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

[PredFan]

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

​

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

​

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

No, it's the guns. The left tells us that all the time.

Do dey. Link?

How come you cut Rambo out?

Here's your link idiot:

www.usmessageboard.com

He mistakes being a link nazi with actual intelligence. I shove it right back in his face too.

And you lost. Every time. As did this other poster who just forfeited.
Thanks for the low hanging fruit. Burp.

You can't debate the issue or the points made so you ask continuously for links to the obvious. Everyone knows that you are the loser retard. You make sure you never have to debate anything because you don't have the intellect for it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

IMO just having a card isn't enough there must be an actual federal drug conviction or a state conviction of being under the influence while in possession of a firearm for second amendment rights to be nullified.

Just because a guy has a pot card issued by a doctor does not mean he will be high while in possession of a gun

Yes, potheads are so responsible they can be trusted not to have a gun while they're baked out of their scooby dooby minds.

Because of course they never drive that way either.

Look until you actually get convicted of a crime your rights should never be restricted.

It's illegal to be drunk while in possession of a firearm but people do not get denied permits because they drink
It's the same thing with weed.

If a guy was caught carrying while under the influence of any drug THEN his permit can be revoked

Nobody's arguing for a restriction on firearms apart from a conviction. But that conviction can happen regardless of state law allowing pot or having a pot card. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

IMO just having a card isn't enough there must be an actual federal drug conviction or a state conviction of being under the influence while in possession of a firearm for second amendment rights to be nullified.

Just because a guy has a pot card issued by a doctor does not mean he will be high while in possession of a gun

Yes, potheads are so responsible they can be trusted not to have a gun while they're baked out of their scooby dooby minds.

Because of course they never drive that way either.

Look until you actually get convicted of a crime your rights should never be restricted.

It's illegal to be drunk while in possession of a firearm but people do not get denied permits because they drink
It's the same thing with weed.

If a guy was caught carrying while under the influence of any drug THEN his permit can be revoked

Nobody's arguing for a restriction on firearms apart from a conviction. But that conviction can happen regardless of state law allowing pot or having a pot card. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

The topic of the thread is about people failing background checks and being denied the right to buy a firearm simply because they have a pot card issued by a doctor in their state where it is legal

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

This seems an overreach by the federal government.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

IMO just having a card isn't enough there must be an actual federal drug conviction or a state conviction of being under the influence while in possession of a firearm for second amendment rights to be nullified.

Just because a guy has a pot card issued by a doctor does not mean he will be high while in possession of a gun

Yes, potheads are so responsible they can be trusted not to have a gun while they're baked out of their scooby dooby minds.

Because of course they never drive that way either.

Look until you actually get convicted of a crime your rights should never be restricted.

It's illegal to be drunk while in possession of a firearm but people do not get denied permits because they drink
It's the same thing with weed.

If a guy was caught carrying while under the influence of any drug THEN his permit can be revoked

Nobody's arguing for a restriction on firearms apart from a conviction. But that conviction can happen regardless of state law allowing pot or having a pot card. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

The topic of the thread is about people failing background checks and being denied the right to buy a firearm simply because they have a pot card issued by a doctor in their state where it is legal

You know what I find amazing about you potheads is how using drugs is a priority over everything else, which demonstrates compellingly the power of addiction.

Why do I say this?

Because if you extended your 8 second attention span (I know it's hard for pot addicts) and read a little further, you would have read that the court didn't perceive an undue burden on the woman's 2nd Amendment rights because she can surrender the pot card to regain the ability to purchase a gun. But for addicts you might as well be asking them to cut off their arm. The addiction trumps all and while she may bitch and moan about not being able to get a gun, she'll learn to live without one so she can have her precious drugs.

And I think that's just awesome.

 

[Pogo]

No, it's the guns. The left tells us that all the time.

Do dey. Link?

How come you cut Rambo out?

Here's your link idiot:

www.usmessageboard.com

He mistakes being a link nazi with actual intelligence. I shove it right back in his face too.

And you lost. Every time. As did this other poster who just forfeited.
Thanks for the low hanging fruit. Burp.

You can't debate the issue or the points made so you ask continuously for links to the obvious. Everyone knows that you are the loser retard. You make sure you never have to debate anything because you don't have the intellect for it.

Translation: you don't have a link because you pulled it out of your ass.

Go wipe yourself.

 

[Pogo]

You know what I find amazing about you potheads is how using drugs is a priority over everything else, which demonstrates compellingly the power of addiction.

Why do I say this?

No one knows. Because "pot" isn't a drug -- it's a plant. And because it's impossible to be "addicted" to it so it demonstrates no such thing.

If anything it demonstrates the power of ignorance, that's what it demonstrates.

 

[Skull Pilot]

IMO just having a card isn't enough there must be an actual federal drug conviction or a state conviction of being under the influence while in possession of a firearm for second amendment rights to be nullified.

Just because a guy has a pot card issued by a doctor does not mean he will be high while in possession of a gun

Yes, potheads are so responsible they can be trusted not to have a gun while they're baked out of their scooby dooby minds.

Because of course they never drive that way either.

Look until you actually get convicted of a crime your rights should never be restricted.

It's illegal to be drunk while in possession of a firearm but people do not get denied permits because they drink
It's the same thing with weed.

If a guy was caught carrying while under the influence of any drug THEN his permit can be revoked

Nobody's arguing for a restriction on firearms apart from a conviction. But that conviction can happen regardless of state law allowing pot or having a pot card. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

The topic of the thread is about people failing background checks and being denied the right to buy a firearm simply because they have a pot card issued by a doctor in their state where it is legal

You know what I find amazing about you potheads is how using drugs is a priority over everything else, which demonstrates compellingly the power of addiction.

Why do I say this?

Because if you extended your 8 second attention span (I know it's hard for pot addicts) and read a little further, you would have read that the court didn't perceive an undue burden on the woman's 2nd Amendment rights because she can surrender the pot card to regain the ability to purchase a gun. But for addicts you might as well be asking them to cut off their arm. The addiction trumps all and while she may bitch and moan about not being able to get a gun, she'll learn to live without one so she can have her precious drugs.

And I think that's just awesome.

Hey dipshit I do not smoke pot.

Pot is no different than alcohol it's just arbitrarily made illegal

It's illegal to be drunk while in the possession of a firearm but a person is not denied his right to buy a firearm because he can drink

You cannot assume that just because a person can buy pot in a state where it is legal that he will be using while he is carrying.

Catch him under the influence of any drug while carrying THEN revoke the permit

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes, potheads are so responsible they can be trusted not to have a gun while they're baked out of their scooby dooby minds.

Because of course they never drive that way either.

Look until you actually get convicted of a crime your rights should never be restricted.

It's illegal to be drunk while in possession of a firearm but people do not get denied permits because they drink
It's the same thing with weed.

If a guy was caught carrying while under the influence of any drug THEN his permit can be revoked

Nobody's arguing for a restriction on firearms apart from a conviction. But that conviction can happen regardless of state law allowing pot or having a pot card. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

The topic of the thread is about people failing background checks and being denied the right to buy a firearm simply because they have a pot card issued by a doctor in their state where it is legal

You know what I find amazing about you potheads is how using drugs is a priority over everything else, which demonstrates compellingly the power of addiction.

Why do I say this?

Because if you extended your 8 second attention span (I know it's hard for pot addicts) and read a little further, you would have read that the court didn't perceive an undue burden on the woman's 2nd Amendment rights because she can surrender the pot card to regain the ability to purchase a gun. But for addicts you might as well be asking them to cut off their arm. The addiction trumps all and while she may bitch and moan about not being able to get a gun, she'll learn to live without one so she can have her precious drugs.

And I think that's just awesome.

Hey dipshit I do not smoke pot.

Pot is no different than alcohol it's just arbitrarily made illegal

It's illegal to be drunk while in the possession of a firearm but a person is not denied his right to buy a firearm because he can drink

You cannot assume that just because a person can buy pot in a state where it is legal that he will be using while he is carrying.

Catch him under the influence of any drug while carrying THEN revoke the permit

According to the article, the court argued that possession of the pot card represented probable cause to believe the pothead is smoking pot. I agree. The fact that she so adamantly refuses to surrender that card betrays her addiction. The court's ruling is correct and protects the public from drug addicts having guns.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You know what I find amazing about you potheads is how using drugs is a priority over everything else, which demonstrates compellingly the power of addiction.

Why do I say this?

No one knows. Because "pot" isn't a drug -- it's a plant. And because it's impossible to be "addicted" to it so it demonstrates no such thing.

If anything it demonstrates the power of ignorance, that's what it demonstrates.

I see your true colors
And that's why I love you
So don't be afraid to let them show
Your true colors

 

[jon_berzerk]

--LOL

 

[Skull Pilot]

Look until you actually get convicted of a crime your rights should never be restricted.

It's illegal to be drunk while in possession of a firearm but people do not get denied permits because they drink
It's the same thing with weed.

If a guy was caught carrying while under the influence of any drug THEN his permit can be revoked

Nobody's arguing for a restriction on firearms apart from a conviction. But that conviction can happen regardless of state law allowing pot or having a pot card. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

The topic of the thread is about people failing background checks and being denied the right to buy a firearm simply because they have a pot card issued by a doctor in their state where it is legal

You know what I find amazing about you potheads is how using drugs is a priority over everything else, which demonstrates compellingly the power of addiction.

Why do I say this?

Because if you extended your 8 second attention span (I know it's hard for pot addicts) and read a little further, you would have read that the court didn't perceive an undue burden on the woman's 2nd Amendment rights because she can surrender the pot card to regain the ability to purchase a gun. But for addicts you might as well be asking them to cut off their arm. The addiction trumps all and while she may bitch and moan about not being able to get a gun, she'll learn to live without one so she can have her precious drugs.

And I think that's just awesome.

Hey dipshit I do not smoke pot.

Pot is no different than alcohol it's just arbitrarily made illegal

It's illegal to be drunk while in the possession of a firearm but a person is not denied his right to buy a firearm because he can drink

You cannot assume that just because a person can buy pot in a state where it is legal that he will be using while he is carrying.

Catch him under the influence of any drug while carrying THEN revoke the permit

According to the article, the court argued that possession of the pot card represented probable cause to believe the pothead is smoking pot. I agree. The fact that she so adamantly refuses to surrender that card betrays her addiction. The court's ruling is correct and protects the public from drug addicts having guns.

So then shouldn't it be assumed that everyone who is old enough to drink is drunk all the time and should be denied a firearm?

And an occasional pot smoker is not a drug addict anymore than an occasional drinker is an alcoholic

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Nobody's arguing for a restriction on firearms apart from a conviction. But that conviction can happen regardless of state law allowing pot or having a pot card. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

The topic of the thread is about people failing background checks and being denied the right to buy a firearm simply because they have a pot card issued by a doctor in their state where it is legal

You know what I find amazing about you potheads is how using drugs is a priority over everything else, which demonstrates compellingly the power of addiction.

Why do I say this?

Because if you extended your 8 second attention span (I know it's hard for pot addicts) and read a little further, you would have read that the court didn't perceive an undue burden on the woman's 2nd Amendment rights because she can surrender the pot card to regain the ability to purchase a gun. But for addicts you might as well be asking them to cut off their arm. The addiction trumps all and while she may bitch and moan about not being able to get a gun, she'll learn to live without one so she can have her precious drugs.

And I think that's just awesome.

Hey dipshit I do not smoke pot.

Pot is no different than alcohol it's just arbitrarily made illegal

It's illegal to be drunk while in the possession of a firearm but a person is not denied his right to buy a firearm because he can drink

You cannot assume that just because a person can buy pot in a state where it is legal that he will be using while he is carrying.

Catch him under the influence of any drug while carrying THEN revoke the permit

According to the article, the court argued that possession of the pot card represented probable cause to believe the pothead is smoking pot. I agree. The fact that she so adamantly refuses to surrender that card betrays her addiction. The court's ruling is correct and protects the public from drug addicts having guns.

So then shouldn't it be assumed that everyone who is old enough to drink is drunk all the time and should be denied a firearm?

And an occasional pot smoker is not a drug addict anymore than an occasional drinker is an alcoholic

Alcohol is legal pot is not.

There goes your argument, Panama Red

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

--LOL

Whenever a poster is repetitive or otherwise bores the shit out of me, I hit them with 80's rock band lyrics quatrains. In this case I chose Cyndi Lauper to avoid giving him reefer rage.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The topic of the thread is about people failing background checks and being denied the right to buy a firearm simply because they have a pot card issued by a doctor in their state where it is legal

You know what I find amazing about you potheads is how using drugs is a priority over everything else, which demonstrates compellingly the power of addiction.

Why do I say this?

Because if you extended your 8 second attention span (I know it's hard for pot addicts) and read a little further, you would have read that the court didn't perceive an undue burden on the woman's 2nd Amendment rights because she can surrender the pot card to regain the ability to purchase a gun. But for addicts you might as well be asking them to cut off their arm. The addiction trumps all and while she may bitch and moan about not being able to get a gun, she'll learn to live without one so she can have her precious drugs.

And I think that's just awesome.

Hey dipshit I do not smoke pot.

Pot is no different than alcohol it's just arbitrarily made illegal

It's illegal to be drunk while in the possession of a firearm but a person is not denied his right to buy a firearm because he can drink

You cannot assume that just because a person can buy pot in a state where it is legal that he will be using while he is carrying.

Catch him under the influence of any drug while carrying THEN revoke the permit

According to the article, the court argued that possession of the pot card represented probable cause to believe the pothead is smoking pot. I agree. The fact that she so adamantly refuses to surrender that card betrays her addiction. The court's ruling is correct and protects the public from drug addicts having guns.

So then shouldn't it be assumed that everyone who is old enough to drink is drunk all the time and should be denied a firearm?

And an occasional pot smoker is not a drug addict anymore than an occasional drinker is an alcoholic

Alcohol is legal pot is not.

There goes your argument, Panama Red

Pot is legal in some states
And if you think that people who buy and smoke pot illegally don't have gun permits then you are naive to the point of being mentally retarded.

 

[PredFan]

Do dey. Link?

How come you cut Rambo out?

Here's your link idiot:

www.usmessageboard.com

He mistakes being a link nazi with actual intelligence. I shove it right back in his face too.

And you lost. Every time. As did this other poster who just forfeited.
Thanks for the low hanging fruit. Burp.

You can't debate the issue or the points made so you ask continuously for links to the obvious. Everyone knows that you are the loser retard. You make sure you never have to debate anything because you don't have the intellect for it.

Translation: you don't have a link because you pulled it out of your ass.

Go wipe yourself.

And again, you deflect because you cannot argue.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Only if you are REALLY STUPID.

 

[Pogo]

You know what I find amazing about you potheads is how using drugs is a priority over everything else, which demonstrates compellingly the power of addiction.

Why do I say this?

No one knows. Because "pot" isn't a drug -- it's a plant. And because it's impossible to be "addicted" to it so it demonstrates no such thing.

If anything it demonstrates the power of ignorance, that's what it demonstrates.

I see your true colors
And that's why I love you
So don't be afraid to let them show
Your true colors

Fucking EW.

 

[Pogo]

Look until you actually get convicted of a crime your rights should never be restricted.

It's illegal to be drunk while in possession of a firearm but people do not get denied permits because they drink
It's the same thing with weed.

If a guy was caught carrying while under the influence of any drug THEN his permit can be revoked

Nobody's arguing for a restriction on firearms apart from a conviction. But that conviction can happen regardless of state law allowing pot or having a pot card. And I'm perfectly fine with that.

The topic of the thread is about people failing background checks and being denied the right to buy a firearm simply because they have a pot card issued by a doctor in their state where it is legal

You know what I find amazing about you potheads is how using drugs is a priority over everything else, which demonstrates compellingly the power of addiction.

Why do I say this?

Because if you extended your 8 second attention span (I know it's hard for pot addicts) and read a little further, you would have read that the court didn't perceive an undue burden on the woman's 2nd Amendment rights because she can surrender the pot card to regain the ability to purchase a gun. But for addicts you might as well be asking them to cut off their arm. The addiction trumps all and while she may bitch and moan about not being able to get a gun, she'll learn to live without one so she can have her precious drugs.

And I think that's just awesome.

Hey dipshit I do not smoke pot.

Pot is no different than alcohol it's just arbitrarily made illegal

It's illegal to be drunk while in the possession of a firearm but a person is not denied his right to buy a firearm because he can drink

You cannot assume that just because a person can buy pot in a state where it is legal that he will be using while he is carrying.

Catch him under the influence of any drug while carrying THEN revoke the permit

According to the article, the court argued that possession of the pot card represented probable cause to believe the pothead is smoking pot. I agree. The fact that she so adamantly refuses to surrender that card betrays her addiction. The court's ruling is correct and protects the public from drug addicts having guns.

There's no such thing as an "addiction to pot". No more than there is an "addiction" to rice pudding. Nor (again) is it a "drug" so you're (again) wrong on both ends of the phrase. Moreover as SkullPilot points out, the presence of a card is not the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol, any more than the virtue of being over legal drinking age is evidence of alcohol. It simply can not equate, period.

Based on your posting however there just might be such a thing as an "addiction to ignorance".

 

[Pogo]

Here's your link idiot:

www.usmessageboard.com

He mistakes being a link nazi with actual intelligence. I shove it right back in his face too.

And you lost. Every time. As did this other poster who just forfeited.
Thanks for the low hanging fruit. Burp.

You can't debate the issue or the points made so you ask continuously for links to the obvious. Everyone knows that you are the loser retard. You make sure you never have to debate anything because you don't have the intellect for it.

Translation: you don't have a link because you pulled it out of your ass.

Go wipe yourself.

And again, you deflect because you cannot argue.

The point stands. Untouched.

Pot is legal in some states
And if you think that people who buy and smoke pot illegally don't have gun permits then you are naive to the point of being mentally retarded.

Check.

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.

Only if you are REALLY STUPID.

Check again.