Ammo For Sale

« « The TSA on transporting firearms | Home | ATF reclassifies ammo components as explosives » »

Court rules those with medical marijuana permits can be denied a gun purchase

ATF form 4473, that you fill out when you buy a gun, asks:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

I would assume that your government giving you permission through your doctor would mean you were not an unlawful user of. But possessing a plant is a federal crime. The 9th circuit court ruled that the .gov can deny you a right because you have permission to own and use a plant.

10 Responses to “Court rules those with medical marijuana permits can be denied a gun purchase”

  1. Beatbox Says:

    Gotta side with the court on this one. It is still “unlawful” at the Federal level, and this is a federal background check.

  2. Divemedic Says:

    This is a good time for cases like this from the antigun standpoint, since there are only 8 SCOTUS justices.

    This is setting the stage for a state versus Fed showdown.

  3. JohnnyDerp Says:

    Oddly enough, the court says purchase is banned, possession is not. If she had acquired guns prior to getting a card, she could keep them

  4. Veeshir Says:

    Since it’s pot related, if it were anything but guns I’m sure the ACLU would be all over.
    But since the 2nd Amendment isn’t in their copy of the Constitution, they’ll be totally uninterested.

  5. The_Jack Says:

    And yet didn’t the 9th also recently rule against the Federal government going after pot use in states were it was legalized despite it still being a federal crime?

    I’m not sure on the details so hence I can’t comment if those two rulings actually are cross-wise.

  6. Fred Says:

    We (TN) are likely to go the med route next year I suspect.

  7. Sigivald Says:

    I would assume that your government giving you permission through your doctor would mean you were not an unlawful user of

    Unlawful under Federal law, which does not have a “doctor’s orders” exemption.

  8. Sigivald Says:

    Johnny – That’s because only sales were in question in this case.

    18 USC 922 (g)(3) also bans possession in the same circumstances, but that was not relevant to the case, so not included.

    (I see the weak spot in the analysis their reliance on a “rational basis” test rather than strict scrutiny – or even intermediate scrutiny.

    That’s pretty weak in this post-Heller world, and a little surprising even for the Ninth.

    “Drug users in general might misuse guns” only passes a rational basis test, not serious scrutiny.

    [Remember, “rational basis” only means “can you make some sort of not-completely-implausible argument”, not “can you actually convince anyone”.])

  9. Linoge Says:

    Yeah… given long-standing federal law on the matter, this isn’t surprising.

  10. Ron W Says:

    Doesn’t it also ask, “Are you in the U.S. Illegally?” Isn’t that discriminatory, xenophobic and “anti-immigrant”? And doesn’t it violate Obama’s illegal executive immigration orders? What is an FFL and the ATF to do?

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives