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

[Recoil45]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/3...-sales-to-medical-marijuana-card-holders.html

 

[BRD@66]

Some Carnac the Magnificent here on TGT predicted this awhile back.

 

[Texan-in-Training]

Just wait until they decide that if banning sales is to their advantage, then confiscation works even better...

 

[Rebel]

Is anyone surprised by this?

 

[TheDan]

Is anyone surprised by this?

Not surprised by much of anything anymore. Just keep your head down and do whatever you want to do.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Not surprised by much of anything anymore. Just keep your head down and do whatever you want to do.

This is fantastic advice. I need to do this more often. Usually it's the husband poking me, "shussssshhhh." (In general, not about this specific issue).

 

[Younggun]

Trying so hard not to take that the wrong way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wildcat Diva]

After I typed that I thought SOMEONE might go there. I'm too used to hearing those kind of come-backs that I should be used to it. Innuendo-Kings!

 

[Mike1234567]

I would NEVER do this but some folks grow their own MMJ and STFU and lie to their doctors.

 

[Rebel]

Trying so hard not to take that the wrong way.

After I typed that I thought SOMEONE might go there. I'm too used to hearing those kind of come-backs that I should be used to it. Innuendo-Kings!

Beware the ginger.

 

[Wildcat Diva]

It's ALWAYS the ginger, isn't it?

 

[easy rider]

The Government hasn't changed their stance on marijuana use. Even though some states have legalized it to some extent, the federal government hasn't. So no, this isn't a surprise.

 

[STXdevilsquid]

Can't they just do a buy back program for the smokers, just offer them cheeseburgers Cheetos and snickers bars because they satisfy.

 

[karlac]

9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Didn't even have to click to figure that ...

 

[Recoil45]

Is anyone surprised by this?

No. It's a correct reading of the law. There is no other proper ruling. Until federal laws change you are breaking a law that excludes you from gun ownership. Why anyone would waste money filing a lawsuit in a black and white area is odd.

 

[300blk]

picking and choosing laws. 9th circuit rules that marijuana users cant buy guns, yet marijuana is federally illegal and 9th circuit rules that it is ok.

 

[Renegade]

No. It's a correct reading of the law. There is no other proper ruling.

No it is not a correct reading.

The law bans folks who use illegal drugs, not those who might have a prescription to use illegal drugs.

 

[Mike1234567]

...

 

[Recoil45]

No it is not a correct reading.

The law bans folks who use illegal drugs, not those who might have a prescription to use illegal drugs.

Correct from a state view. Incorrect from a federal view.

 

[Renegade]

Correct from a state view. Incorrect from a federal view.

Let's see what the Federal Law says and see if the ruling is supported by an actual reading of the law:

922d:

(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—

(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));

The dis-qualifier is "unlawful user of or addicted". Nowhere does it say if you have a state issued card for MJ you are are DQ. Possession of the card itself is irrelevant under Federal Law. All that matters under Federal Law is if you are an"unlawful user of or addicted". As long as you are not an "unlawful user of or addicted", you can possess firearms. Thus it is an incorrect reading of the law, and another example of legislating from then bench.