Do medical marijuana users have right to bear arms? No, says ATF

[Hazcat]

'There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes,' ATF official says

By MATT VOLZ

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.

--SNIP--

The clash between state and federal drug laws has led to lawsuits and criminal cases in some of the 16 states that have legalized medical marijuana use.

Officials in two Oregon counties have said they'll appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after state judges said sheriffs couldn't deny concealed handgun licenses for medical marijuana patients.

The Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court said the state law that authorizes concealed handgun permits is separate from the federal law that outlaws gun possession by drug users, and the state gun law doesn't address medical marijuana use.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44712648/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.ToR9QGEW6eE

More at link

[tombogan03884]

Should be the same standard as for any other prescribed medication.

[Hazcat]

Should be the same standard as for any other prescribed medication.

I agree.  I can see this ruling 'giving' ATF a whole new opening for them to exploit.

[TAB]

Should be the same standard as for any other prescribed medication.

no it shouldn't, its still illegal under federal law.   question 11e asks about pot and other illegal drugs, not just illegal drugs




I was wondering how long it would take for them to do this.

[tt11758]

no it shouldn't, its still illegal under federal law.   question 11e asks about pot and other illegal drugs, not just illegal drugs




I was wondering how long it would take for them to do this.

Just so I understand you, you're saying that if the Feds decide that, Coumadin (as an example) is illegal on the Federal level while it remains legal at the state level, that those who take it should be denied their 2-A rights?

How about Ibuprofen?  Tylenol?  Lasix?

I just want to make sure I'm not mis-characterizing what you're saying.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

 I will grant TAB is correct that the question specifies weed.
An important factor would be whether it says "use" or "abuse". ( I don't remember the specific phrasing )
Use of prescribed substances as directed is not abuse.
Granted, it is weasel wording but turnabout is fair play

[Hazcat]

Exact quote from the 4473...

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

[tombogan03884]

If it's legally prescribed then you are not an illegal user.
It has also been proven that it is not possible to become "addicted" to weed as with tobacco or morphine so the answer again would be no.

[Ichiban]

If it's legally prescribed then you are not an illegal user.

Not according to the feds.  They say it is all illegal.

[Timothy]

Exact quote from the 4473...

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

Regardless of the truth, the correct answer would be no!

Read the 2nd Amendment.  None of these conditions existed in 1787....

no argument from me Haz...but the 4473 form is ludicrous!