Medical-pot users fuming over ATF’s gun-sale ban

[theDoctorisIn]

I doubt it. There are a whole lot of doctors in California that give out marijuana recommendations, and the one I went to wouldn't give up any patient information absent a subpoena.

But let's say that I was under investigation, and the FBI did did find out that I had a marijuana recommendation. What do you think would happen?

I'm really not sure if the State laws would insulate you if there was not an additional crime

What would I need to be insulated from?

Federal involvement / prosecution...

For what? Possession of marijuana? Possession of a licensed weapon?

I don't mean to be annoying, but I'm having a hard time following.

Take my state of VT for instance. Don't have to register / license a firearm... rec. pot use to be legal... Is rec. pot now tantamount to Etoh? in regard to not being impaired ?

I imagine that is how it would be dealt with.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Apparently, the ATF is only interested in letting you have guns if you're the one selling the drugs, not the one buying.

DENVER — You can have your gun, or you can have your medical marijuana. But the Obama administration now says you can’t have both.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in the crosshairs for a recent memo prohibiting gun merchants from selling firearms to anyone who uses marijuana, including those with state-issued medical-marijuana cards.

An open letter dated Sept. 21 from Arthur Herbert, ATF assistant director for Enforcement Programs and Services, said that, “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”

That didn’t sit well with Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, who fired off a letter this week to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. saying that the policy raises “serious legal issues under the Second Amendment, and the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fifth Amendment.”

The Washington Times

There is no argument here. This is a gross violation of our Constitutional right to bear arms. This is a backdoor attempt by this administration to implement gun control and another reason why we need to disband the ATF. It is another federal agency put in place to encroach on the liberties of every American.

What's wrong with this? It's the law.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf

The incongruity / disparity, if you will, comes in when the Fed. & State contradict one another... what is the 'real life' end result going to be?

Federal laws trumps state law. The only thing stopping the feds from coming in and enforcing the laws of the nation are their willingness to do it. Obama did not have the will nor the interest. Apparently the Trump admin does. If the states want to remove marijuana from the controlled substance list then do it federally.

Legally yes, what will it come to on a 'State' level minus the Feds?

Well...as hypocritical as it would be, and it would be a monumental hypocrisy, I wouldn't be surprised if states like California would eagerly enforce the firearm portion of fed law. Actually, they probably already do.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I doubt it. There are a whole lot of doctors in California that give out marijuana recommendations, and the one I went to wouldn't give up any patient information absent a subpoena.

But let's say that I was under investigation, and the FBI did did find out that I had a marijuana recommendation. What do you think would happen?

I'm really not sure if the State laws would insulate you if there was not an additional crime

What would I need to be insulated from?

Federal involvement / prosecution...

For what? Possession of marijuana? Possession of a licensed weapon?

I don't mean to be annoying, but I'm having a hard time following.

Yes... on a state level are they mutually exclusive...??? doesn't say in state statutes.

I don't see why they would be mutually exclusive.

Carrying while intoxicated would clearly still be against the law.

 

[KeiserC]

I'm really not sure if the State laws would insulate you if there was not an additional crime

What would I need to be insulated from?

Federal involvement / prosecution...

For what? Possession of marijuana? Possession of a licensed weapon?

I don't mean to be annoying, but I'm having a hard time following.

Yes... on a state level are they mutually exclusive...??? doesn't say in state statutes.

I don't see why they would be mutually exclusive.

Carrying while intoxicated would clearly still be against the law.

My state seems to have purposely not 'spelled it out' just as they have not made a provision for legalizing ANY sale of pot in the state... But HAVE legalized the growing and possession of pot.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What would I need to be insulated from?

Federal involvement / prosecution...

For what? Possession of marijuana? Possession of a licensed weapon?

I don't mean to be annoying, but I'm having a hard time following.

Yes... on a state level are they mutually exclusive...??? doesn't say in state statutes.

I don't see why they would be mutually exclusive.

Carrying while intoxicated would clearly still be against the law.

My state seems to have purposely not 'spelled it out' just as they have not made a provision for legalizing ANY sale of pot in the state... But HAVE legalized the growing and possession of pot.

DC is in a similar situation - it's legal to possess and grow, but still completely illegal to sell.

Dealers get around it by "selling" something else - and then providing a "gift" of marijuana, along with the purchased item.

 

[KeiserC]

Federal involvement / prosecution...

For what? Possession of marijuana? Possession of a licensed weapon?

I don't mean to be annoying, but I'm having a hard time following.

Yes... on a state level are they mutually exclusive...??? doesn't say in state statutes.

I don't see why they would be mutually exclusive.

Carrying while intoxicated would clearly still be against the law.

My state seems to have purposely not 'spelled it out' just as they have not made a provision for legalizing ANY sale of pot in the state... But HAVE legalized the growing and possession of pot.

DC is in a similar situation - it's legal to possess and grow, but still completely illegal to sell.

Dealers get around it by "selling" something else - and then providing a "gift" of marijuana, along with the purchased item.

I know it's a hard (impossible as of yet) issue to pin down, "hypothetical State response", to what they purposely leave out of the State Statutes.

 

[KeiserC]

Vermont should be interesting... Lots and Lots of gun owners (carte blanche, unrestricted gun rights for all +16 y.o. citizens) who will shortly live in a state where legal recreational use, growing & possession of Marijuana is to be a reality.

(not felons of adjudicated mentally unfit)