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: 25830
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 84.
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
And this is from the 9th Circuit. Never thought they'd get it right.
Figures that you'd side with a liberal court. No doubt you are in favor of infringing on the second amendment rights of alcohol users as well, or maybe anyone who has a prescription for any kind of pharmaceutical pain medications.
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.”'
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.”' I don’t find that quote in the 9th CoA 29-page decision: Perhaps the author used quotation marks to convey emphasis. In any case, the 9th CoA held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms. Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint challenging the federal statutes, regulations, and guidance that prevented plaintiff from buying a gun because she possesses a Nevada medical marijuana registry card. The panel preliminarily held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which criminalizes possession or receipt of a firearm by an unlawful drug user or a person addicted to a controlled substance. Plaintiff had not alleged that she was an unlawful drug user or that she was addicted to any controlled substance. Nor had she alleged that she possessed or received a firearm. The panel further held that plaintiff’s remaining claims were not moot because she represented that she has routinely renewed her registry card. The panel held that plaintiff’s Second Amendment claims did not fall within the direct scope of United States v. Dugan, 657 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2011), which held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms. Taking plaintiff’s allegations in her first amended complaint as true – that she chose not to use medical marijuana – the panel concluded that plaintiff was not actually an unlawful drug user. The panel held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to federal firearms licensees, which prevented plaintiff from purchasing a firearm, directly burdened plaintiff’s core Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel nevertheless held that the fit between the challenged provisions and the Government’s substantial interest of violence prevention was reasonable, and therefore the district court did not err by dismissing the Second Amendment claim. The panel rejected plaintiff’s claims that the challenged laws and Open Letter violated the First Amendment. The panel held that any burden the Government’s anti-marijuana and anti-gun-violence efforts placed on plaintiff’s expressive conduct was incidental, and that the Open Letter survived intermediate scrutiny. The panel held that the challenged laws and Open Letter neither violated plaintiff’s procedural due process rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nor violated the Equal Protection Clause as incorporated into the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in simultaneously 4 WILSON V. LYNCH holding a registry card and purchasing a firearm, nor was she a part of suspect or quasi-suspect class. Finally, rejecting the claim brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, the panel agreed with the district court that the Open Letter was a textbook interpretative rule and that it was exempt from the Act’s notice-and-comment procedures.
Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users". Furthermore, those who consume marijuana recreationally in a state where such activity is legal are not breaking the law. You and the other statist clown here supporting this infringement of second amendment rights are indeed traitors, as tpaine has noted above.
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.
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!
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 " ?
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).
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.
Please try to make it clear that I am not among the "YOU" clowns that you're posting about.. But thanks for the ping...
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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 am in favor of you getting all the help you can get. You have demonstrated your dire need.
There are no replies to Comment # 84. End Trace Mode for Comment # 84.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: misterwhite, tpaine, ConservingFreedom (#1)
And this is from the 9th Circuit. Never thought they'd get it right.
#3. To: Deckard (#2)
"No doubt you are in favor of infringing on the second amendment rights of alcohol users as well, or maybe anyone who has a prescription for any kind of pharmaceutical pain medications."
#4. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#3)
The federal law bans the sale of firearms to illegal drug users. It says nothing about alcohol or prescription drugs.
#8. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite, Deckard (#4)
The federal law bans the sale of firearms to illegal drug users. It says nothing about alcohol or prescription drugs.
S. ROWAN WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General; BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES; B. TODD JONES, as Acting Director of U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; ARTHUR HERBERT, as Assistant Director of U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants- Appellees.
WILSON V. LYNCH SUMMARY
The suit and the decision was all about unlawful drug users. It was not about lawful and legal alcohol and prescription drug users.
#9. To: Gatlin (#8)
(Edited)
The suit and the decision was all about unlawful drug users. It was not about lawful and legal alcohol and prescription drug users.
#19. To: Deckard (#9)
Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users".
#20. To: Gatlin, buckeroo, tpaine, Deckard, *Bang List* (#19)
federal law and a federal restriction on the purchase of a gun
#22. To: hondo68 (#20)
(Edited)
" federal law and a federal restriction on the purchase of a gun
#26. To: Stoner, hondo68, Gatlin (#22)
Since the Second Amendment prohibits infringements, I have to wonder why they ( The Fed's & their cheerleaders ) think they can infringe?
#27. To: nolu chan (#26)
#32. To: Gatlin, nolu chan, misterwhite, tpaine (#27)
Unfortunately some folks become so Second Amendment radicalized that they are unable to understand laws rationally.
#33. To: Deckard (#32)
#35. To: tpaine (#33)
(Edited)
Please try to make it clear that I am not among the "YOU" clowns that you're posting about..
#37. To: Deckard (#35)
Now the court comes out with an obvious second amendment infringement ...
#42. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#37)
(Edited)
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.
#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.
#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.
#84. To: Deckard (#82)
I guess that means that you are in favor of those who seek treatment for mental issues
Replies to Comment # 84.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]