ATF claims it’s illegal to sell guns to users of medical marijuana

benningtonbanner.com ^ | 28 September, 2011 | AP

[marktwain]

HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- 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.

[MEGoody]

Um, as I recall, there are no restrictions on sale of guns or ammo to individuals who have prescriptions for other possibly mind-altering drugs.

Having said that, I am not a fan of so-called 'medical marijuana' as I am not convinced of it's value. Also, it certainly seems that in states that allow it, almost anyone can get a "prescription".

[douginthearmy]

Stevens wrote the opinion that held that the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana as interstate commerce.

Obama appeals health care setback to high court (Stevens: Health-Care Law Has Precedent)

I wonder how the Drug Warriors will feel when the same precedent that upheld their anti-some-drug laws are used to uphold the individual mandate.

[UCANSEE2]

Plenty of states have laws against possession of a firearm while intoxicated (alcohol or otherwise).

They don't seem to be very well enforced.

[Ron H.]

.... Second Amendment rights to individuals who are following state law ....

The Second Amendment deals with constitutionally protected rights regarding firearms and the USSC has ruled that government has the legislative authority to narrowly control who can and can not have access to them and thus is a Federal law and currently if I'm not mistaken a state law does not supersede nor supplant a federal law. If I'm not mistaken federal statute still makes possession and or use of marijuana a federal offense. Therefore is it not a crime to sell a gun to a known drug possessor or user under federal law?

[Ron H.]

A drunk and a pot head pull up to a stop sign. The drunk crashes it, while the pot head waits for it to turn green.

[OneWingedShark]

>Therefore is it not a crime to sell a gun to a known drug possessor or user under federal law?

Considering the law which makes it illegal is illegitimate (GCA of 1968) because it is an Ex Post Facto law (it altered the sentences of all felons, even if they’d already been served, to include the prohibition of firearms)... No, it’s not illegal. {Though the government will claim otherwise, because if they admit the invalidity they lose a lot of power.}

[Gaffer]

It is, however, perfectly legal to sell Assault Weapons (in the ATF’s own vernacular) to stooge “Gunwalkers” dozens at a time, who immediately transport these ATF ASSAULT WEAPONS to Mexican Criminals across the border - Perfectly Legal - right. FUATF

[Ken H]

Sounds like an apologia for gun restrictions under the New Deal Commerce Clause.

Do you believe in a living, breathing Constitution on some issues?

[Ron H.]

No, no it doesn’t any in the least. And since when has ANY state law EVER superseded federal law? Maybe it has in some distant past but I for one am not aware of it at any time before. It has nothing to do with the commerce clause or any interpretation of it.

[Ron H.]

Sounds just like one of those cases where you MIGHT beat the rap but you'll certainly not beat the ride. Seriously though, I don't think we are the arbiter of how the constitution gets interpreted. That lies solely withing the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the land no matter what we serfs otherwise think or believe.

You may or may not be right but it doesn't matter one way or the other. Possess illicit drugs while also in the possession of a firearm and let a LEO catch you then you may want to pack an overnight bag for an extended stay at their quarters.

[Ken H]

And since when has ANY state law EVER superseded federal law?

AFAIK, never.

It has nothing to do with the commerce clause or any interpretation of it.

I sure does. The same New Deal Commerce Clause that allows this regulation also allows fedgov to regulate health care, education and the environment.

Now that you've been informed, I'll ask again. Do you support the New Deal view of the Commerce Clause sometimes?

[Ken H]

Edit - ‘I sure does’ should read ‘It sure does’

[logician2u]

We should have seen this coming.

Ten years or so ago, maybe during Klintoon's reign of error, I read a column by one of my libertarian friends in which the "war on drugs" met the ongoing war on firearms ownership.

The gist of it was (and still is): gun rights advocates need to join forces with NORML and other anti-WOD organizations, since their causes overlap in many ways. Certain people in the government, along with interest groups which benefit from it, would like to "protect" society from the evils of drugs and gun violence . . and to do so will mean stamping out illegal drugs, along with ugly firearms and cop-killer ammo. Never mind that mere possession of a gun does not signal intent to commit a crime with it; nor does possession of a bag of marijuana indicate the owner intends to sell it to ten-year-olds.

The nexus of drugs and guns and crime is a natural result of prohibition and the onerous laws and regulations that restrict the sale and possession of firearms. Some police veterans understand that. Politicians as a group do not.

[Ron H.]

I sure does.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

[RandallFlagg]

You need best-perception to handle firearms.

So....you are able to properly and accurately....


...hit it?

[Ken H]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

So tell us where in the Constitution fedgov claims authority to regulate health care, education, the environment, gun control and impose national prohibition on drugs.

[Daffynition]

BTTT

I thought the same thing, when I heard this story.

[Daffynition]