Do medical marijuana users have right to bear arms? No, says ATF

MSNBC ^ | 09/29/2011 | Matt Volz

[LonelyCon]

Firearms dealers in states that allow medical marijuana can't sell guns or ammunition to registered users of the drug, a policy that marijuana and gun-rights groups say denies Second Amendment rights to individuals who are following state law.

Federal law already makes it illegal for someone to possess a gun if he or she is "an unlawful user of, or addicted to" marijuana or other controlled substances.

A Sept. 21 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, issued in response to numerous inquiries from gun dealers, clarifies that medical marijuana patients are included in that definition. "There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law," said the letter by Arthur Herbert, the ATF's assistant director for enforcement programs and services.

Federal firearm licensees, or FFLs, can't sell a gun to someone who answers "yes" when a required form asks whether the buyer is a controlled substance user.

Last week's letter also says that licensed dealers can't sell a gun or ammunition if they have "reasonable cause to believe" the buyer is using a controlled substance.

That includes if the buyer presents a medical marijuana card as identification, or if the buyer talks about drug use, having a medical marijuana card or a recent drug conviction, ATF spokesman Drew Wade said Wednesday.

[A CA Guy]

You are exactly right, when my mother as a minister visited violent convicts in prison they all admitted being hooked on marijuana.
Recently had to boot out a violent user of pot from a unit who was threatening people’s lives on the premises.
No guns for drug brained people makes for good law IMO.

[microgood]

I think it is good policy to not give people with a drug brain guns.

So people who drink alcohol should not be allowed to have guns?

[Arthalion]

Last week's letter also says that licensed dealers can't sell a gun or ammunition if they have "reasonable cause to believe" the buyer is using a controlled substance. That includes if the buyer presents a medical marijuana card as identification, or if the buyer talks about drug use, having a medical marijuana card or a recent drug conviction, ATF spokesman Drew Wade said Wednesday."

The real problem here is that the BATF is arbitrarily ordering the suspension of Constitutional rights without trial, and without any wrongdoing. I have a medical condition that would technically authorize me to possess a medical marijuana card here in California (I don't have one because I'm not a pothead, and my condition isn't very serious). Possession of a medical marijuana card is perfectly legal under BOTH state and federal law. It is, after all, merely a piece of paper with some writing on it.

Per this BATF position, if I were to talk to my doctor tomorrow and ask for a medical marijuana card, I would be committing a federal felony if I did not immediately dispose of my firearms. The BATF is claiming that my constitutional rights can be suspended even though I have NOT possessed or used the drugs, and have not violated any existing state or federal laws. My right to bear arms can be suspended for participating in a perfectly legal activity.

That's a problem.

[RockyMtnMan]

Were they violent because they used marijuana or were they violent before they ever used? Did they become violent because society labeled them “criminal” for using and felt they had nothing to lose?

Alcohol is a drug, couldn’t the ATF then argue users of alcohol should also be denied their 2A rights.

Making something illegal doesn’t restrict it’s availability, as we have seen. All it serves to do is give the government another reason to deny you God given rights. Private property and 2A rights are being violated under the guise of drug enforcement. Is it worth the price to see dopers incarcerated for possession while making the drug cartels exceptionally wealthy by limiting supply?

These are honest and legitimate questions that should be asked. We were “given” Obamacare because of abuses to the Commerce clause, what else does that slippery slope lead to? Hard core progressives holding office will abuse their power by laws designed to “protect” us (as we have seen under this administration). Moving to a state’s rights position provides a great deal more protection from those abuses and makes it more difficult to establish their national agendas.

[Tribune7]

Do medical marijuana users have right to bear arms?

No, only marijuana sellers have the right to bear arms and only if they live in Mexico.

-- Eric Holder

[monkeyshine]

If you smoke pot, you cannot buy a gun.
If you sell pot, they will give you a gun.
Got it?

[Ratman83]

Those along with Row vs wade and Kelo show just how screwed up this country has become.

[Ratman83]

So you like Roe Vs wade and Kelo, WOW./s

[Huck]

What I like has nothing to do with it.

[Ratman83]

Courts can be and have been wrong, we need to get them to chanke or this country is lost.

[Huck]

Raich was just a few years ago, and it reaffirmed Wickard. That means short of a Constitutional amendment, the expansive view of the Commerce Clause is here to say--the view that says it covers activity that is not interstate or commercial.

[Ratman83]

Well I guess we should all give up then.

[Huck]

That’s not my thinking on it, but if you want to give up, go ahead.

[BornFreeDie-N-Debt]

Shall not be infringed? God given, come try to take them and yes, I do have a felony conviction. Every citizen has a Right to protect himself, family and their property and as a citizen MUST disobey unjust laws by man that prohibit the individuals Right(s)from being exercised.
The 1968 Federal firearms act is just that, an UNCONSTITUAL law passed with the help of a corrupt media to denie blacks access to guns because of the riots during the 60s. Remember the TV coverage and the HYPE and FEAR pushed to get this Bill passed. Now their at it again with Marijuana possesion or usage of said marijuana.

[Ratman83]

You already said you give up because it was recently decided, are you changing your comment.

[Huck]

I said it will require a Constitutional amendment to fix.

[Ratman83]

We have a better chance of having the court correct the bad rulings than getting a amendment to fix it.

[org.whodat]

You sound like one of those people saying income tax is illegal as they talk through the cell door.

[momtothree]

I understand now. Thank you, Huck.

[Huck]

Not with Wickard. It’s pretty well set at this point. You need an amendment.