Skip to comments.Do medical marijuana users have right to bear arms? No, says ATF
Posted on 09/29/2011 9:35:55 AM PDT by LonelyCon
Firearms dealers in states that allow medical marijuana can't sell guns or ammunition to registered users of the drug, a policy that marijuana and gun-rights groups say denies Second Amendment rights to individuals who are following state law.
Federal law already makes it illegal for someone to possess a gun if he or she is "an unlawful user of, or addicted to" marijuana or other controlled substances.
A Sept. 21 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, issued in response to numerous inquiries from gun dealers, clarifies that medical marijuana patients are included in that definition. "There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law," said the letter by Arthur Herbert, the ATF's assistant director for enforcement programs and services.
Federal firearm licensees, or FFLs, can't sell a gun to someone who answers "yes" when a required form asks whether the buyer is a controlled substance user.
Last week's letter also says that licensed dealers can't sell a gun or ammunition if they have "reasonable cause to believe" the buyer is using a controlled substance.
That includes if the buyer presents a medical marijuana card as identification, or if the buyer talks about drug use, having a medical marijuana card or a recent drug conviction, ATF spokesman Drew Wade said Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Like I said we have a better chance of changing nine judge’s minds than the legislatures, state and feds.
Standard form, been in use for years, ATF 4473. Required for all dealer involved firearm sales. The form is Fed and required in every state.
FFL dealers are required to keep the form on file forever, and if the business is dissolved the dealer is required to forward the forms to the ATF for storage. A form filled out years and years ago is still in somebodies file or already at the ATF.
That is the form that in ‘Red Dawn’ the Cuban Major tells one of the troops to go and secure from the gun stores, so they know where and who has weapons.
One of the most egregious violations of our rights, but that never stopped the damn government.
I disagree. Look at Roe. It’s not going anywhere either, except by amendment.
I am saying you will never get an amendment. Too many dumb a$$’s we are stuck with the court rulings.
Well OK then. Thanks for sharing.
>You sound like one of those people saying income tax is illegal as they talk through the cell door.
I might sound like it, but you have to admit that there is no particularly good LEGAL explanation of the Federal-government’s claim to be able to regulate drugs when a Constitutional Amendment was needed in order to give that same power to the federal government with respect to alcohol. Or else would you like to explain how the 18th Amendment wasn’t nessacary?
That's a consequence of believing the Constitution is an enduring document. Last I checked that's how it's supposed to be.
It’s laughable then; ok, given that a constitutional amendment was required for the federal regulation of alcohol (a specific drug), by what authority are drugs now regulated by that selfsame government?
Ohhh, that would make a good legal case. Get the card and then claim that the agency is depriving you of your rights under the color of law (US Code Title 18 Sec 242); i.e. the 5th amendment guarantees of due process [before] depriving you of life or liberty & the 6th amendment guarantee of a jury trial.
>The SCOTUS, including Scalia, disagree. And since their opinion is law, that’s that.
Really? And here I thought that the legislature was in charge of making laws!
"The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort. The legislature must be controuled by the constitution, and not the constitution by them. They have therefore no more right to set aside any judgment pronounced upon the construction of the constitution, than they have to take from the president, the chief command of the army and navy, and commit it to some other person. The reason is plain; the judicial and executive derive their authority from the same source, that the legislature do theirs; and therefore in all cases, where the constitution does not make the one responsible to, or controulable by the other, they are altogether independent of each other."
Brutus, Antifederalist #11
"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. "
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78.
" Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other? It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments.
Commentaries on the Constitution
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
A justice can choose to care what Jefferson, Story or Washington said. But they are not required to. They are an independent branch, and have operated from the beginning precisely the way Brutus predicted they would. It's a design flaw in the Constitution that was obvious to him.
Stupid, lazy and cowardly American illegal drug users are so stupid, lazy and chicken that they wont change their reality, so they use illegal drugs to try and hide from their reality for a few minutes and thereby fund some of the most vile and vicious criminals this world has ever know.
These “vile and vicious criminals” you write of being members of Congress?
Which is of what consequence to this discussion?
The carry no more or less legal weight than the quotes you posted that they counterpoint.
All you have done is imply that one set of statements is to be disregarded while another is to be respected.
"[E]very act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
"It is every Americans' right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself."
Anyone with any sense can see that Brutus correctly diagnosed the problem built into the Constitution before it was even ratified. What he described is what has happened. What you posted are musings on what would be nice, but isn't so.
All you've done is argue that the abuses have occurred, as predicted, but then declined to include anything pursuant to the public responsibility to act in opposition.
To what end to you do this? I can find no reason anyone would present such a case as appropriate to a forum of conservative political activism in good faith. It is tantamount to a statement of surrender.