Posted on 08/09/2022 5:29:00 AM PDT by Brilliant
The U.S. Department of Justice told a Florida federal judge on Monday that the Sunshine State's medical marijuana patients had no Second Amendment right to possess firearms since they were breaking a federal law.
The DOJ's brief was filed in response to a lawsuit brought by the commissioner of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and three Florida residents, who allege a federal rule barring medical marijuana patients from having guns is unconstitutional.
In its motion to dismiss the case or secure a favorable judgment, the government countered that the policies being challenged by the lawsuit only apply to people who use illegal drugs, specifically cannabis, and therefore do not restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
"These laws merely prevent drug users who commit federal crimes by unlawfully possessing drugs from possessing and receiving firearms, and only for so long as they are actively engaged in that criminal activity," the government said.
Citing a medical consent form promulgated by Florida marijuana regulators, the DOJ noted that marijuana "impairs judgment, cognition and physical coordination, including 'the ability to think, judge and reason.'"
The DOJ added that there was a deeply rooted practice in American law and policy of not allowing dangerous or lawbreaking individuals to possess firearms.
"A long tradition exists of viewing intoxication as a condition that renders firearms possession dangerous, and accordingly restricting the firearms rights of those who become intoxicated," the brief said...
Read more at: https://www.law360.com/florida/articles/1519290/doj-says-medical-pot-patients-have-no-right-to-bear-arms?nl_pk=bf582b99-a2b7-4833-bdaa-321c30e1409b&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=florida&utm_content=2022-08-09?copied=1
(Excerpt) Read more at law360.com ...
“So I guess that means that if you sometimes drink alcohol, you also have no right to bear arms.”
Or take aspirin. Yeah, I’m exaggerating...but only a little bit.
I can’t find that in the Second Amendment. I think the DOJ needs to get off their asses and show us where they found that in the Bill of Rights. I guess since Chicagoans have such a high murder rate, they don’t get Second Amendment rights either, huh?
Next, the democraps will declare all members of the republican party to be domestic terrorists and they cannot have guns.
I am not even kidding.
We are a lawless nation now. Might is right.
So here is a bit from an earlier article that puts a little more color on what the court case is about:
FDACS Commissioner Nicole Fried says the federal government’s “irrational, inconsistent, and incoherent federal marijuana policy” undermines Florida’s medical marijuana and firearms laws and prevents her from ensuring Floridians’ related state rights.
According to the complaint, two sections of the federal criminal code forbid Florida residents who qualify as medical marijuana patients from possessing or purchasing a firearm.
These sections are unconstitutional, and they prevent residents from exercising their Second Amendment rights, the commissioner says, and it prevents the full implementation of Florida’s medical marijuana program.
Additionally, the challenged sections “embodies the contradictory nature of the United States’ marijuana policy,” according to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs Vera Cooper, Nicole Hansell and Neill Franklin have all been affected by the relevant sections of the federal criminal code, according to the complaint.
Cooper and Hansell are Florida residents and medical marijuana patients. Both wish to purchase firearms for personal protection in their homes and elsewhere but cannot due to the current law, according to the complaint.
Franklin is a Florida resident, a retired law enforcement officer, and a firearm owner. The complaint states that a qualifying physician prescribed him medical marijuana for a qualifying medical condition, but Franklin chose not to participate because he did not want to give up his Second Amendment rights.
The plaintiffs state that they do not challenge the federal government’s right to enact firearms regulations, but that the challenged sections and regulations are unconstitutional.
“Those provisions, as applied to state-law-abiding medical marijuana patients, such as Cooper and Hansell, and those reasonably seeking to participate in the state medical marijuana program, such as Franklin, offer no protection to the public,” the complaint states. “They also place an inappropriate and severe burden on the constitutional rights of those affected.”
Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1486149?copied=1
It does not give me comfort that our rights are being argued by Fried, who is an avowed gun control advocate.
Interesting we have not heard about this issue in California, Oregon, Washington, Washington DC, and all the other States that have medical and recreational marijuana.
But then again it’s hard to pay attention to all the news when you’re stoned.
You’re only exaggerating, for now anyway.
Excellent points.
Do medical marijuana patients still have the right to speak as they wish, read what they want and go to church? Are these people allowed to peacefully assemble, are they immune from illegal search and seizure? Can the military arbitrarily decide to quarter troops in their homes? Do they have the right to a jury trial of their peers?
Or is it only the 2nd Amendment that appears to be arbitrarily granted or denied; as the court sees fit?
Is it time to start shooting yet?
Why I never got a Medical Marijuana card, despite some very good reasons for doing so.
Yet another list to stay off of.
I saw this coming a mile away. The same theory will apply to a bevy of legally prescribed pharmaceuticals gobbled up daily by Americans. Take a look at the labeling on these drugs. Most can affect judgement, the operation of motor vehicles, etc.
Oh ya
Here is how I would interpret the law if I were the judge: 1) You shouldn’t be denied the right to possess or buy arms on the intoxication logic so long as you are not intoxicated when you possess or buy the gun. 2) You should not be denied the right to bear arms on the criminal logic unless you’ve actually been convicted of a crime.
Actually, an intoxicated person is barred from arms under both (most, if not all) state and federal laws.
And barred from driving on public roads, flying private or commercial aircraft, etc.
Clear precedent. It’s a rarity that one can on occasion agree with this DOJ.
MJ is a controlled substance with no proven medical use. Being stoned is not a therapy. I know many freepers libertarian streak will call for my “stoning”, but this is truth.
The thing is, pot is legal (state level) and illegal (Congressional statute) at the same time. Alcohol is not both at once.
The feds can disarm anybody they want to. Pretext is sufficient, but Congress is behind (as in supportive of) prosecuting the people for violation of federal law.
And as stated, impaired or intoxicated status under most state laws Barr’s one from arms, and driving and ...
BFL
In before gun-grabbers take sides with fedfov over the Second and Tenth Amendments.
Alcohol is federally legal. Illegal dope is .... illegal. They’re right. Marijuana should never have been legalized.
I’m pretty sure that does NOT apply to Oregon.
Wall to wall stoners and most likely most armed to protect their stash.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.