"Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users".

They are to the federal government, and the federal government does the background check. Obviously, smoking dope is more important to these people than owning a gun. Their choice.

"Furthermore, those who consume marijuana recreationally in a state where such activity is legal are not breaking the law."

They're breaking federal law -- which is currently not being enforced by Obama.

Anyone that supports this court OPINION is engaging in an anti- constitutional activity, and should be treated as an enemy of our republic.

Gatlin and misterwhite have finally outed themselves as 'domestic enemies'....

Our forefathers never figured we needed unlimited amounts of weed to protect us from government tyranny.

Yeah, but they loved to get drunk with rum and whiskey!

The federal law bans the sale of firearms to illegal drug users. It says nothing about alcohol or prescription drugs.

But the court did: '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.”'

Nope, the court did not. The decision states nothing about alcohol or prescription drugs. It only addresses “marijuana” users and other “illegal drug” users. Alcohol and prescription drugs are not “illegal drugs.

Read it again:

It may be argued that medical marijuana users are less likely to commit violent crimes, as they often suffer from debilitating illnesses, for which marijuana may be an effective palliative. They also may be less likely than other illegal drug users to interact with law enforcement officers or make purchases through illicit channels. But those hypotheses are not sufficient to overcome Congress’s reasonable conclusion that the use of such drugs raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.

Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users".

They are "illegal drug users" when talking about a federal law and a federal restriction on the purchase of a gun.

You can't spin the law to fit your personal agenda....no matter how hard you try.

federal law and a federal restriction on the purchase of a gun

There are none, you're imagining things. The Second Amendment prohibits any infringements whatsoever on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Are you drunk and high, or what? If you think that you've got enough of a buzz going on, COME AND TAKE THEM!

" federal law and a federal restriction on the purchase of a gun

There are none, you're imagining things. The Second Amendment prohibits any infringements whatsoever on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. "

Since the Second Amendment prohibits infringements, I have to wonder why they ( The Fed's & their cheerleaders ) think they can infringe?

Is it simply because " We say so " ?

When the Persian armies demanded that the Greeks surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae, King Leonidas I responded with this phrase. The Greek contingent held out for three days and then the Persian army TOOK THEIR WEAPONS.

“COME AND GET THEM!”

So much for that shitty motto….eh?

You really should try to understand what you copy and paste before you just copy and paste because it “looks or sounds good.”.

Alcohol and prescription drugs are not “illegal drugs. --- Gatlin posted

Deckard --- Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users".

They are "illegal drug users" when talking about a federal law and a federal restriction on the purchase of a gun. --- gatlin

Says gatlin, spinning the facts of 'the law' to suit his anti- constitutional agenda.

He should be ashamed, -- IF HE WAS AN AIR FORCE OFFICER. Obviously, he was not....

Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users".

Wilson v. Lynch, 14-15700 (9th Cir. 31 Aug 2016) serves to directly repudiate the drunk and stoned patriot claim to an inalienable right to drive and to keep and bear arms while drunk and/or stoned.

Since the Second Amendment prohibits infringements, I have to wonder why they ( The Fed's & their cheerleaders ) think they can infringe?

The First Amendment does not protect one who shouts FIRE! in a crowded theater.

The Second Amendment does not protect one who is a registered doper and user of illegal psychoactive drugs. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

doper[s] and user[s] of illegal psychoactive drugs

An apt description of the 9th Circuit Court. Probably drunk too!

The Second Amendment prohibits any infringements whatsoever on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Since the Second Amendment prohibits infringements, I have to wonder why they ( The Fed's & their cheerleaders ) think they can infringe? ----! Is it simply because " We say so " --- Stoner

The Second Amendment does not protect one who is a registered doper and user of illegal psychoactive drugs. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). --- nolu chan

Nolu Chants "WE SAY SO".

"WE" comprising all the majority rule socialists like him.

To: nolu chan (#26)

Unfortunately some folks become so Second Amendment radicalized that they are unable to understand laws rationally.

Gatlin

Unfortunately some folks become so Second Amendment pussywhipped that they are unable to understand the supreme law of the land rationally.

Unfortunately some folks become so Second Amendment radicalized that they are unable to understand laws rationally.

What's ironic is the so-called conservatives here siding with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguably the most liberal body of judges in America.

You and the other clowns here fail to realize that this court is NOT concerned about marijuana users - this is a blatant end-run around the constitution.

Apparently "shall not be infringed" is just a punchline for you and the other statist gun-grabbers here.

But thanks for the ping...

Apparently "shall not be infringed" is just a punchline …

It is no punchline. But it is also not an unlimited right.

Justice Scalia wrote on the Second Amendment not being an unlimited right: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…”

Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. Federal law prohibits possession of firearms by any “unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance,”

You can stamp your little feet, scream, cry and roll around the floor all you want to….but that will not change the laws.

Please try to make it clear that I am not among the "YOU" clowns that you're posting about..

Was not my intention to include you among the statists.

I hope you know that by now.

Those here who claim that federal law trumps state law are out of their minds, or worse - unwitting dupes for a liberal court.

On every other ruling by this particular court, the same three or four posters would decry the decision as liberal.

Now the court comes out with an obvious second amendment infringement and all of a sudden the 9th is making a constitutional ruling - at least according to the shrill, shrieking canary clan.

They fail to realize that this is simply another attempt to ban guns.

Backdoor Disarmament: “Banning Sale of Firearms To Medical Marijuana Card Holders”

Editor’s Comment: I have often wondered if/when the softening on the War on Drugs would be used as a weapon of disarmament. This is an interesting ploy by the feds to use the move towards decriminalizing marijuana as a means of barring Second Amendment lovers from purchasing guns – since it will be argued that marijuana introduces a dangerous or ‘irrational and unpredictable’ element. Of course, they don’t ban alcoholics or prescription pill poppers from purchasing weapons, but I’m sure that many people would be interested in doing so if they could.

The rise of Obamacare has also institutionalized medical snitching on patients. Whereas their data and personal information were once held sacred, today they are precious fragments in the age of data analysis, and federal reporting. If/when mental health patients confess to certain trigger words (i.e. feeling angry, violent, suicidal, anti-government, depressed, etc), doctors will flag patients as potentially dangerous. Felons are barred from purchasing, and that category is likely to expand – in the name of Sandy Hook, the Pulse nightclub and whatever else they roll out on the table.

Doctors have been encouraged by executive order to ask patients about guns… and no doubt keep records on this special category of patients. Likewise, admitting to drug use (as one does by signing up for a medical marijuana list-database) will be used to flag patients as potentially unstable, dangerous and/or otherwise unfit for owning a gun.

Put those altogether, and there is some pretty ripe potential for abuse, and broad platform to keep a wide gulf between the 2nd Amendment and the world that the U.S. population lives in – one that government sees as sick and needy, and in need of stern supervision and social intervention. This is the beginning of the bureaucratic end of our freedoms.

Now the court comes out with an obvious second amendment infringement ...

That is your opinion, and you are entitled to that. But your opinion is just that….your opinion.

Your opinion does not do diddly squat to let S. Rowan Wilson purchase a gun, while the 9th Circuit’s ruling does prevent her for purchasing a gun.

That is the way it is….the law is the law.

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.

Have at it ...

Your opinion does not do diddly squat to let S. Rowan Wilson purchase a gun, while the 9th Circuit’s ruling does prevent her for purchasing a gun.

That is the way it is….the law is the law.

The point is - you are supporting a liberal court ruling that gun grabbers agree with.

What does that say about you?

What's ironic is the so-called conservatives here siding with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguably the most liberal body of judges in America.

You and the other clowns here fail to realize that this court is NOT concerned about marijuana users - this is a blatant end-run around the constitution.

Apparently "shall not be infringed" is just a punchline for you and the other statist gun-grabbers here.

Wilson v. Holder, DCNV 2-11-cv-1679 (ORDER)

At 24:

The relevant portion of the Fifth Amendment provides that “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. V. To successfully allege a procedural due process claim, plaintiffs must provide sufficient facts establishing the plausible existence of two elements: “(1) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate procedural protections.” Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court need not reach the second element because Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants deprived her of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (holding that adequate procedural protections are required only when the plaintiff has been deprived of a liberty or property interest).

In her opposition brief, Plaintiff first asserts that “[t]he United States Constitution requires that whenever a governmental body acts to injure an individual, that act must be consonant with due process of law.” (Resp. 30:17–18, ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff concludes that Defendants’ determination that those persons that possess a registry card fit the definition of an “unlawful user of a controlled substance” deprives her of a right without adequate procedure. (Id. at 31:14–22.) However, Plaintiff fails to recognize that she must articulate a “constitutionally protected liberty or property interest” before her procedural due process claim may proceed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s discussion of any procedural inadequacies is insufficient to defeat Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Because Plaintiff cannot identify a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, she cannot state a procedural due process claim and the Court must dismiss her claim with prejudice.

At 26:

However, although the use of marijuana for medical purposes may not violate Nevada state law, this same use is still prohibited under federal law. See e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (prohibiting possession of controlled substances); 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.

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.

If you don't like it, then work to get it changed.

Pissing and moaning on LF is only pissing and moaning on LF....it will do nothing to change the situation.

Use Medical Marijuana or Own a Gun? Americans Can't Do Both.

The law is the law.

The law is a method of creating/extracting revenue streams. For government, revenue streams are called taxation or borrowing. Laws do little else; as an example: laws do not modify "common sense" or morality or ethical behaviour.

But, you knew that.

Your opinion does not do diddly squat to let S. Rowan Wilson purchase a gun, while the 9th Circuit’s ruling does prevent her for purchasing a gun.

That is the way it is….the law is the law.

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.

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.

However, if Hillary wins, you may get your socialistic wish, and gun control will become more strict. -- Be proud of your anti-constitutionalism, you pitiful boot licker.

Use Medical Marijuana or Own a Gun? Americans Can't Do Both

This so-called man is bat-shit crazy. (and I have never used medical marijuana, -- never will)

But the fact remains that Americans can either use medical marijuana or own a gun....Americans can't legally do both.

Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS

That's very likely.

Ninth Circuit Leading the Pack for ‘Most Reversed’

But the fact remains that Americans can either use medical marijuana or own a gun....Americans can't legally do both.

You are so full of HORSESHIT, you should get the fuck outta here and go back to the farm picking potatoes.

The law is the law.

I bet had you been around in the 1800's, you would have supported slavery.

After all - "The Law is The Law".

Putz!

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

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.

Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS

That's very likely.

That's NOT very likely.

The Supreme Court declined to make an exception that would legalize the medical use of marijuana under federal law.

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.

You are so full of HORSESHIT ...

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.

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.

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".

It is a fact that Americans can either use medical marijuana or own a gun.

Who filled your head with SHIT? Yourself?

Asshole!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.

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.

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.

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.

I bet had you been around in the 1800's, you would have supported slavery.

Nah, I would have supported laws like this:

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.)

Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA. Citizens will use marijuana any way they want.

Yep, and they can pay the consequences for unlawful use thereof.

So, your leftist argument is meaningless.

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.