but before everyone gets all over-excited, this situation is a typical inter-governmental one that will probably be better handled soon. We have a legalization movement actualizing quickly through the states, and the feds haven’t passed anything yet.
The feds will likely decriminalize fairly soon, and may legalize not long after that. How guns will be affected should change for the better too. We have a conservative SCOTUS going forward.
Every state that has medical reefer is the same. But I’ll admit it was kind of a turd in the pumch bowl.
The difference is Schedule I vs Schedule II
Still. Schedule I
Why would you go against protocol and click on a link? Nobody clicks on links.
I see federal drug laws as clearly unconstitutional. But if we believe in the rule of law, then we should work to repeal those drug laws and restore constitutional order.
Rule by man (ignoring the law) is a path to suffering.
it’s a point for people like me who can’t remember the difference between moot and mute, but the gist is the same. Do I get an A- ? ;)
It was a weak moment. I was promised text so big it could be seen from Mars, and I have to say the link definitely delivered on that promise.
So what?
Most "gun control" laws are UnConstitutional.
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty simple English...
Ashley Holden had the wrong glasses on again.
We really need a "Pot Cardholder" National Registry...
Right?
As an individual with a 150-plus I.Q., and who has spent well over 60 years personally experiencing the inebriating effects of both substances (weed and booze), I can attest with absolute certainty that booze is far more conducive to violence, discoordination and fits of rage than weed ever has been or could be.
I am an advocate against pot legalization, but I think this is evil and unconstitutional. Either something is legal, or it isn’t. And possessing one thing should not preclude another.
(Besides, How is it worse than, say, Xanax?)
Nothing stopping these HI "Card Holders"....from buying guns off the record.
Most definitely an A for effort.
Bingo! It's a federal law; not just a state law. Pretty sure Arizona is the same way.
Yep, that’s the unconstitutional part...
You do realize that only applies to very limited areas where the states/people have given the FedGov certain powers? Why would we need a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, yet marijuana can be banned or not simply depending on how some gov dept classifies it?
Alcohol could have been banned the way machine guns were with the NFA, which is the same way cannabis was with the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Just put a ridiculously large tax on it. They went the amendment route with alcohol because when you’re doing something really stupid, you want to make it difficult to undo.
Using a tax to get that kind of power went out of fashion until Justice Roberts revived the practice with the Obamacare decision.
Most of the time, the feds have power over homegrown wheat for personal use (Wickard v Filburn), homegrown cannabis for personal use (Gonzalez v Raich), homegrown machine guns for personal use (US v Stewart remanded for reconsideration in light of Raich), partial birth abortions, guns near schools (US v Lopez) or most anything else because of that Swiss Army Knife of constitutional phrases, the commerce clause.
(Please note that only SOME of the above examples represent unconstitutional overreach of federal powers! The power to regulate pot and abortions shall not be questioned!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.