Appeals court upholds ban on gun sales to medical marijuana card holders
- Thread starter Recoil45
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Still not following. Are you saying she can legally buy a firearm in the 9th circuit from an ffl (filling out a 4473) even though she currently has a valid MMJ card? Or are you arguing some small technicality? I understand she can turn in her MMJ card and get her rights back at any time.
From the ruling:
OPINION
RAKOFF, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiff-Appellant S. Rowan Wilson acquired a Nevada medical marijuana registry card. She then sought to purchase a firearm, but the firearms dealer knew that Wilson held a registry card. Consistent with a letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”), the dealer refused to sell Wilson a firearm because of her registry card. Wilson sued, challenging the federal statutes, regulations, and guidance that prevented her from buying a gun. The district court dismissed Wilson’s complaint, and Wilson appealed. We affirm.
I didn't read the entire 30 page option from my phone but did skim most of it.
Last edited:
Where in the ruling are you seeing that?
"Wilson sued, challenging the federal statutes, regulations, and guidance that prevented her from buying a gun. The district court dismissed Wilson’s complaint, and Wilson appealed. We affirm."
Where is the ruling did you see they said she was a prohibited person? In fact, they clearly said she was not an "unlawful user..."
"the panel concluded that plaintiff was not actually an unlawful drug user"
All this ruling did was uphold FFL to not sell to a MM/Card holder. It did not make the MM.Card holders prohibited persons as is being commonly reported/believed.
Ok so your arguing about perfect wording. I'm not a lawyer, my posts will never pass legal scrutiny. I generally don't even spell check or proof read them.
However the ruling clearly states she was prevented from buying a gun due to federal regulations and the court affirmed those regulations. She cannot buy a gun until she turns in her MMJ card.
"However, the Open Letter does not make a blanket assertion that all registry card users are marijuana users, it simply clarifies that a firearms dealer has “reasonable cause to believe” an individual is an unlawful user if she holds a registry card. This inference falls well within the scope of 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, which states that “[a]n inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time.” A marijuana registry card is circumstantial evidence, although by no means dispositive evidence, of recent use or possession of marijuana. Moreover, it is immaterial that registry cards are different from the illustrations mentioned in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 that may raise an inference of unlawful drug use. Helpful examples in regulations need not be exhaustive. Indeed, that is one reason agencies publish guidance like the Open Letter–to provide additional examples that “explain, but do not add to, the substantive law that already exists in the form of a statute or legislative rule.” Hemp Indus., 333 F.3d at 1087. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the Open Letter is “textbook interpretative” and that it was exempt from notice-and-comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(A). The district court did not err in dismissing Wilson’s APA claim, to the extent it was pleaded, or in denying Wilson leave to amend her complaint to expand her APA claim"
However the ruling clearly states she was prevented from buying a gun due to federal regulations and the court affirmed those regulations. She cannot buy a gun until she turns in her MMJ card.
"However, the Open Letter does not make a blanket assertion that all registry card users are marijuana users, it simply clarifies that a firearms dealer has “reasonable cause to believe” an individual is an unlawful user if she holds a registry card. This inference falls well within the scope of 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, which states that “[a]n inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time.” A marijuana registry card is circumstantial evidence, although by no means dispositive evidence, of recent use or possession of marijuana. Moreover, it is immaterial that registry cards are different from the illustrations mentioned in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 that may raise an inference of unlawful drug use. Helpful examples in regulations need not be exhaustive. Indeed, that is one reason agencies publish guidance like the Open Letter–to provide additional examples that “explain, but do not add to, the substantive law that already exists in the form of a statute or legislative rule.” Hemp Indus., 333 F.3d at 1087. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the Open Letter is “textbook interpretative” and that it was exempt from notice-and-comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(A). The district court did not err in dismissing Wilson’s APA claim, to the extent it was pleaded, or in denying Wilson leave to amend her complaint to expand her APA claim"
Last edited:
Also from the actual ruling:
However, the Open Letter does not make a blanket assertion that all registry card users are marijuana users, it simply clarifies that a firearms dealer has “reasonable cause to believe” an individual is an unlawful user if she holds a registry card. This inference falls well within the scope of 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, which states that “[a]n inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time.” A marijuana registry card is circumstantial evidence, although by no means dispositive evidence, of recent use or possession of marijuana. Moreover, it is immaterial that registry cards are different from the illustrations mentioned in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 that may raise an inference of unlawful drug use. Helpful examples in regulations need not be exhaustive. Indeed, that is one reason agencies publish guidance like the Open Letter–to provide additional examples that....
However, the Open Letter does not make a blanket assertion that all registry card users are marijuana users, it simply clarifies that a firearms dealer has “reasonable cause to believe” an individual is an unlawful user if she holds a registry card. This inference falls well within the scope of 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, which states that “[a]n inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time.” A marijuana registry card is circumstantial evidence, although by no means dispositive evidence, of recent use or possession of marijuana. Moreover, it is immaterial that registry cards are different from the illustrations mentioned in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 that may raise an inference of unlawful drug use. Helpful examples in regulations need not be exhaustive. Indeed, that is one reason agencies publish guidance like the Open Letter–to provide additional examples that....
You are obviously incapable of understanding the issue. For example you can quote it but you do not understand what it means:
"It simply clarifies that a firearms dealer has “reasonable cause to believe” an individual is an unlawful user if she holds a registry card. "
You probably think 19 year old can't buy/own a handgun either.
"It simply clarifies that a firearms dealer has “reasonable cause to believe” an individual is an unlawful user if she holds a registry card. "
You probably think 19 year old can't buy/own a handgun either.
Last edited:
Yes, they dont mix.
That said many or most people who drink alcohol are not alcoholics, IMO. In most states you cannot legally obtain a CCW permit if you are an alcoholic, since you are currently addicted to drinking it daily, and if one
owns guns they should not allow themselves to "play" with a gun while drunk, that much we can agree on, at least.
As for MJ, I have no way to determine if MJ users should be considered addicted since I have never imbibed in the substance, not even once while in school many years ago. Why you might ask? Because it was illegal and I hate the smell of it as well. I also saw lots of paranoia in many of these imbibers of MJ, and that doesn't mix with firearms at all either.
MJ also stays in the body much longer then booze does, weeks or months even so I am also wondering how the legalization of MJ is going to be handled when people drive a deadly weapon like a car.
Should we treat MJ users who own firearms, like truck drivers, and urine test them for drugs and alcohol at random? After all, a car, a truck or even an edged weapon can be just as deadly as any firearm can be.
Yes.
We know these people are keeping mind altering substances in their homes. If we also know they have firearms in their homes we can reasonably conclude that at some point they will have access to a firearm while under the influence of a drug that effects judgement.
I don't understand why you see alcohol any differently that MJ. IMO, alcohol is worse for the simple fact that I've had the displeasure of being around people under the influence of both and aside from one having a distinct odor, those using alcohol were much more difficult to deal with and much more likely to cause trouble.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We know these people are keeping mind altering substances in their homes. If we also know they have firearms in their homes we can reasonably conclude that at some point they will have access to a firearm while under the influence of a drug that effects judgement.
I don't understand why you see alcohol any differently that MJ. IMO, alcohol is worse for the simple fact that I've had the displeasure of being around people under the influence of both and aside from one having a distinct odor, those using alcohol were much more difficult to deal with and much more likely to cause trouble.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I saw a lot of drunks when I drove a taxi at Ft. Hood back in the late '70s. For three years, on the night shift. I have to agree with Younggun. And it don't take much with some of them.
And no, I don't even like the smell of MJ. But it doesn't seem to release the violent tendencies that some people have like alchohol does.
That said, if you have a gun, I don't want you taking anything that alters your mind or perceptions.
from an idgit coffeeholic
And no, I don't even like the smell of MJ. But it doesn't seem to release the violent tendencies that some people have like alchohol does.
That said, if you have a gun, I don't want you taking anything that alters your mind or perceptions.
from an idgit coffeeholic
People drink alcohol. People own firearms. Responsible firearm owners do not handle their guns if they've been drinking... just as responsible vehicle owners don't drive if they've been drinking. The same is true for those who partake in MMJ. While I completely agree that people should never operate any kind of dangerous machinery if under the influence of anything... we can't stop irresponsible morons from doing so. There are already laws in place to minimize the numbers of law-abiding citizens from doing stupid things. However... NO NEW LAWS YOU WISH TO IMPOSE will ever stop lawbreaking idiots from being stupid. We have enough laws. We need smarter citizens and fewer morons and crooks. Some here are leaning far too left of the 2A for my comfort.
Last edited:
To those here who don't want anyone using anything that alters a persons mind or perceptions, buying, owning or possessing a firearm, I offer you this:
1. Anger and other strong emotions alters ones behaviors, mind, and perceptions. You know full well what "road rage" is, correct? People using a vehicle to possibly harm someone who may have cut them off or the like, and they seek revenge. How do you propose that we solve that? Take someones vehicle or license away?
I realize that a motor vehicle is not a protected constitutional Right, but the results can be the same as harming someone with a firearm. I know, as I was a Driver for 44 years. I did not allow my emotions to make me endanger someone's life with any vehicle I was driving, be it a semi, a car/pickup or a motorcycle.
2. There are one quarter of Americans using PRESCRIPTION medications, of all kinds, and of that number many that also own firearms. Should we therefore take their firearms away, as well? Under what pretense do we have that right to do so? Yes, you can claim that _IF_ they are using illegal drugs like MJ, but prescription medications ARE legal and so is alcohol, at least since Prohibition was eliminated back in 1933 and the NFA-1934 was enacted to keep the Department Of Revenue busy, busting people with sawed-off shotguns.
3. Fact is that life is full of risks. Simply because someone enjoys MJ, or absolutely needs a medication to survive in this world, we should take their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms away BEFORE they have done anything to harm anyone? Seems to me that we are headed down a path to the death of the Second Amendment, if this notion keeps up a head of steam. That's _Exactly_ what the PTB want: All your firearms.
If this is going to be the case in Texas, of all places, I suppose I should simply stay here in Kookistan, where at least I know that my Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms are going to be under attack, using the old "Safety" rational/argument to do so. Stripping our constitutional rights to keep and bear firearms is always done under the name of a false sense of security in this messed up quasi-communist state, as well as others.
I said absolutely nothing about new laws or more laws. We have more than we need now.
I also said nothing about someone having or owning guns that uses alchohol, MMJ, or any other drug, legal or otherwise.
Just refering too using one while undr the influence of them. And I said nothing about taking guns or rights away from anyone.
from an idgit coffeeholic
I also said nothing about someone having or owning guns that uses alchohol, MMJ, or any other drug, legal or otherwise.
Just refering too using one while undr the influence of them. And I said nothing about taking guns or rights away from anyone.
from an idgit coffeeholic
OT Warning
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1956issues/G0156.pdf#page=24
I believe there are probably no absolutes in life.
http://www.gunsmagazine.com/1956issues/G0156.pdf#page=24
I know both types of people... stoopit drinkers and those who drink responsibly. Some drink and drive or smoke and drive or both... they also are the types to be more likely to handle firearms while intoxicated. No new laws will stop those fools. No matter what new or enhanced laws and further restrictions are put in place, stoopit people will continue to be stoopit. New laws and restrictions will only limit those who will abide by those laws and there are already enough of those legal limiters to stop people with little common sense but enough respect for laws.
Last edited:
