Pro Marijuana Groups Actively Trying To Overturn Law Denying Users To Bear Arms

Pro Marijuana Groups Actively Trying To Overturn Law Denying Users To Bear Arms

BALTIMORE (WJZ)– As more marijuana dispensaries begin to operate in Maryland, some users are realizing they are not allowed to own a gun.

Federal law prohibits anyone who uses any form of marijuana from owning a gun.
The rule isn’t new. The question about marijuana use has long been on the federal questionnaire to get approved for a gun, but it’s now coming to some people’s attention.

Marijuana users who are enjoying the new found freedom to use the drug; are finding out they’ve lost the right to bear arms.

Pro marijuana groups are actively trying to change the law.

Source

As more states become legal medicinal and recreational wise this issue is due to looked into.

For those who grow medicinally at home for their health issues deserves the right to protect themselves. Traditionally in the eyes of many and in the law guns and drugs don't mix. Though, the gaining widespread use of medicinal cannabis use pro groups are heading in the right direction.

Well, the people in the states that legalized it should have considered some in our government want people to lose their right to bear arms. Once you get on the list, there is no gun for you anymore I suppose.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Yah so now we know why states require people to register for medical marijuana use. I never got the whole medical marijuana thing, why not just decriminalize it entirely instead of 'legalizing' it and forcing people to sign up for medical use?

Just gets their names on databases.

The next thing will be driver's licenses.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

Yup that's why recreational states should be the goal for medicinal at this point, lack of registry. Wash. State unfortunately won't let recreational people grow however(supposed to be working on a deal with it), having medicinal patients stuck with being on registry.

Is there a single recorded case of someone burning the herb and committing a gun crime?
Alcohol is more often than not a prerequisite to shooting up the room.
Don't get me started on pharmaceutical antidepressants.
I'm going to take a few tokes and go shoot cans with an air-rifle.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism
Don't see what's stopping that for the more invasive lawmakers plans especially with the Real ID.

Medicinal patients are being denied Hud housing, as some of this disabled demographic very in need of help from both.

It’s an all-too-common dilemma occurring across the United States: someone receiving federal housing assistance — such as Section 8 — receives a devastating cancer diagnosis. Per their doctor’s recommendation, they begin using medical marijuana to help treat the effects of the illness. After receiving complaints from other tenants who suspect marijuana usage, the landlord gives the tenant notice of eviction for possessing an illegal substance in a federally-subsidized housing unit. While the renter may plead for a second chance or even offer to give up future medical marijuana usage, chances are that the landlord will be unwilling to reconsider the eviction.

Source

a reply to: dreamingawake

I bet they find a way to get recreational users in a database as well. I live in Colorado and I know that the pot shops have to use cash for all transactions. I've seen news spots that show like Brinks trucks loading bags of cash into the trucks. So eventually they'll want to get banks involved, right for loans and all that?

Right now banks can't get involved because of federal laws and the classification of cannabis. But once they change that, and ban cash (that will happen soon) they'll be able to track all sales. Then it's an easy matter for banks to sell the data to insurance companies and then they'll start jacking up their rates for the 'increased risk'.

And that's another thing that the retailers don't realize that once the fed bans cash, they won't be able to operate. So if Sessions really wants to come down on them they'll just ban cash and they'll be out of business.

a reply to: skunkape23

Never heard of one. If any evident it's likely a smaller/mixed amount with another drug or alcohol being more prominent to being under influence.

On average, roughly 40 percent of inmates who are incarcerated for violent offenses were under the influence of alcohol during the time of their crime. Many of these criminals had an estimated blood alcohol content (BAC) level of more than three times the legal limit at the time of their arrest.

Source

One of the main reasons that pot was legalized is that no one had recorded an instance where pot made a person violent or created a disposition thereto.

I strongly oppose the violation of second amendment rights of medical-marijuana patients. You can go to a dentist and get twisted up on painkillers all day long and buy a gun legally. However, be a patient on marijuana and suddenly you're dangerous. Nevermind that those painkillers are sourced from schedule 1 drugs.

Yeah...

Seems like none of you are paranoid enough (like me) to go even further outside the box...


What better way for Big Pharma to protect their Racket than by using their bought and paid for politicians to make an increasingly pot friendly society choose between their spliff and their firearm...


Nah?
Well I think so.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

That's a choice government made.

a reply to: dreamingawake

I don`t see a problem,if the federal government has the exclusive right to decide if you can own a gun or not and you choose to violate federal law and loose your right to own a gun, then that`s on you.

maybe the states who have chosen to ignore federal laws and have legalized pot should also ignore federal gun laws and do their own firearm background checks and sell guns to whoever they want?

I don`t see the problem, some states are already ignoring one federal law so why not just ignore another federal law.

what`s the difference between a state ignoring federal drug laws and ignoring federal firearm laws?

they have already set a precedence that they aren`t going to obey or enforce any federal law that they disagree with so why do they have their panties in a knot about obeying federal firearm laws? they should just ignore them and let all the potheads in their state own firearms.

or maybe states only care about ignoring federal laws when they can collect a ton of tax money,i`m not sure they will be able to collect a ton of tax money off of doing their own background checks.they have it pretty easy now letting the feds foot the bill for background checks.

of course I`m wondering, when you get busted by the feds for selling weed in a state that has legalized it,will the state foot the bill for your lawyer? since they legalized weed and have made so much money from taxing it, or will they throw you under the bus and make you defend yourself against the feds?

originally posted by: skunkape23
Is there a single recorded case of someone burning the herb and committing a gun crime?

I have no doubt whatsoever that's happened today somewhere.

People have put on Nike's and then committed a gun crime today also.

It's stupid to link weed with violent crime, but it's also stupid to say that all stoners are pacifists.

It's funny how fast peoples opinions change when they actually become a business owner.

Honestly, every other week I see stories in the news about dispensaries getting robbed in my area. I heard in Philadelphia they are even making it illegal for businesses to have reinforced glass because it's "racist".

Wtf do you expect these people to do? They're not even aloud to shield themselves from danger.

originally posted by: Konduit
It's funny how fast peoples opinions change when they actually become a business owner.

Honestly, every other week I see stories in the news about dispensaries getting robbed in my area. I heard in Philadelphia they are even making it illegal for businesses to have reinforced glass because it's "racist".

Wtf do you expect these people to do? They're not even aloud to shield themselves from danger.

I've got a gun that begs to differ.

That is logical
They smoke up what they have
They break into someone's home and steal their stuff knowing they cannot bear arms to protect themselves
They sell the person's stuff at a pawn shop
They buy more smoke

a reply to: dreamingawake

I dont believe its ever been challenged in court.

Ive always thought it unconstitutional myself. But i also believe felons shouldnt have their rights suspended too.