9th circuit ruling on marijuana... can it apply to firearms?

[boomgoesthedynamite]

Just read this article (not the ruling) and it seems like it could open up a whole can of Texas... Could the Texas laws be changed to specifically allow suppressors, sbrs, sbs, full auto? That would make the liberal's heads explode using pot laws to allow giggle switches.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-bars-feds-prosecuting-medical-pot-cases-193106519.html?nhp=1

 

[txinvestigator]

Texas law does allow them, if registered under federal law.

 

[AustinN4]

Texas law does allow them, if registered under federal law.

If you read the linked article, would seem OP means without registered at Fed level.

 

[Recoil45]

Interesting question. I suspect the ruling won't stand on appeal.

Several states have tried to pass laws saying guns manufactured in a state and kept in that state are not subject to federal regulations. They were all challenged by the Feds and lost in court.

 

[boomgoesthedynamite]

This is true that laws did not stand challenging the federal use of Commerce clause, but this is different because it sets precedent (I believe a 3 judge panel does at least). By removing the federal registry wording of the law, you would only be in violation of federal law while fully compliant with state law. You could then cite the 9th circuit ruling saying they need to pound sand.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

I wonder what the defense's argument was that they used. I'm guessing they used something along the lines of right to life. If they however used 10th amendment grounds then perhaps there is some precedent that could back up what you are saying although I would guess they would find some way to weasel out of it.

 

[MikeyJ]

From the article, this appears to be a key point:

[FONT]Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but Congress has barred the Justice Department from spending money to prevent states from regulating the use or sale of medical pot.

[/FONT]Even if Texas changed the law to remove the "if registered under federal law" language, you'd still need Congress to bar the Justice Department from spending money to enforce federal gun laws that are inconsistent with state laws.

Texas is in the 5th Circuit, so the 9th Circuit ruling isn't binding here. So, you'd need to get the 5th Circuit to adopt the 9th Circuit ruling and apply it to state gun laws.

 

[txjames]

Just read this article (not the ruling) and it seems like it could open up a whole can of Texas... Could the Texas laws be changed to specifically allow suppressors, sbrs, sbs, full auto? That would make the liberal's heads explode using pot laws to allow giggle switches.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/court-bars-feds-prosecuting-medical-pot-cases-193106519.html?nhp=1

great analysis. wouldn't want to be the test case.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk