Appeals court upholds ban on gun sales to medical marijuana card holders

[Recoil45]

The gun store did not have to sell her the firearm. But it could have. A different gun store may.

I agree that she could go to another gun store and buy a gun. They have no way to look up if she has a MMJ card.

 

[Bithabus]

I agree that she could go to another gun store and buy a gun. They have no way to look up if she has a MMJ card.

nm

 

[Recoil45]

Can they? 2nd to last paragraph. Serious question, not arguing here.

https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download

 

[Renegade]

If they knew they could sell her a gun lawfully

Or she could buy one FTF. Because having a MJ/card does not make you a prohibited person.

 

[Bithabus]

Can they? 2nd to last paragraph. Serious question, not arguing here.

https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download

True, the letter says they cannot sell. But it's just a letter.

 

[Recoil45]

Or she could buy one FTF. Because having a MJ/card does not make you a prohibited person.

Agree on the FTF. Not sure about from the ffl.
The 2nd to last paragraph of the link I posted states the ffl must not transfer the firearm if he knows the buyer holds a MMJ card. That document is why the ffl didn't transfer the firearm to her and the court upheld that decision. I seriously don't know what I am missing.

 

[Bithabus]

Or she could buy one FTF. Because having a MJ/card does not make you a prohibited person.

Looks like it does in the 9th circuit though

 

[Recoil45]

True, the letter says they cannot sell. But it's just a letter.

Language from this link seems to says ignoring the letter could result in a felony conviction and 10years in jail.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/01/9th-circuit-says-medical-marijuana-cardh


The case, Wilson v. Lynch, involves a Nevada woman, Rowan Wilson, who in 2011 tried to buy a firearm from a gun shop in Mound House, a tiny town in Lyon County, but was turned away because the owner, Frederick Hauser, knew she had recently obtained a medical marijuana registry card from the state Department of Health and Human Services. Hauser had just received a letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) that said anyone who uses marijuana as a medicine, "regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes," qualifies as an "unlawful user of a controlled substance" and is therefore forbidden to buy or possess guns under 18 USC 922. The ATF added that "if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of
marijuana under State law, then you have 'reasonable cause to believe' that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance," meaning "you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person." Since violating that edict is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison, Hauser was understandably reluctant to sell Wilson a gun.

 

[Renegade]

The 2nd to last paragraph of the link I posted states the ffl must not transfer the firearm if he knows the buyer holds a MMJ card. That document is why the ffl didn't transfer the firearm to her and the court upheld that decision. I seriously don't know what I am missing.

This woman is known not to be a unlawful user of MJ, so that FACT overrides the ATF reasonable test. But barring a special case like this, yes an FFL should not knowingly sell to MMJ/Card holder. Everyone else can though.

 

[Bithabus]

Language from this link seems to says ignoring the letter could result in a felony conviction and 10years in jail..

Yes, you are correct.

 

[Bithabus]

Everyone else can though.

No they cannot, if they are aware of the MMJ card

• U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922

(d)It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—(1)is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2)is a fugitive from justice;

(3)is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

 

[Renegade]

Looks like it does in the 9th circuit though

No it does not. This is what I was explaining to Recoil. The Case law decision is about what the FFL does, the Case Law does not make her a PP.

 

[Bithabus]

No it does not. This is what I was explaining to Recoil. The Case law decision is about what the FFL does, the Case Law does not make her a PP.

A person knowingly selling a gun to a MMJ card holder could be arrested and prosecuted under 922 d. And probably convicted

 

[Renegade]

No they cannot, if they are aware of the MMJ card

This case only addresses licensees, but I think they would rule the same. I think it is really rare someone would have a card, tell an FFL or someone else, and NOT be an unlawful user.

This was a carefully crafted test case, I doubt there will ever be a duplicate unless it is also crafted.

 

[Renegade]

A person knowingly selling a gun to a MMJ card holder could be arrested and prosecuted under 922 d. And probably convicted

Yes but I am talking about whether she is PP or not, not "what someone knows".

As a general rule, it is a good idea NOT to sell to someone who you think is fugitive, stoner, felon, illegal, etc

 

[Bithabus]

Yes but I am talking about whether she is PP or not, not "what someone knows".

SHE isnt must most MMJ card holders are. And the seller could be found guilty either way

 

[Renegade]

SHE isnt must most MMJ card holders are. And the seller could be found guilty either way

Another reason not to have BOS!

I wonder if we will see a second case to address Card holder possession of existing firearm.

 

[Bithabus]

Another reason not to have BOS!

I wonder if we will see a second case to address Card holder possession of existing firearm.

Would be interesting.

 

[Recoil45]

Good chance the drug is rescheduled before that ever happens.

 

[Renegade]

Good chance the drug is rescheduled before that ever happens.

The Administration position is not clear. On one hand they refuse to enforce the law, on the other they could have re-scheduled it but did not.