Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well me for one who is not a Baptist, but as an EMT I've seen the effects of unchecked alcohol indulgence on the highways and homes. I can only imagine how much worse will be the effect of widespread marijuana use. I do not want to have Cheech and Chong driving down the highway aimed at me.
Don't try to pretend it will be consumed only at home.
There are so many misconceptions in this post I'm not even going to try. Can someone else pick up the ball on this one?
BTW, is this the first time a FEDERAL court has addressed the issue of states OKing marijuana usage, without citing the Federal law that says they can't do that because marijuana is illegal?
The pot heads might have opened a huge can of worms with this one. Can they now use this court's tacit admission of the Federal marijuana law having no effect on the case, to pursue the idea that a Federal law with zero constitutional authority, is null and void?
I'm sure state courts have addressed the matter (by similarly ignoring the Federal law). But is this the first time a FEDERAL court has done so?
Interesting question, but this isn't how it will play out. You think there is no constitutional authority for federal drug laws. SCOTUS has been ruling for many years on this subject, and they disagree with you. So does Congress. And I simply don't see an R Congress or a conservative SCOTUS retreating on this issue. It would take a much more small-l libertarian court to rule that previous interpretations are wrong on this point, and that libertarian court is nowhere in sight.
States that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana are in effect saying that that state will no longer prosecute marijuana use/possession as long as certain conditions are met. They haven't - because they can't - prohibited the feds from enforcing federal laws regarding marijuana within their borders. I think (I hope!) that this is well known to marijuana users in these states.
If the feds arrest you in a marijuana-friendly state, the state will not intervene on your behalf by saying that you were compliant with state law. It simply isn't relevant to federal law enforcement..
So I don't see how the 9th could have ruled any other way.
I think this is just away to get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. They are forcing people to make a choice either to ease their daily pain with medicinal weed or to enjoy the comfort of their firearms.
What is next? People on Social Security can't own guns because they are too old ?
How about going after the real problem of unreported felons that can somehow manage to buy a gun after they get out of prison?
Lol I wouldn't be surprised. Don't forget Obama's last-minute (December, 2016) effective ban on certain SS disability recipients owning guns. He wanted the SSA to comb through their records, and have recipients who had others managing their affairs placed on the "no buy" list. Talk about overly-broad and sweeping restrictions...
The Republicans quickly crafted a bill to rescind it, and Trump signed it in March.
It's fairly easy to get around this law. Cease using marijuna and allow the card to expire or cancel the card, then buy how many guns you want. After buying the guns, then reapply for a card.
That's right folks, the 9th Circuit Court has ruled that medical marijuana users can not buy firearms.
The court ruled 3-0 on Wednesday that a ban preventing medical marijuana card holders from purchasing firearms is not in violation of the Second Amendment, the Associated Press reports. There are nine western states under the appeals court’s jurisdiction, including Nevada, where the case originated.
A lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Nevada resident S. Rowan Wilson after she tried to purchase a gun for self-defense and was denied based on a federal ban on the sale of guns to users of illegal drugs. Though marijuana has been legalized in some places on a state-by-state basis, it remains illegal under federal law. The court maintained that drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.â€
I think this is bogus, their concern was what I highlighted in bold, now how is it that one can buy alcohol and still buy a firearm, doesn't alcohol cause "irrational or unpredictable behavior".
I think this case will be headed to the Supreme Court and the liberal 9th Circuit Court will be overturned again.
What say you? Do you agree with the courts ruling?
No, I don't agree. Somebody who knocks of a half gallon of JD a night can buy a gun. That person is FAR more of a threat than someone who smokes pot. Irrational and unpredictable behavior? A drunk is the worst. A pot smoker? The only thing in danger is the munchie aisle at the grocery store.
I don't think we have a choice to rule differently, no matter where you stand on the issue. The people who buy a gun have to go through what's called a NICS check. (National Instant Criminal Background Check System).
Notice the emphasis on National. It is a national program administered by the Federal government. Many times the people enforcing those laws don't agree with them but are duty bound to enforce them because it is legislative federal law.
That's exactly the case here. Until Congress repeals the law on marijuana being illegal, it will remain a block to gun purchases no matter if all 50 states independently declare marijuana legal in their jurisdiction.
I don't agree with the policy but that's just the way it is. They take it to the SCOTUS, they will still lose. SCOTUS will say it's not their job to change legislative law, it's Congress's job.
well said. until congress removes marijuana from the schedule of drugs that are illegal, then if you use it, you cant get a firearm. that or dont get a prescription for medical mj
Drug addicts should not have guns. But I do think that the SC needs to take up some of these gun issues and overturn other ridiculous state gun restrictions.
This will be great. Now anyone on any medication which has side effects that include ANYTHING which could mess with being "normal" can be denied a firearm.
Given a choice between a firearm, booze, opiates, coke, viagra and the 1000's of other body and mind-bending substances....I think most Americans would choose the drugs.
That has been the case for a LONG time. Form 4473, question 11e. Oh, and lying on that form is a federal felony. Time to enforce those federal gun laws eh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
