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.

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

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.

Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.

Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.

Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.

Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.

Wanna play w/me?

... because court rulings do not modify human behaviour in the USA.

You are totally correct in this one case, Bucky....there is absolutely nothing that will ever modify your atrocious behavior.

Wanna play w/me?

Nah, you can continue to PLAY with YOURSELF!

Are you still using that old picture of Hillary?

I have often argued that yukon made you a coward ... of course, you remember the "good ol' days" with that guy, correct?

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.

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.

You constantly have him on your mind.

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 have emulated yukon well, with your bearing AND weak-kneeded bravadoe to make the claim of being in the Kanary Klub Klan.

Save the planet Al Gore!

Poor nolu sham, up to his old spamming tricks.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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)

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.

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.

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.

The court seems to have had you in mind when it considered the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.

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?

I guess that means that you are in favor of those who seek treatment for mental issues

I am in favor of you getting all the help you can get. You have demonstrated your dire need.

The court seems to have had you in mind when it considered the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.

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)

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.

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.