It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court rules a medical marijuana card is a legal reason to deny a gun purchase

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Seems like it would be an easy policy to get around if you have a spouse, or at least, another person residing at your residents.

If the cops ever come knocking... then the weed belongs to the legal medical card holder and the guns belong to the lawful gun owner... problem solved!




posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Aazadan

Seems like it would be an easy policy to get around if you have a spouse, or at least, another person residing at your residents.

If the cops ever come knocking... then the weed belongs to the legal medical card holder and the guns belong to the lawful gun owner... problem solved!




Then they will say you are not allowed to have a gun on the premises.

So.......... Don't get a card, and don't tell the government your business. Here in Cali some people still have cards, but in my city, you can grow 12 plants, 6 plants after sexing them, with no card or registration whatsoever. The Police wont go to your house unless you have over 100 plants and are stinking up the neighborhood.

People grow monster giant plants here, some over 10 lbs of dry flowers from one plant, So people should just grow their 60 lbs in their back yard, without a card, and shut up about it



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Well and today the WHO just made video game addiction a mental illness, so 90% of millenials will soon be legislated out of their 2nd amendment.

Its all so damn obvious



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
I figured this was coming. This was a Democratic initiative I think. They can do it, same if you are on medications that can cause certain psychological side effects. I do not know what to think about this change, I feel this ruling is going to be used as precedence to bypass the second amendment rights of people. Anyone on depression or anziety or anti-psychotic meds can lose their rights too.


From the Form 4473: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

Marijuana use has always been a disqualifer for a NICS check. As long as it's against Federal law and on the Schedule 1 list of forbidden drugs, it will remain so. It's not a Democratic Plot or Republican Plot, it's simply illegal and has been since, what, the '50s(?), when it was placed on the list. If you use weed for any reason and check "No" on the form, you have just made yourself a felon.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: rickymouse

Well and today the WHO just made video game addiction a mental illness, so 90% of millenials will soon be legislated out of their 2nd amendment.

Its all so damn obvious


This is not even a conspiracy, it is how they want it. They can use multiple reasons to take away our rights. Even someone who is taking sides too much in politics will become a person not allowed to own a gun.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cohen the Barbarian

originally posted by: rickymouse
I figured this was coming. This was a Democratic initiative I think. They can do it, same if you are on medications that can cause certain psychological side effects. I do not know what to think about this change, I feel this ruling is going to be used as precedence to bypass the second amendment rights of people. Anyone on depression or anziety or anti-psychotic meds can lose their rights too.


From the Form 4473: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

Marijuana use has always been a disqualifer for a NICS check. As long as it's against Federal law and on the Schedule 1 list of forbidden drugs, it will remain so. It's not a Democratic Plot or Republican Plot, it's simply illegal and has been since, what, the '50s(?), when it was placed on the list. If you use weed for any reason and check "No" on the form, you have just made yourself a felon.


We are being set up. Now, since Marijuana is legal in a state, anyone may be able to use this federally illegal substance. Nobody will have the right to own a gun unless they are law enforcement or civil service employees.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: visitedbythem
So people should just grow their 60 lbs in their back yard, without a card, and shut up about it

I can barely keep my lawn alive in California. Back when I lived in Iowa it would have been easy. The ditch weed there used to grow 12 feet tall.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   
What a load of BS. Good thing a lot of the states in the 9th Circuit are legalized. Meaning doing away with medical cards. Arizona needs a bit of help though.
edit on 18-6-2018 by dreamingawake because: auto correct error



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
fortune.com...

9th district court. Their opinion is that if you get a medical marijuana card, the state can assume you're a drug user and therefore take away your right to own firearms.

If you've ever read my posts, I'm not huge on the 2nd, but this seems completely backwards to me. It's denying a right based on your association with a group the government disagrees with rather than based on a crime you've been convicted for.


That's right here in Michigan. I can have one not both...and I do. You decide what's more important...for you.

CPL holder



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 11:51 PM
link   
If you have a MJ medical card, then you can be assumed to require MJ on a continual basis for a medical problem. You cannot relate this to Alcohol, as you do not need to drink constantly, even though you might anyway.

Bottom line, if you have the card, you are most likely stoned all the time, thus the controversy of walking around with a handgun. It is just logic, and glad the courts see it that way.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DerBeobachter

No sh#t..insanity..but not surprising at all.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Never been a fan of pot, but its not my place to to say what somebody should be doing if they aren't hurting anyone. A part of me thinks the government want to expand the use of pot to get a more docile populace, while at the same time keep it illegal so they can prosecute anyone not in their good graces.
edit on 19-6-2018 by Whoisjohngalt because: Spelling



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

One step forward, two marathons, one round the world trip and a Mars mission back.

People at the top don't trust the potheads, but I want to know what the hell the lawmakers are smoking, because it is clearly a damned sight more dangerous than a recreational joint or three in the evening.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I could see that one coming for miles. Bottom line, you're on enough lists without volunteering the information, so don't put yourself on one. Don't join groups like the NRA either or any social media groups that support such. If you want to support them, do it without signing up some how.

It seems that you can only exercise your freedoms by doing so outside of the law, just don't get caught and be ready for the consequences if you do get caught. I'm not advocating breaking laws, that is unless those laws infringe on our constitutional rights, then it's an unlawful law to begin with. If you find yourself on a jury for such a case, definitely use nullification if you can.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

Yeah, and with a lawyer named "Chaz," is it any wonder why the 9th ruled against the defendant?

Chaz....



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
fortune.com...

9th district court. Their opinion is that if you get a medical marijuana card, the state can assume you're a drug user and therefore take away your right to own firearms.

If you've ever read my posts, I'm not huge on the 2nd, but this seems completely backwards to me. It's denying a right based on your association with a group the government disagrees with rather than based on a crime you've been convicted for.

Nothing to get worked up about. Once it's legal in all 50 states there won't be a need for "medical" marijuana. No one will know you smoke pot when you buy a gun anymore than they would know if you drink alcohol. You can smoke, drink and shoot to your heart's content.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

That is not right for them to do.

MJ is not legally illegal since there is no amendment to make it illegal.



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Aazadan

That is not right for them to do.

MJ is not legally illegal since there is no amendment to make it illegal.


Lol wut? There's no amendment to make opium illegal. There's no amendment to make lysergic acid diethylamide or psilocybin illegal. For that matter, there's no amendment to make murder illegal.

rickymouse: "we are being set up," by whom and for what? Federal law trumps state law. Period. If Federal law says something is illegal it doesn't matter how many states pass laws saying it is. If a state were to pass a law claiming kidnapping is now legal, would the feds just sit back and say, "okay then?"
edit on 6 19 2018 by Cohen the Barbarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cohen the Barbarian

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Aazadan

That is not right for them to do.

MJ is not legally illegal since there is no amendment to make it illegal.


Lol wut? There's no amendment to make opium illegal. There's no amendment to make lysergic acid diethylamide or psilocybin illegal. For that matter, there's no amendment to make murder illegal.

rickymouse: "we are being set up," by whom and for what? Federal law trumps state law. Period. If Federal law says something is illegal it doesn't matter how many states pass laws saying it is. If a state were to pass a law claiming kidnapping is now legal, would the feds just sit back and say, "okay then?"



In 1933, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was passed and ratified, ending national Prohibition. After the repeal of the 18th Amendment, some states continued Prohibition by maintaining statewide temperance laws. Mississippi, the last dry state in the Union, ended Prohibition in 1966. Prohibition ends - Dec 05, 1933 - HISTORY.com www.history.com/this-day-in-history/prohibition-ends


court precedence

yes everything is legal



www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 19-6-2018 by howtonhawky because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cohen the Barbarian

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Aazadan

That is not right for them to do.

MJ is not legally illegal since there is no amendment to make it illegal.


Lol wut? There's no amendment to make opium illegal. There's no amendment to make lysergic acid diethylamide or psilocybin illegal. For that matter, there's no amendment to make murder illegal.

rickymouse: "we are being set up," by whom and for what? Federal law trumps state law. Period. If Federal law says something is illegal it doesn't matter how many states pass laws saying it is. If a state were to pass a law claiming kidnapping is now legal, would the feds just sit back and say, "okay then?"

That's the way it is supposed to work. Now there are sanctuary cities that defy federal law. What do the feds do? Nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join