Jump to content

Trump admin sued over blocking med. marijuana patients gun ownership


InterestedBystander

Recommended Posts

full story at link

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/16/trump-admin-sued-over-rules-blocking-medical-marij/

 

Trump administration sued over rules blocking medical marijuana patients from gun ownership

 

Lawyers for a medical marijuana patient have sued the Trump administration over a federal law that bans licensed firearm dealers from selling guns to people who use the plant in states that permit it.

 

Attorneys representing Dr. Matthew Roman filed the Second Amendment lawsuit in Philadelphia federal court Thursday against the U.S. government and specifically the heads of the Justice Department, FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives seeking reprieve from restrictions preventing tens of thousands of medical marijuana users from legally owning guns.

 

Dr. Roman attempted to purchase a handgun for self-defense from a licensed dealer in April, but he was declined after acknowledging that he uses marijuana in response to a question asked on an ATF background check form, his lawyer wrote.

 

Dr. Roman truthfully answered that he did have a medical cannabis card, and the staff member responded that it was not legal under federal law to have a medical cannabis card and purchase a weapon, according to the lawsuit.

 

Federal law bans licensed firearm dealers from selling to anyone considered an unlawful user of any controlled substance as defined in the U.S. Controlled Substances Act.

The Drug Enforcement Agency, a division of the Justice Department, has categorized marijuana alongside heroin and LSD as a Schedule 1 drug, effectively banning legal pot patients in more than half the country from legally owning guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would like to understand if the person check NO (because he wasn't on medication or had any in his pockets, as I read it use or possession) the STATE would block the sale!

Illinois state needs to be sued as well, but that would take deep pockets.

 

Soon it won't matter. Pot will be legal in the state. People who smoke it are free to buy it and consume without penalty or records to trace the sales. If they choose to deny said use on the Federal form who's going to know or enforce it?

As each state goes rogue on the issue the Federal law will matter less and less to the point where it's meaningless and repeal will be necessary.

 

I don't use the stuff, but freedom means you should have the choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I would like to understand if the person check NO (because he wasn't on medication or had any in his pockets, as I read it use or possession) the STATE would block the sale!

Illinois state needs to be sued as well, but that would take deep pockets.

Soon it won't matter. Pot will be legal in the state. People who smoke it are free to buy it and consume without penalty or records to trace the sales. If they choose to deny said use on the Federal form who's going to know or enforce it?

As each state goes rogue on the issue the Federal law will matter less and less to the point where it's meaningless and repeal will be necessary.

 

I don't use the stuff, but freedom means you should have the choice.

 

 

Tell it to the DOJ. Even if it's legal in Illinois, if you use it, and tell the truth on the NCIS form, you will be denied the sale. That's the reason why this lawsuit is occurring.

 

The DoJ doesn't care about "freedom".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I would like to understand if the person check NO (because he wasn't on medication or had any in his pockets, as I read it use or possession) the STATE would block the sale!

Illinois state needs to be sued as well, but that would take deep pockets.

Soon it won't matter. Pot will be legal in the state. People who smoke it are free to buy it and consume without penalty or records to trace the sales. If they choose to deny said use on the Federal form who's going to know or enforce it?

As each state goes rogue on the issue the Federal law will matter less and less to the point where it's meaningless and repeal will be necessary.

 

I don't use the stuff, but freedom means you should have the choice.

 

 

Sorry your missing the point it DOES matter, if you have a card your screwed by they state, even when it's legal if you have a card already it's another year even if you drop it.

Also even if they pass it first thing in 2019 it'll be 2020 before it really be recreationally illegal.

 

When you option is a daily 50 mic of Fentanyl (Prince died at 68) or cannabis the choice is really not an option.

Possibly die and buy a firearm or not die and not buy a firearm.

 

Illinois is choosing to enforce this Federal law but they don't enforce others i.e. immigration laws.

 

Why does the state (police) have the right to willy nilly decide which federal laws they wish to enforce and which they do not.

I think that's quite different if they give you a warning or not for speeding.

Lets just screw with the people with chronic pain.

 

Also doesn't mean you have a card you've actually used it, that's like calling all women prostitutes because the have a p....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How/why did it ever wind up on a 4473 to begin with? Specifically why do they feel the need to point out MJ?

It was done under Obama to deny as many people as he could their right.

 

 

Form 4473 has been in existence for 49 years. It has undergone minor changes throughout the years until a major change in October 2016, which was necessary to address changes in state laws concerning marijuana usage.

Question #11. e. “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance?” (Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.)

Persons that may have previously been able to purchase firearms are now prohibited because of their marijuana consumption. Just because your state law gives you freedom to smoke “pot” for medicinal or recreational reasons, you’re prohibited from buying a firearm by Federal Law.

https://blog.1800gunsandammo.com/the-history-of-atf-form-4473/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It was done under Obama to deny as many people as he could their right.

 

 

Form 4473 has been in existence for 49 years. It has undergone minor changes throughout the years until a major change in October 2016, which was necessary to address changes in state laws concerning marijuana usage.

Question #11. e. “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance?” (Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.)

Persons that may have previously been able to purchase firearms are now prohibited because of their marijuana consumption. Just because your state law gives you freedom to smoke “pot” for medicinal or recreational reasons, you’re prohibited from buying a firearm by Federal Law.

https://blog.1800gunsandammo.com/the-history-of-atf-form-4473/

 

That sounds as silly as putting a sticker on a window and expecting a crime free place. Of course they weren't doing the MJ before the laws came in to place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How/why did it ever wind up on a 4473 to begin with? Specifically why do they feel the need to point out MJ?

 

It was done under Obama to deny as many people as he could their right.

 

Form 4473 has been in existence for 49 years. It has undergone minor changes throughout the years until a major change in October 2016, which was necessary to address changes in state laws concerning marijuana usage.[/size]

Question #11. e. “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance?” (Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.)

Persons that may have previously been able to purchase firearms are now prohibited because of their marijuana consumption. Just because your state law gives you freedom to smoke “pot” for medicinal or recreational reasons, you’re prohibited from buying a firearm by Federal Law.

https://blog.1800gunsandammo.com/the-history-of-atf-form-4473/

 

Jeffrey asked was why the question about marijuana included in form 4473. My answer was correct, it was done by the ATF under the Obama administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How/why did it ever wind up on a 4473 to begin with? Specifically why do they feel the need to point out MJ?
It was done under Obama to deny as many people as he could their right.

 

Form 4473 has been in existence for 49 years. It has undergone minor changes throughout the years until a major change in October 2016, which was necessary to address changes in state laws concerning marijuana usage.[/size]Question #11. e. “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance?” (Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.)Persons that may have previously been able to purchase firearms are now prohibited because of their marijuana consumption. Just because your state law gives you freedom to smoke “pot” for medicinal or recreational reasons, you’re prohibited from buying a firearm by Federal Law.
https://blog.1800gunsandammo.com/the-history-of-atf-form-4473/

 

You misunderstood the question. Jeffrey asked why was the question about marijuana included in form 4473. My answer was correct, it was done by the ATF under the Obama administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would like to understand if the person check NO (because he wasn't on medication or had any in his pockets, as I read it use or possession) the STATE would block the sale!

Illinois state needs to be sued as well, but that would take deep pockets.

I don't think Illinois would block the sale. They do issue CCLs to medical marijuana users.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What I would like to understand if the person check NO (because he wasn't on medication or had any in his pockets, as I read it use or possession) the STATE would block the sale!

Illinois state needs to be sued as well, but that would take deep pockets.

I don't think Illinois would block the sale. They do issue CCLs to medical marijuana users.

 

Illinois will allow private sales if you have the medical card but they do report you to the federal database as prohibited. You will be denied if an FFL runs a FTIP on you but you will come back valid on a FOID check..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What I would like to understand if the person check NO (because he wasn't on medication or had any in his pockets, as I read it use or possession) the STATE would block the sale!

Illinois state needs to be sued as well, but that would take deep pockets.

I don't think Illinois would block the sale. They do issue CCLs to medical marijuana users.

 

Illinois will allow private sales if you have the medical card but they do report you to the federal database as prohibited. You will be denied if an FFL runs a FTIP on you but you will come back valid on a FOID check..

 

 

Bingo! That's ... If the state police need something to do, they should enforce federal Immigration laws. No picking and choosing which laws to enforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What I would like to understand if the person check NO (because he wasn't on medication or had any in his pockets, as I read it use or possession) the STATE would block the sale!

Illinois state needs to be sued as well, but that would take deep pockets.

Soon it won't matter. Pot will be legal in the state. People who smoke it are free to buy it and consume without penalty or records to trace the sales. If they choose to deny said use on the Federal form who's going to know or enforce it?

As each state goes rogue on the issue the Federal law will matter less and less to the point where it's meaningless and repeal will be necessary.

 

I don't use the stuff, but freedom means you should have the choice.

 

 

Sorry your missing the point it DOES matter, if you have a card your screwed by they state, even when it's legal if you have a card already it's another year even if you drop it.

Also even if they pass it first thing in 2019 it'll be 2020 before it really be recreationally illegal.

 

When you option is a daily 50 mic of Fentanyl (Prince died at 68) or cannabis the choice is really not an option.

Possibly die and buy a firearm or not die and not buy a firearm.

 

Illinois is choosing to enforce this Federal law but they don't enforce others i.e. immigration laws.

 

Why does the state (police) have the right to willy nilly decide which federal laws they wish to enforce and which they do not.

I think that's quite different if they give you a warning or not for speeding.

Lets just screw with the people with chronic pain.

 

Also doesn't mean you have a card you've actually used it, that's like calling all women prostitutes because the have a p....

 

I said, SOON it won't matter. Once the state says pot is legal for recreational use having a medical pot card becomes unnecessary. So while it's an issue today for carded MMJ users, eventually, there won't be a problem when they can just go into the corner stop 'n rob for a tank of gas and some medicine. At that point it becomes your business only what you do behind closed doors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 4473 is a federal form. Correct? Marijuana is an illegal substance according to federal law. Correct? The form asks if you're an unlawful user of drugs under federal law. If you answer in the affirmative, you're admitting that you're breaking the law. If you lie on the form, you're breaking the law.

 

The form even says on page 2 that if you answer "yes" to questions 11b-11i you're prohibited from purchasing a firearm. The marijuana question is 11e.

 

It seems to me the doctor is suing the wrong entity. The ATF and the Trump Administration are enforcing federal law. The lawsuit ought to be against the United States to have the law declared unconstitutional. Honestly, I can't see any court doing that. A conservative judge doesn't like drugs. A liberal judge doesn't like guns. Everybody has more than enough incentive to keep the law as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deal is no matter what a state does, marijuana is classified by the federal law in such a way that you can't have it legally. You will have to change the federal law to change anything. Right now there appears to be no inclination to do so. It is NOT the state that is the problem. it is the feds. AND in this case, the federal law takes precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deal is no matter what a state does, marijuana is classified by the federal law in such a way that you can't have it legally.

 

That to me is the issue, I can't see any court overturning the question on the 4473 while the Federal prohibition stands as the law, the lawsuit should instead be targeting the Federal prohibition on the medical use of marijuana denying them the right.

 

I'm pro-legalization of marijuana and several other prohibited substances so they can be regulated and taxed with that money being used for education and recovery, but until that happens the fact that a State has chosen to not enforce the Federal prohibition does not make the drug legal, in fact it irks me when people call say a State legalized marijuana because they did no such thing, you can still be arrested and tossed in jail for its use if a Federal agency gets a bug up their butt and ignores the mostly turn a blind eye handshake agreement with States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question has been on the 4473 for a long time. The only change is they added the verbiage about it still being unlawful regardless of whether it was legalized by a state.

 

There is no "legal MJ" in the US, regardless of whether a state chooses to remove their criminal penalties.

 

The whole situation has become out of control, when we have numerous states in open defiance of federal law.

 

Everyone knows darn well that if some state legalized machine guns and started giving out machine gun licenses, that the feds would swoop in in force and everyone would go to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 4473 is a federal form. Correct? Marijuana is an illegal substance according to federal law. Correct? The form asks if you're an unlawful user of drugs under federal law. If you answer in the affirmative, you're admitting that you're breaking the law. If you lie on the form, you're breaking the law.

 

The form even says on page 2 that if you answer "yes" to questions 11b-11i you're prohibited from purchasing a firearm. The marijuana question is 11e.

 

It seems to me the doctor is suing the wrong entity. The ATF and the Trump Administration are enforcing federal law. The lawsuit ought to be against the United States to have the law declared unconstitutional. Honestly, I can't see any court doing that. A conservative judge doesn't like drugs. A liberal judge doesn't like guns. Everybody has more than enough incentive to keep the law as it is.

 

Thread winner.

 

I agree, the lawsuit will go nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just make sure to pay cash when the shops open up.

 

I believe all shops only take cash.

 

 

It's a cash business....

 

Am I user of, nope gave it up.

Am in possession of, nope nothing in my pockets.

That would be NO in the checkbox.

A license alone actually proves nothing, the state police need to bug-off or start enforcing Federal illegal immigration laws as well.

 

Should Cannabis should be legal for medical.

This is where people who haven't walked in those moccasins should shut the F up, try real pain from the moment you wake up until you try to sleep.

Can I go on Disability, absolutely but I'm not.

 

BUT

Cannabis is like getting a prescription from your doctor for a capsule, what's in it is "somewhat" the same and how much it's filled is often different.

That's why it needs to come off the Class 3 and the pharmacy crooks need to regulate it.

You can't OD on MJ, that's not the same for Fentanyl (or any of the sissy opioids) ask MJ or Prince.

 

People using it for pain have a real incentive to figure it out, you build a tolerance to the THC, it's the balance of loosing the pain but keeping the senses... (this is not simple)

For recreational look out, a lot of people are going to be driving slower and leaving a lot more space between their cars. (also laughing a lot)

 

As for a gateway drug, I've never seen the poll on how many addicts ever had a drink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Just make sure to pay cash when the shops open up.

 

I believe all shops only take cash.

 

 

You can't OD on MJ, that's not the same for Fentanyl (or any of the sissy opioids) ask MJ or Prince.

 

 

That's not entirely correct. It's possible to consume lethal amounts of just about anything including cannabis, it's just very impractical to actually do it.

 

I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, just that I've always viewed the 'you can't OD on MJ' argument as sounding a lot like "you can hunt with an AR too" - i.e. the argument shouldn't be "it's safe therefore should be legal" it should be "there's no constitutional justification for the government to ban this substance at all, therefore it should be legal".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You can't OD on MJ, that's not the same for Fentanyl (or any of the sissy opioids) ask MJ or Prince.

 

 

That's not entirely correct. It's possible to consume lethal amounts of just about anything including cannabis, it's just very impractical to actually do it.

 

I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, just that I've always viewed the 'you can't OD on MJ' argument as sounding a lot like "you can hunt with an AR too" - i.e. the argument shouldn't be "it's safe therefore should be legal" it should be "there's no constitutional justification for the government to ban this substance at all, therefore it should be legal".

 

Like water and it has proven on several occasions to be lethal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

You can't OD on MJ, that's not the same for Fentanyl (or any of the sissy opioids) ask MJ or Prince.

 

 

That's not entirely correct. It's possible to consume lethal amounts of just about anything including cannabis, it's just very impractical to actually do it.

 

I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, just that I've always viewed the 'you can't OD on MJ' argument as sounding a lot like "you can hunt with an AR too" - i.e. the argument shouldn't be "it's safe therefore should be legal" it should be "there's no constitutional justification for the government to ban this substance at all, therefore it should be legal".

 

Like water and it has proven on several occasions to be lethal.

 

 

Exactly, though any ingestion method short of being suba'd up to a tank of condensed weed smoke probably won't be able to deliver a practical lethal dose. I mean seriously, how could you overdose on mj?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...