U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: US court upholds ban on gun sales to marijuana card holders
Source:
From The Trenches/ABC
URL Source: http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepo ... -marijuana-card-holders/169305
Published: Sep 1, 2016
Author: ABC News
Post Date: 2016-09-01 10:13:01 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 20949
Comments: 88
A federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday. The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court’s jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon. It came in a lawsuit filed by S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada woman who said she tried to buy a firearm for self-defense in 2011 after obtaining a medical marijuana card. The gun store refused, citing the federal rule banning the sale of firearms to illegal drug users. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has told gun sellers they can assume a person with a medical marijuana card uses the drug. The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision said Congress reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.” The court also concluded that it’s reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder was more likely to use the drug. Wilson’s attorney, Chaz Rainey, said there needs to be more consistency in the application of the Second Amendment. He planned to appeal. “We live in a world where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don’t get a gun, but if you’re on the no fly list your constitutional right is still protected,” he said. The 9th Circuit also rejected other constitutional challenges to the ban that were raised by Wilson, including her argument that her gun rights were being stripped without due process. Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the idea that marijuana users were more prone to violence is a fallacy. “Responsible adults who use cannabis in a manner that is compliant with the laws of their states ought to receive the same legal rights and protections as other citizens,” he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-47) not displayed.
.
.
.
#48. To: Gatlin (#40)
I bet had you been around in the 1800's, you would have supported slavery. After all - "The Law is The Law". Putz! Our bat shit potato head thinks the 9th circuit makes laws, an obvious symptom of his insanity. And as usual, he's too chickenshit to defend himself. -- Whatta mensch.
That's very likely. That's NOT very likely. Federal law labels marijuana an illegal "controlled substance." And in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the high court ruled that patients with debilitating diseases who take the drug to relieve their pain would be doing so illegally. "Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.
It is not horseshit. It is a fact that Americans can either use medical marijuana or own a gun. Americans can't legally do both.
Dang, and she was just that close to legalizing pot for menstrual cramps. Imaginary patriot law fails again. It looks like Deckard, Stoner and tpaine will just have to put up with their menstrual cramps. Poor nolu sham, up to his old spamming tricks. As if anyone here gives a shit about "ATF Open Letters".
Who filled your head with SHIT? Yourself?
You mean own slaves like the founding fathers Charles Carroll, Samuel Chase, Benjamin Franklin, Button Gwinnett, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, James Madison, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Benjamin Rush, Edward Rutledge and George Washing did? Asshole!
This is not horseshit:
What was wrong with explicitly owning slaves based on the US Constitution? Today we are implicitly owned as slaves to the US government; we are ALL tax slaves as a ruthless US government attempts a fascist government to create some sort of equality concept. So, your leftist argument is meaningless.
So what? Court rulings do not modify human behaviour in the USA. Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA. Citizens will use marijuana any way they want.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that in an opinion, but his opinion did not change the 2nd Amendment, -- nor did it change any reasonable regulations regarding the use or possession of firearms by 'mentally challenged' individuals. -- If you have any pride left, you'll stop pretending you have me on bozo, and defend your anti-constitutionalism like a man. -- But I'll bet you can't. Under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize any damn thing they want to, --- and to see a so- called conservative accept that unconstitutional opinion makes me sick. Your socialistic slips are sure showing tonite, princess.
Nah, I would have supported laws like this:
Yep, and they can pay the consequences for unlawful use thereof.
I made no argument. I was merely asking a question. And if you want to consider yourself a slave to the U.S. government, then I make no argument against that.
Americans can't legally do both. McCain Republican Gatlin, ready for ISIS, ready to lick Hillary's boots. So what? You are arguing HORSESHIT because court rulings do not modify human behaviour in the USA. Please don't SHIT all over yourself, sarge; as an opinion, yukon won't find you as attractive in the bed.
Are you sure you are up to an all nighter argument? 'Cause you don't know SHIT about the cultivation of God's green acres for FREE. Wanna play w/me?
You are totally correct in this one case, Bucky....there is absolutely nothing that will ever modify your atrocious behavior.
Nah, you can continue to PLAY with YOURSELF! Are you still using that old picture of Hillary?
Sarge ... err, mr. potatoehead, of course you will backdown. You can't backup your own opinions. I have often argued that yukon made you a coward ... of course, you remember the "good ol' days" with that guy, correct?
No, I don't remember. But you have an eternal fascination with them. You constantly have him on your mind.
Not true. You do. Remember, you are the President of the Kanary Klub now that yukon has been isolated into oblivion.
Not true. You do. Check your posts to see how many times you have made reference to Yukon....and then check my posts. You constantly mention Yukon....you let me know if you find that I did one time. Get real...
You took up his banner. You act as though you have emulated his entire fascist agenda. you have emulated yukon well, with your bearing AND weak-kneeded bravadoe to make the claim of being in the Kanary Klub Klan.
Mother Jones - another bastion of conservatism. Save the planet Al Gore! As if anyone here gives a shit about "ATF Open Letters". The Court did in 2011 in Dugan. You would know if you read the Opinions of the real courts. But why bother wen you can just make up your own. In actual application, those imaginary patriot laws will get you every time. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nac/NAC-453.html In Nevada, Marijuana is a state Schedule I controlled substance, found in part 4 between Lysergic acid diethylamide; and Mescaline. United States v. Dugan, 08-15079 (9th Cir. 20 Sept 2011) stated, "we uphold the statute against this Second Amendment challenge." The ATF stated that "if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have 'reasonable cause to believe' that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance," meaning "you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person." Perhaps she could have argued that she has cramps and goes crazy once a month unless she gets stoned. In Wilson, the 9th Circuit stated that, "in Dugan, we held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms, id.. at 999-1000, in the same way that it does not protect the rights of 'felons and the mentally ill,' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27." In light of the existing holding in Dugan, that violating Federal marijuana law by possessession/use made one ineligible to possess firearms, Ms. Wilson argued on appeal that she obtained a Medical Marijuana Card but did not use it. The question in Wilson became whether mere possession of a Medical Marijuana Card was sufficient to make one ineligible to possess firearms. The court said that it was. Wilson at 18-19: Because the degree of fit between 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter and their purpose of preventing gun violence is reasonable but not airtight, these laws will sometimes burden albeit minimally and only incidentally the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are reasonably, but erroneously, suspected of being unlawful drug users. However, the Constitution tolerates these modest collateral burdens in various contexts, and does so here as well. For instance, the Fourth Amendment allows an officer to burden an individual’s right to be free from searches when the officer has “reason to believe” the person is armed and dangerous, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 believe” standard of § 922(d). Moreover, as previously noted, there are various ways for individuals in Wilson’s position to minimize or eliminate altogether the burdens that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter place on their Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter survive intermediate scrutiny, and the district court did not err in dismissing Wilson’s Second Amendment claims.
Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS, as it will be comprised of conservatives nominated by TRUMP. And you can do nothing about it except continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is a LAW. It has been upheld as constitutional within the Second Amendment in five (5) circuits. United States v. Carter, 4th Cir. 12-5045, 750 F.3d 462, 470 (2014) That's the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits that agree and say your patriotic nonsense is just bullshit, so continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you.
S. Rowan Wilson cannot purchase a gun, --- that is the 9th Circuit’s OPINION, -- which is NOT A LAW. Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS, as it will be comprised of conservatives nominated by TRUMP. And you can do nothing about it except continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you. Well, at least your admit that my position on this issue is patriotic... ---- Which makes your position anti-constitutional and UNPATRIOTIC. And as you know, the opinions of ALL those circuit courts are reversible by a conservative SCOTUS, which Trump will nominate.
Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS, as it will be comprised of conservatives nominated by TRUMP. And as you know, a case is not ripe for SCOTUS to grant cert when all the courts below are in agreement and there is no dispute. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is a LAW. It has been upheld as constitutional within the Second Amendment in five (5) circuits. United States v. Carter, 4th Cir. 12-5045, 750 F.3d 462, 470 (2014) That's the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits that agree and say your patriotic nonsense is just bullshit, so continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you. In Wilson, the 9th Circuit stated that, "in Dugan, we held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms, id.. at 999-1000, in the same way that it does not protect the rights of 'felons and the mentally ill,' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27." The court seems to have had you in mind when it considered the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.
For the last several months, your posts have become increasingly erratic, probably due to your realization that Hillary will not win. Do us all a favor, and seek help, before you have a major hissy fit.
I guess that means that you are in favor of those who seek treatment for mental issues such as depression having their second amendment rights stripped away and their guns confiscated. Attaboy Hillary! Does that extend to Veterans with PTSD or just anyone who has sought help from a physician? Get help with your legal arguments and your MPD.
I am in favor of you getting all the help you can get. You have demonstrated your dire need.
Hillary Fun Camps, for those who don't agree with Nolu Scam You WILL be assimilated, comrade! 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is a LAW. It has been upheld as constitutional within the Second Amendment in five (5) circuits by every reviewing court. United States v. Carter, 4th Cir. 12-5045, 750 F.3d 462, 470 (2014) That's the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits that agree and say your patriotic nonsense is just bullshit, so continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you. In Wilson, the 9th Circuit stated that, "in Dugan, we held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms, id.. at 999-1000, in the same way that it does not protect the rights of 'felons and the mentally ill,' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27." That's the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS. Wingnuts, faux patriots, and dopers naturally conclude that every court in five circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court are all wrong. Read imaginary patriot law, rely upon imaginary patriot law, act upon imaginary patriot law regarding the inalienable right to get stoned, and then complain about what the real court does to you. It's the faux patriot way.
The very obstinacy and egoism of you losers as you fail in your argument for a lost cause have not enabled S. Rowan Wilson in any way as a registered illegal drug user to become a weapon owner. Yet you losers will not admit and yield to the obvious as you continue to piss into the wind arguing to no avail. You have proven only one thing while you argued from ignorance….that is that if you continue to piss into the wind, you will continue to get wet.
Owning firearms in the USA is only a "lost cause" to clowns like gatlin. --We will nor allow govt to arbitrarily prohibit gun ownership to those who use 'drugs', -- seeing that nearly ALL of our citizens use one form of drugs or another. Gatlin claims that prohibitive gun control is obvious, and we must yield. -- He is a fool.
The law is the law.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#49. To: Gatlin no (#45)
Bat shit crazy? His head is a potatoe. --- buckeroo
Say what you will. -- But the fact remains that Americans can either use medical marijuana or own a gun....Americans can't legally do both.---- Gatlin
#50. To: Deckard (#46)
Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS
The Supreme Court declined to make an exception that would legalize the medical use of marijuana under federal law.
#51. To: buckeroo (#47)
You are so full of HORSESHIT ...
#52. To: nolu chump (#39)
see also ATF Open Letter (stating that “[t]he Federal government does not recognize marijuana as a medicine”). The fact remains that, by "follow[ing] state laws for the obtainment of treatment for her medical condition," (Resp. 33:12-16), she is pursuing a course of treatment that violates federal law.
#53. To: Gatlin (#51)
It is a fact that Americans can either use medical marijuana or own a gun.
#54. To: Deckard (#48)
#55. To: buckeroo (#53)
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the US Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
#56. To: Gatlin (#54)
You mean own slaves like the founding fathers Charles Carroll, Samuel Chase, Benjamin Franklin, Button Gwinnett, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, James Madison, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Benjamin Rush, Edward Rutledge and George Washing did?
#57. To: Gatlin (#55)
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the US Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
#58. To: Gatlin, any pride left, 'major'? (#50)
(Edited)
Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.
This is not horseshit: ---- Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the US Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
#59. To: Deckard (#48)
I bet had you been around in the 1800's, you would have supported slavery.
Act May 10, 1800, 2 Stat. 70 (prohibits the voluntary service of an American citizen on board of an American or foreign vessel on a voyage commenced with the intent of carrying slaves from one foreign country to another, though no slaves have been received on board.)
#60. To: buckeroo (#57)
Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA. Citizens will use marijuana any way they want.
#61. To: buckeroo (#56)
So, your leftist argument is meaningless.
#62. To: Gatlin, Fineswine Sharia Republican (#51)
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#63. To: Gatlin (#60)
Yep, and they can pay the consequences for unlawful use thereof.
#64. To: buckeroo (#57)
Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.
#65. To: buckeroo (#57)
Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.
#66. To: buckeroo (#57)
Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.
#67. To: buckeroo (#57)
Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.
#68. To: Gatlin (#67)
#69. To: buckeroo (#63)
... because court rulings do not modify human behaviour in the USA.
#70. To: buckeroo (#68)
(Edited)
Wanna play w/me?
#71. To: Gatlin (#70)
#72. To: buckeroo (#71)
of course, you remember the "good ol' days" with that guy, correct?
#73. To: Gatlin (#72)
You constantly have him on your mind.
#74. To: buckeroo (#73)
(Edited)
You constantly have him on your mind.
#75. To: Gatlin (#74)
#76. To: Gatlin (#67)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#77. To: tpaine, Chief Justice of the Imaginary Patriot Court, misterwhite, Gatlin (#52)
Poor nolu sham, up to his old spamming tricks.
Nonetheless, the degree of fit between 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter and the aim of preventing gun violence is still reasonable, which is sufficient to survive intermediate scrutiny. The connection between these laws and that aim requires only one additional logical step: individuals who firearms dealers have reasonable cause to believe are illegal drug users are more likely actually to be illegal drug users (who, in turn, are more likely to be involved with violent crimes). With respect to marijuana registry cards, there may be some small population of individuals who although obtaining a marijuana registry card for medicinal purposes instead hold marijuana registry cards only for expressive purposes. But it is eminently reasonable for federal regulators to assume that a registry cardholder is much more likely to be a marijuana user than an individual who does not hold a registry card.
#78. To: tpaine, Gatlin (#42)
S. Rowan Wilson cannot purchase a gun, --- that is the 9th Circuit’s OPINION, -- which is NOT A LAW.
Finally, we observe that every court to have considered the issue has affirmed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 682 (7th Cir.2010) (per curiam); United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919, 925 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. 252, 260 (10th Cir.2009). Indeed, the majority of these courts found the statute constitutional without relying on any empirical studies. See Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; Seay, 620 F.3d at 925; Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. at 260.
#79. To: nolu chan, y'all (#78)
nolu sham, --- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is a LAW. It has been upheld as constitutional within the Second Amendment in five (5) circuits. ----- "United States v. Carter, 4th Cir. 12-5045, 750 F.3d 462, 470 (2014) --- Finally, we observe that every court to have considered the issue has affirmed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment." ---- That's the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits that agree and say your patriotic nonsense is just bullshit, so continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you.
#80. To: tpaine (#79)
S. Rowan Wilson cannot purchase a gun, --- that is the 9th Circuit’s OPINION, -- which is NOT A LAW.
Finally, we observe that every court to have considered the issue has affirmed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 682 (7th Cir.2010) (per curiam); United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919, 925 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. 252, 260 (10th Cir.2009). Indeed, the majority of these courts found the statute constitutional without relying on any empirical studies. See Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; Seay, 620 F.3d at 925; Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. at 260.
#81. To: nolu sham is severely disturbed, as evidenced by his anti-constitutional postings (#80)
The court seems to have had you in mind when it considered the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.
#82. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#80)
(Edited)
The court seems to have had you in mind when it considered the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#83. To: yukon (#81)
#84. To: Deckard (#82)
I guess that means that you are in favor of those who seek treatment for mental issues
#85. To: Deckard, tpaine, nolu chan, Concentration Camps, no guns 4 u (#82)
The court seems to have had you in mind when it considered the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#86. To: hondo68 (#85)
Finally, we observe that every court to have considered the issue has affirmed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 682 (7th Cir.2010) (per curiam); United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919, 925 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. 252, 260 (10th Cir.2009). Indeed, the majority of these courts found the statute constitutional without relying on any empirical studies. See Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; Seay, 620 F.3d at 925; Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. at 260.
#87. To: ALL (#86)
#88. To: Gatlin, a loser pretending to be a major (#87)
The very obstinacy and egoism of you losers as you fail in your argument for a lost cause have not enabled S. Rowan Wilson in any way as a registered illegal drug user to become a weapon owner.
Yet you losers will not admit and yield to the obvious as you continue to piss into the wind arguing to no avail. You have proven only one thing while you argued from ignorance….that is that if you continue to piss into the wind, you will continue to get wet.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]