So Arizonan w/medical marijuana card have to give up guns??? (Scottsdale: 2013, renting)

[adriver]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

(1) Ephedrine isn't illegal in Arizona, I'm not sure where you got that assertion from.

(2) I understand the logic, I read the opinion, I'm saying I disagree with the court, I think they reached the wrong conclusion. Use and a permit to use are two different things. The wording limits USE and addiction not permission to use. It doesn't limit possibility of use it limits actual use. The presumption is that permission=use.

Can you give just one reason why? What possible reason is there to get a card if you don't plan on using? And nobody is saying there aren't people who use without cards, they just aren't covered by the law for other reasons, (I see that as two completely different issues).

and they're not saying anyone has to give up there guns. Just while you are using a controlled substance no new ones.

[take57]

At the risk of sounding like a Cheech & Chong routine, I would think packing heat while herbed up would harsh the mellow

[adriver]

Originally Posted by take57

At the risk of sounding like a Cheech & Chong routine, I would think packing heat while herbed up would harsh the mellow

it doesn't effect owning a gun, just purchasing one.

and FOR OP; considering this isn't a new law, its just a clarification of one from several years ago, I would assume its "immediately clarified".

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by madison999

Can someone elaborate on what will happen here with this new ruling by the 9th Circuit court of appeals? Az falls under its jurisdiction. Will there be another appeal. Does it go into immediate effect? Seems crazy...

Yet another senseless ruling by the Ninth Circus Court. It's based in San Francisco and packed with liberal judges who are generally anti Second Amendment. Should it be so surprising that they found another way of chipping away at people's rights?!

Originally Posted by adriver

well, ephedrine has been illegal for quite some time now. That might just be a bad example.

What are you talking about?! Do you even live in Arizona? All you have to do is go to any Walgreens or CVS and check out the wide assortment of pain relievers, or products for allergies & viruses. Many products containing ephedrine are available over the counter.

Originally Posted by adriver

The wording is;
A person cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition if they are an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

And you're OK with arrogant judges/politicians taking away people's Constitutional rights?

Originally Posted by adriver

Medical marijuana is still on the schedule 1 list, and since nobody has a prescription, only a recommendation; No medical marijuana user is legal. The federal govt has only said they will not prosecute.

Oh good grief! Doctors hand out marijuana prescriptions to their patients like candy. And what exactly do you mean that "no medical marijuana user is legal"? Arizona voters approved legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes six years ago ... that makes it legal! Please don't start in on how federal law overrules states' rights. If we as Americans are going to allow ourselves to be completely dominated by federal law, the 50 states might as well not even exist.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by adriver

Can you give just one reason why? What possible reason is there to get a card if you don't plan on using? And nobody is saying there aren't people who use without cards, they just aren't covered by the law for other reasons, (I see that as two completely different issues).

and they're not saying anyone has to give up there guns. Just while you are using a controlled substance no new ones.

You're losing me here, why is the fact that it's not retroactive negate anything I said?

What if I have a conceal carry permit, does that mean I always carry a gun? Is that a better example? Under this rule, by analogy, the presumption is that because I've obtained permission that I am exercising the right. Like Medical Marijuana permits I've obtained permission but that doesn't mean I'm exercising the right of use by always carrying a gun. If the court made an analogous rule that people with concealed carry permits cannot be on college campuses because the purpose of the permit is the carry the weapon, as separate from actually carrying the weapon, would you find problem with that?

[note I don't even have an MMJ card, but I find this holding problematic]

[adriver]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Yet another senseless ruling by the Ninth Circus Court. It's based in San Francisco and packed with liberal judges who are generally anti Second Amendment. Should it be so surprising that they found another way of chipping away at people's rights?!

that's your opinion, not mine. I don't see anything wrong with it as a medical marijuana user. It makes sense to me. They didn't change anything, all they said was that if you have a medical marijuana card, there's a reason behind that. Its common sense.

Originally Posted by Valley Native

And you're OK with arrogant judges/politicians taking away people's Constitutional rights?

No, that's not what happened. I think you sound like the average gun nut whos worried "OUR GUNS ARE GONNA BE TAKEN AWAY".

I'm gonna save some time and not even get into what the 2nd amendment actually says and if someone is actively using marijuana, do you want them/think they will be contributing in YOUR militia?

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Oh good grief! Doctors hand out marijuana prescriptions to their patients like candy. And what exactly do you mean that "no medical marijuana user is legal"? Arizona voters approved legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes six years ago ... that makes it legal! Please don't start in on how federal law overrules states' rights. If we as Americans are going to allow ourselves to be completely dominated by federal law, the 50 states might as well not even exist.

Wrong again. Doctors do not give out prescriptions for marijuana. They give out recommendations. No doctor can prescribe marijuana. They can only say they recommend it to a person for a specific medical condition. Arizona voters approved legislation that grants certain "immunities" to individuals from state laws.

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

You're losing me here, why is the fact that it's not retroactive negate anything I said?

Not sure were you got that from??? For some reason you seemed to leave out the part of that sentence in the beginning, that said "and FOR OP"

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

What if I have a conceal carry permit, does that mean I always carry a gun? Is that a better example? Under this rule, by analogy, the presumption is that because I've obtained permission that I am exercising the right. Like Medical Marijuana permits I've obtained permission but that doesn't mean I'm exercising the right of use by always carrying a gun. If the court made an analogous rule that people with concealed carry permits cannot be on college campuses because the purpose of the permit is the carry the weapon, as separate from actually carrying the weapon, would you find problem with that?

[note I don't even have an MMJ card, but I find this holding problematic]

No of course not, and if you have a MMJ card it doesn't mean you are ALWAYS using it either.
HOWEVER, If you have a CCW permit, Its safe to assume you have a gun.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by adriver

that's your opinion, not mine. I don't see anything wrong with it as a medical marijuana user. It makes sense to me. They didn't change anything, all they said was that if you have a medical marijuana card, there's a reason behind that. Its common sense.


No, that's not what happened. I think you sound like the average gun nut whos worried "OUR GUNS ARE GONNA BE TAKEN AWAY".

I'm gonna save some time and not even get into what the 2nd amendment actually says and if someone is actively using marijuana, do you want them/think they will be contributing in YOUR militia?



Wrong again. Doctors do not give out prescriptions for marijuana. They give out recommendations. No doctor can prescribe marijuana. They can only say they recommend it to a person for a specific medical condition. Arizona voters approved legislation that grants certain "immunities" to individuals from state laws.


Not sure were you got that from??? For some reason you seemed to leave out the part of that sentence in the beginning, that said "and FOR OP"



No of course not, and if you have a MMJ card it doesn't mean you are ALWAYS using it either.
HOWEVER, If you have a CCW permit, Its safe to assume you have a gun.

You have no qualms about banning people for having CCW permits even if they aren't carrying?

I generally lean left relative to this board, but I don't see how this is a tenable position.

[adriver]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

You have no qualms about banning people for having CCW permits even if they aren't carrying?

I generally lean left relative to this board, but I don't see how this is a tenable position.

How did we get here?? This courts decision is about purchasing a new gun.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by adriver

How did we get here?? This courts decision is about purchasing a new gun.

Via analogous rules about why the ruling is faulty (flabby in the words of the late Scalia).

[madison999]

Originally Posted by adriver

it doesn't effect owning a gun, just purchasing one.

and FOR OP; considering this isn't a new law, its just a clarification of one from several years ago, I would assume its "immediately clarified".

So this is something that will just be side stepped by private sales and gun show sales?