From the Miami Herald:

HELENA, Mont. — Firearms dealers in states that allow medical marijuana can’t sell guns or ammunition to registered users of the drug, a policy that marijuana and gun-rights groups say denies Second Amendment rights to individuals who are following state law.

Federal law already makes it illegal for someone to possess a gun if he or she is “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” marijuana or other controlled substances. A Sept. 21 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, issued in response to numerous inquiries from gun dealers, clarifies that medical marijuana patients are included in that definition.

“There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law,” said the letter by Arthur Herbert, the ATF’s assistant director for enforcement programs and services.

Guns rights enthusiasts should be hopping mad over this ruling.  Do people who use alcohol give up their gun rights?  How about people on strong pain medication?  This seems like people using medical marijuana are going asked to give up a great deal of personal safety.  This ruling, like many, simply encourage lying and dishonesty. 

How soon before public squawking gets this ruling overturned?  I give it 2 weeks.  Arthur Herbert isn’t going to even want his job when the NRA gets through with him. 

16 Thoughts to “No Gun Rights for Medical Marijuana Users”

  1. Slowpoke Rodriguez

    Last I checked, Marijuana doesn’t make you want to shoot people….it makes you want to sit very still and giggle occasionally. For some reason it also makes you think that Pink Floyd is actually the voice of God (not sure why). This sounds more like a pissing contest between Feds and States than anything having to do with reducing violent crime. I’ve heard of “mean drunks”….I’ve never heard of “mean stoners”.

  2. Earthquake dime. Agree with pokie.

  3. punchak

    Moon-howler :Earthquake dime. Agree with pokie.

    Same here! Earthquake time!

  4. Ray Beverage

    Speaking of “Mary Jane”, interesting piece in WaPo today of the move to allow medical marijuana for Veterans with PTSD. The FDA approved the study to do the test, but HHS says no.

    Funny thing is, for Military Cancer Patients, the medical use was approved years, and years, and years ago.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/marijuana-study-of-traumatized-veterans-stuck-in-regulatory-limbo/2011/09/30/gIQAZfYLDL_story.html?hpid=z11

    1. @Ray, why the inconsistencies? How far off are we from decriminalizing MJ? I wonder what will come first? Legalizing mj or the courts allowing for gay civil unions?

  5. Steve Thomas

    Just my thoughts: On both the VA state and the Federal form, you must answer the question “Do you use illegal drugs?”. If you are a medical marajuana user, you may answer truthfully on the state form (assuming states that allow medical marijuana use), but you would perjur yourself on the Federal form, because the Feds do not recognize legal use of marijuana. If I were a gun dealer, I wouldn’t want to run afoul of the ATF, by selling to known marijuana users, legal or otherwise. If you have been following the whole Operation Fast & Furious debacle, you would know that the ATF doesn’t utilize common sense much these days, and even went so far as to attempt to make the cooperating gun-dealers the fall-guys. I would adhere to the letter of the law, as it would be my only defense if I got hauled into court for selling a firearm to a registered medical marijuana user.

    1. Did ATF ever use common sense? Last I read anything about them they kept all their records in shoe boxes. Have they at least gotten computers?

  6. marinm

    I don’t have an issue with a person under a doctors care for a condition having access to a firearm.

    I think this is a clear cut civil rights issue.

  7. Ray Beverage

    @Moon-howler

    HHS has issues with the nonprofit proposing the study, but won’t say what they are. Now toss in the National Institute for Drug Abuse who controls the supply for research, and it is just more and more government baliwick.

    Typical govenment in my mind. Like I wrote once here on the homeless issue – there are 19 government agencies/entities who form the Interagency Council on Homelessness and 19 sets of rules and 19 budgets.

    Personally I support the research. Funny part is, most bulk tobacco sold has THC in it and all the tobacco is legal. As to when we decriminalize, only heaven knows that one.

  8. @marinm

    I would say I agree if that condition or its treatment doesn’t lead to impairment.

    On the other hand I don’t want a person taking bendryl even driving a car. I can fall asleep standing up while taking that stuff.

  9. Ray, provide some background for what you are saying. Speaking for myself only, I am missing something here.

    re the study

  10. marinm

    @Moon-howler

    If you take benedryl, drive a car and hurt someone. You are responsible and accountable for that action. Same thing here. Assuming that someone gets stoned and then somehow shoots someone in an unlawful way (we’re assuming here that it wasn’t self defense) they’ll be charged for their crime.

    So, I don’t see medical MJ being different from aspirin, xanax, percocet or whatever.

    But, I don’t think NRA will take up this cause. I think it’ll be SAF or GOA.

  11. Steve Thomas

    I am not so much worried about the patient/user side of the equation. It’s the Gub’ment that think is at issue in this whole scenario. Agree with those here that believe that if the user is under the care of a physician, and the THC is perscribed, the delivery system shouldn’t matter. There are lot’s of controled substances, like Oxycontin that are legally perscribed, and legally used, which have no impact on one’s right to keep and bear arms, and this should be no different. What is at issue is the States have rights to pass certain laws for their citizens in some areas, and in others the state’s law is trumped by Federal law. Since the Second Ammendment appears in the Bill of Rights, I do believe that the Fed has a duty to protect this right. However, in this case, they are restricting that right. The basis: the oft abused interstate commerce clause. Also, they claim jurisdiction over the drugs, in this case Marijuana. Legal in many states if used for “medical purposes”, but illegal under any circumstances by Federal law. Tough nut to sort out.

    1. It seems to me that we are all moving towards the unspeakable– decriminalizing pot.

      Steve, did you watch Prohibition?

  12. Cargosuid

    The gun bloggers are discussing this. Their attitude is that answering no is correct. Medical mary jane is legal in those states. And the states decide the gun laws. BUT, they also consider the ATF to be a corrupt, incompetent, and unconstitutional organization.

  13. Finally a post that I agree with you guys on!! 🙂

    I’m with MarvinM, I think this is a clear cut civil rights issue and as Slowpoke said, it’s a pissing match between the states and the ATF. In short, if a person is mentally capable and able, they should have access to self defense. Should a person make bad decisions while on their treatments, they will (should) be punished accordingly, much like texting and driving, DWI, etc. However, just because one partakes in those activities shouldn’t preclude them the right to protect life and property.

Comments are closed.