9th Circuit Says Medical Marijuana Cardholders Have No Second Amendment Rights

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Sep 26, 2007
37,324
10,540
1,340
Bridge, USS Enterprise
Yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that banning gun sales to people who hold medical marijuana cards, whether or not they actually use marijuana, does not violate their Second Amendment rights....

The case, Wilson v. Lynch, involves a Nevada woman, Rowan Wilson, who in 2011 tried to buy a firearm from a gun shop in Mound House, a tiny town in Lyon County, but was turned away because the owner, Frederick Hauser, knew she had recently obtained a medical marijuana registry card from the state Department of Health and Human Services. Hauser had just received a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) that said anyone who uses marijuana as a medicine, "regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes," qualifies as an "unlawful user of a controlled substance" and is therefore forbidden to buy or possess guns under 18 USC 922.
9th Circuit Says Medical Marijuana Cardholders Have No Second Amendment Rights

I recall bringing this up some time ago - state legalization of a drug does not nullify federal law
Federal law is clear -- you lose your right to buy a gun if you use an illegal drug.
So... do you agree/disagree with the 9th circuit ruling, as medical MJ is legal in NV, but illegal in the US...?

Note: Arguing for the federal legalization of MJ is irrelevant to the issue.
 
In recent years, Congress provided very clear guidance about how it views the relationship between the CSA and state medical marijuana laws in the bipartisan Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment to the federal budget (Sec. 542 on page 223). First approved in 2014, this amendment prohibits the Department of Justice from using money to interfere with the administration of medical marijuana programs in Arizona and 41 other states, territories, and D.C. Simply put, the passage of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment clearly demonstrates that Congress respects states’ medical marijuana laws, and it does not want the federal government to obstruct or impede them.
Congress’s Intent Is Clear: States Can Legalize Medical Marijuana Without Violating Federal Law
 
It's irrelevant. A cannabis user, medical or not, isn't going to want to kill stuff anyway. That's kind of why it's illegal. We're a culture that worships violence; we can't have non-killers walking around.

I mean, where would that lead? Peace and pursuit of happiness and stuff? BOR-ing...
 
In recent years, Congress provided very clear guidance about how it views the relationship between the CSA and state medical marijuana laws in the bipartisan Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment to the federal budget (Sec. 542 on page 223). First approved in 2014, this amendment prohibits the Department of Justice from using money to interfere with the administration of medical marijuana programs in Arizona and 41 other states, territories, and D.C. Simply put, the passage of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment clearly demonstrates that Congress respects states’ medical marijuana laws, and it does not want the federal government to obstruct or impede them.
Congress’s Intent Is Clear: States Can Legalize Medical Marijuana Without Violating Federal Law
None of which applies here.
 
mow716-5.jpg
 
Yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that banning gun sales to people who hold medical marijuana cards, whether or not they actually use marijuana, does not violate their Second Amendment rights....

The case, Wilson v. Lynch, involves a Nevada woman, Rowan Wilson, who in 2011 tried to buy a firearm from a gun shop in Mound House, a tiny town in Lyon County, but was turned away because the owner, Frederick Hauser, knew she had recently obtained a medical marijuana registry card from the state Department of Health and Human Services. Hauser had just received a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) that said anyone who uses marijuana as a medicine, "regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes," qualifies as an "unlawful user of a controlled substance" and is therefore forbidden to buy or possess guns under 18 USC 922.
9th Circuit Says Medical Marijuana Cardholders Have No Second Amendment Rights

I recall bringing this up some time ago - state legalization of a drug does not nullify federal law
Federal law is clear -- you lose your right to buy a gun if you use an illegal drug.
So... do you agree/disagree with the 9th circuit ruling, as medical MJ is legal in NV, but illegal in the US...?

Note: Arguing for the federal legalization of MJ is irrelevant to the issue.

The gun grabbers know that they can't outright ban guns because of the 2nd Amendment, so they go after the gun owners, one step at a time till almost no one will be qualified to own a gun.
 
Yesterday a federal appeals court ruled that banning gun sales to people who hold medical marijuana cards, whether or not they actually use marijuana, does not violate their Second Amendment rights....

The case, Wilson v. Lynch, involves a Nevada woman, Rowan Wilson, who in 2011 tried to buy a firearm from a gun shop in Mound House, a tiny town in Lyon County, but was turned away because the owner, Frederick Hauser, knew she had recently obtained a medical marijuana registry card from the state Department of Health and Human Services. Hauser had just received a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) that said anyone who uses marijuana as a medicine, "regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes," qualifies as an "unlawful user of a controlled substance" and is therefore forbidden to buy or possess guns under 18 USC 922.
9th Circuit Says Medical Marijuana Cardholders Have No Second Amendment Rights

I recall bringing this up some time ago - state legalization of a drug does not nullify federal law
Federal law is clear -- you lose your right to buy a gun if you use an illegal drug.
So... do you agree/disagree with the 9th circuit ruling, as medical MJ is legal in NV, but illegal in the US...?

Note: Arguing for the federal legalization of MJ is irrelevant to the issue.

The gun grabbers know that they can't outright ban guns because of the 2nd Amendment, so they go after the gun owners, one step at a time till almost no one will be qualified to own a gun.
Still wouldn't stop me from having one...Just like the case noted in this thread...
 
It's irrelevant. A cannabis user, medical or not, isn't going to want to kill stuff anyway. That's kind of why it's illegal. We're a culture that worships violence; we can't have non-killers walking around.

I mean, where would that lead? Peace and pursuit of happiness and stuff? BOR-ing...


Nope...we don't worship violence....democrat social policy has created fatherless homes and those boys have no role models...then they turn to crime and violence because they have had no one teach them how to be men.....
 
It's irrelevant. A cannabis user, medical or not, isn't going to want to kill stuff anyway. That's kind of why it's illegal. We're a culture that worships violence; we can't have non-killers walking around.

I mean, where would that lead? Peace and pursuit of happiness and stuff? BOR-ing...


Nope...we don't worship violence....

:eusa_doh: Of course we don't. I can't imagine what I was thinking.


toyguns11-300x279.jpg
QDRAv7v4LSCfZgz3GIbOSz8Zj8rWqeeYuqqYiqyQXkxRJwG7vvUltzsFaWK5D7-JMnIZ=w300
jnBM5.jpg
216570a.jpg




Why, we're just a flower-sniffing peacenik populace that make a Buddhist monk look like Charles Freaking Manson. :eusa_angel:


democrat social policy has created fatherless homes and those boys have no role models...then they turn to crime and violence because they have had no one teach them how to be men.....

Had no idea "democrats" [sic] have been in charge of social policy all this time.
Ya learn sump'm on this site every day.
 
It's irrelevant. A cannabis user, medical or not, isn't going to want to kill stuff anyway. That's kind of why it's illegal. We're a culture that worships violence; we can't have non-killers walking around.

I mean, where would that lead? Peace and pursuit of happiness and stuff? BOR-ing...


Nope...we don't worship violence....

:eusa_doh: Of course we don't. I can't imagine what I was thinking.


toyguns11-300x279.jpg
QDRAv7v4LSCfZgz3GIbOSz8Zj8rWqeeYuqqYiqyQXkxRJwG7vvUltzsFaWK5D7-JMnIZ=w300
jnBM5.jpg
216570a.jpg




Why, we're just a flower-sniffing peacenik populace that make a Buddhist monk look like Charles Freaking Manson. :eusa_angel:


democrat social policy has created fatherless homes and those boys have no role models...then they turn to crime and violence because they have had no one teach them how to be men.....

Had no idea "democrats" [sic] have been in charge of social policy all this time.
Ya learn sump'm on this site every day.


Except for the fatherless boys in democrat controlled voting districts we have a very low crime rate.....in fact our gun murder rate has gone down 49% since the 1990s....but please...don't let the truth or the facts get in the way....and notice...those movies and video games....are all by democrat voters....and supporters of hilary....except for Stallone...he is a libertarian...but the execs at the studio....all democrats....
 
Awesome! I'm fully in favor of this, and who knew such wisdom could come from the 9th Circuit? Felons should not have guns and potheads are felons. The logic is invincible.
 
The 9th circuit is wrong on this one. Everyone has a right to the second amendment besides the extreme mentally ill.
I imagine this has you Leftists in a quandary. You hate the 2nd Amendment but you love drugs and while you deny the clear constitutional right to have guns, you're sure there's a constitutional right to get baked. A decision like this must have you twats tied in a pretzel.
 

Forum List

Back
Top