ATF: NO Guns/2nd Amendment Rights - If You Use Marijuana Legally Or Illegally (alcohol OK)

[kpete]

"Therefore, any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use of medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition," the memo said.


Feds To Legal Medical Marijuana Patients: You Don’t Have Second Amendment Rights. Period.
September 28th, 2011 By: Allen St. Pierre, NORML Executive Director


The federal government, notably under the current administration, continues to paint itself into a corner politically speaking regarding Mr. Obama’s pre-election promises to ‘fix the problem with medical marijuana’.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) issued a memorandum on September 21 to all gun dealers in the United States for the expressed purpose of informing them that they MUST discriminate against lawful medical cannabis patients and DENY them their Second Amendment right to buy and possess a firearm for hunting and/or personal protection.


http://blog.norml.org/2011/09/28/feds-to-legal-medical-marijuana-patients-you-dont-have-second-amendment-rights-period/

[dionysus]

1. while i agree that this is stupid, who the hell is going to admit they use drugs on their background

check application for buying a firearm?

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Wow. Do you ask diabetics is they 'admit to shooting up drugs'?

Medical Marijuana patients in States with such laws are on record. Here, we pay a sizable fee to the State, and we sign many papers. So the State government is fully aware of who we are, where our plants grow, who is allowed to assist us with all of that. Names, addresses, identification, all on file.
So I do not know all the rules about guns as I do not carry for myself. But it is generally foolish to lie to one bit of government when another bit knows the facts and has paperwork to prove it. It is something no one should be asked about. Alcohol, almost never medically advised, is bought and sold freely to those on their way to shooting events. No id. No fee to the State, just buy, drink, lock and load....

[dionysus]

8. if someone's in a medical program, perhaps there's no choice, otherwise,

offering up that kind of info on a background check for anything is a surefire way to get denied.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. I would also think that if someone

1. signed-up and registered to use MM and

2. signed-up and registered for a weapon permit

then you're probably a LAW-ABIDING citizen and hence least likely to use a firearm for illicit purposes.

The only "rationale" I can imagine is they're saying MM users are more likely to have a mishap. If that were the case then the next "logical" step is to take away drivers licenses, forbid using heavy machinery, etc etc etc

If that is their gambit than they are re-criminalizing something and they are doing it without the blessing of congress.

[dionysus]

14. i agree that it's stupid.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. But it is the language used after 'it is stupid'.

Do you ask a diabetic if they 'admit to shooting up drugs'? Of course not. That would be insanely rude. This is the same. Would you ask a person if they 'admit to being gay'? The word 'admit' implies confession, not simple explanation.
Here is the definition of 'admit' from the 'English for Learners of English' division:
1 : to say usually in an unwilling way that you accept or do not deny the truth or existence of (something).
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/admit

[dionysus]

19. you can reach for something to argue about all you want, but you'll be arguing all by yourself.

:shrug:

[former9thward]

22. They don't have to offer it up.

If they have a MM card that will be on record with the state and come up in the background check.

[krabigirl]

18. You don't need to sign up with the state in ca.

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. I'm not sure those records cross over.

The NICS (the background check system) is run by the FBI. I'm not sure if that system has access to what amounts to a medical record that resides in a state system. It certainly shouldn't, but I don't necessarily trust the Feds not to have strongarmed their way into access. Here in Oregon (are you from up here? Noticed your nick...), state officials are pretty aggressive about telling the Feds to piss off on pot-related matters, so I doubt they'd be happy about sharing our medical marijuana patient info. But they may not have a choice...I'll have to look into this. I'm considering applying for my medical marijuana card (I seem to be developing rheumatoid arthritis...hurts pretty bad sometimes), and while I already have all the guns I'm likely to ever want or need, I don't like the idea of having my constitutional rights screwed with.

[BoWanZi]

2. But if you drink alcohol, feel free to buy as many guns as you can!

[ixion]

3. but feel free to drink booze...

:eyes:

End this stupid drug war now.

[LynneSin]

4. WHO WANTS TO GET DRUNK AND FIRE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS WITH ME???

nuff said

:eyes:

[HappyMe]

6. On Tosh.0 he showed a clip

of a guy in his tighty whiteys, drunk as hell, firing a rifle or shotgun. The 'kick' from it finally knocked him over.



Their twitchiness and paranoia would almost be funny, if it wasn't so stupid.

[socialist_n_TN]

7. Hey just a more overt way to disarm the opposition

to fascist rule. They're REALLY not caring for the pretense of equality anymore.

[KamaAina]

9. "addicted to marijuana"?!

Dudes. 1933 called. It wants its ignorance back.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Shouldn't congress make the laws? I thought I read that somewhere. nt

[Xithras]

23. In this case, the laws and 2/3rds of the states. This is a constitutional issue.

So long as the USSC maintains that 2A rights are personal, this declaration essentially amounts to a beuraucratic government agency arbitrarily deciding to suspend the constitutional rights of American citizens. It's no more constitutional than:

"ATF decides it can search the homes of medical marijuana patients without warrants."
or
"ATF decides that medical marijuana users can no longer blog about their experiences."
or
"ATF decides that medical marijuana users can no longer vote."

Government agencies cannot suspend your constitutional rights, and the USSC affirmed in Columbia v. Heller that personal firearms ownership IS a protected constituional right. While the court has upheld some laws over the years that have suspended gun rights for dangerous individuals after trial, the courts have never (and I suspect would never) support eliminating gun rights without hearing based solely on an action. The ATF cannot simply declare that owning a gun while using a drug is a criminal act.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. concur

I was adamantly pro-gun control until the USSC decisions. Then, as a pro-abortion rights advocate, I realized I had to draw a line that did not shift with my personal preferences.

If the 2A is personal then it is personal and I support it as such and this usurping of congress' authority by bureaucratic fiat is as offensive as it is dangerous for the very scenarios you listed; especially if done by the agency that brought us Fast & Furious with over 200 people killed because they broke their own laws and policies.

[Lurks Often]

27. ATF is not usurping Congress's authority

Marijuana, for medical use or recreational use is illegal under FEDERAL law. The ATF is using Federal law to prevent a user of medical Marijuana from purchasing a firearm.

I don't agree with the ATF and think they should be disbanded and their responsibilities spread to other agencies, but under the current law, they DO have the authority.

[Ter]

28. No, 2nd Amendment supersedes federal law

n/t

[Lurks Often]

31. I wish it were that simple

2nd Amendment rights were routinely violated by cities such as Chicago and Washington DC and nothing was done to fix that for decades.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Completely different aspects of the law

The ATF has a specific mission and that does NOT involve drug law enforcement; EXHIBIT A being the agency's title -- Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Likewise, the DEA has no say on who can or cannot own a gun.

Nothing in federal law says MM users are divested of their 2A rights. People operating under the law cannot be deprived of their right, period. If the feds have a problem with MM laws they are free to take it up in the courts the way the DOJ challenges AZ's immigration law. However, even with a successful challenge a federal agency cannot simply rule who can or cannot exercise a right.

Executive agencies can only enforce laws enacted by the legislature. Separation of powers, checks and balances and all that.

[Lurks Often]

30. You're right, ATF only interprets firearms law (for the purposes of this discussion)

and under Federal law, it is illegal to buy a gun if you are a user of an illegal drug. Currently under Federal law, marijuana is a illegal drug.

As for their 2nd Amendment rights being violated, I agree, however this is going to have to be resolved in the court system unless Congress suddenly legalized marijuana. No gun dealer (FFL) is going to risk his license and the chance of large fines and prison time to fight this.

And 2nd Amendment rights were routinely violated by cities such as Chicago and Washington DC and nothing was done to fix that for decades.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Correction: According to federal law, you cannot use marijuana legally

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. This is 1 of those times I want to join the 10th Amendmenters

If a state OKs it and keeps the production, distribution, sale and use strictly within its state borders than the feds got nuthin'

Good people are being hurt because the feds are too slow, stupid and beholden to Big Pharma to allow valid medications to come to market.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Would it be OK to pay workers in the medical marijuana industry less that the federal minimum wage?

If a state OKs it and keeps the production, distribution, sale and use strictly within its state borders than the feds got nuthin', right?

[jberryhill]

24. No

Doing one illegal thing doesn't exempt you from every other law.

If you rob a bank, you are still liable for federal tax on that income.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. wow. a tough -- and totally fair -- question

that's not easy to answer.

I would say that since the income derived does not stay within the state then laws that touch that income apply, i.e. taxes and minimum wage.

Good point though. I readily admit my initial point is based solely on the desire to see people get the medical care they deserve without regard to the counterpoint you raised.

[kctim]

16. Get it off the controlled substance list

and problem is solved.

[era veteran]

21. I learned to smoke pot from the Federal Govt.

Thanks too, The Army can be pretty boring. We shot all kinds of weapons stoned. You get real good at it too.
They need to look at alcohol long before weed.