[LonelyCon]

If medical marijuana is grown, sold, and used in one state, it has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and the Feds. don't have the Constitutional authority to regulate it. Now they're trying to deny Second-Amendment rights to those whose states allow them to posses and use marijuana. Any excuse to grab the guns of law-abiding Americans.

[Cboldt]

-- If medical marijuana is grown, sold, and used in one state, it has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and the Feds. don't have the Constitutional authority to regulate it. --

Justice Scalia said otherwise, in the Raich decision.

And a fellow by the name of Stewart was jailed for possession of an unregistered machine gun that he made himself (I think from scratch), that never left his house. Funny case, that one, as the 9th Circuit said the weapon was not involved in interstate commerce, so he (Stewart) was not afoul of federal law. The US Supreme Court told the 9th Circuit to apply Raich in order to find him guilty.

[Huck]

If medical marijuana is grown, sold, and used in one state, it has nothing to do with interstate commerce

The SCOTUS, including Scalia, disagree. And since their opinion is law, that's that.

Raich v Gonzalez

[allmendream]

A friend of mine went into a gun store several years ago. He was given a list of questions. He asked...

“Can you sell me a gun if I answer “Yes” to any of these questions?”

The guy answered. “No.”

Without reading any more of the questions he marked them all “No”.

I recommend the same course of action.

[A CA Guy]

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

[monkeyshine]

You are, unfortunately, mistaken. The USSC ruled that marijuana grown in one state for personal use DOES have an impact on interstate commerce. Absurd, but they did. The case involved 2 woman in the bay area of CA I believe, who grew a couple of plants for their own use. No evidence they ever sold any or gave any away. Still, USSC ruled against them on IC clause.

[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.

[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

[Red in Blue PA]

Ban all gun laws!

People who commit violent crimes with guns.....put em away and throw away the key, but if not, Feds should stay the eff out. (I never tried any illegal drugs, but always thought that question on From 4473 was Unconstiututional)

[robertronz]

Unfortunately, most marijuana users don’t seem to realize that the medical marijuana card is basically a form of marijuana user registration. Illinois has recently proposed making it illegal for registered medical marijuana users to own firearms. It seems naive to think that the state databases aren’t being shared, or won’t eventually be shared with federal agencies.