Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

1
Feb 4 (Reuters) - A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump in Oklahoma City, on Friday dismissed an indictment against a man charged in August with violating that ban, saying it infringed his right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison's "mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm."
--snrp--
The decision marked the latest instance of a court declaring a gun regulation unconstitutional after the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority in June ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ban-ma ... 023-02-04/

So, that happened.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

2
Not even a year after the Bruen decision and federal gun laws come tumbling down.
Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison's "mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm."

He said using marijuana was "not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act," and noted that Oklahoma is one of a number of states where the drug, still illegal under federal law, can be legally bought for medical uses.
A 54 page ruling.
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/l ... rrison.pdf

Appeals from the US District of Oklahoma go to the 10th Circuit in Denver. That circuit covers OK, KS, NM, CO, WY and UT.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

3
CDFingers wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 6:27 am
Feb 4 (Reuters) - A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump in Oklahoma City, on Friday dismissed an indictment against a man charged in August with violating that ban, saying it infringed his right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison's "mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm."
--snrp--
The decision marked the latest instance of a court declaring a gun regulation unconstitutional after the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority in June ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ban-ma ... 023-02-04/

So, that happened.

CDFingers
Tell me sir, how does the 'government protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns'? Considering the mayhem created by legal gun owners, Club Q shooting, Denver tattoo shooting, Boulder grocery store shooting, recent shootings in Asian communities? etc, etc....??

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

4
F4FEver wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 9:06 am
CDFingers wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 6:27 am
Feb 4 (Reuters) - A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump in Oklahoma City, on Friday dismissed an indictment against a man charged in August with violating that ban, saying it infringed his right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison's "mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm."
--snrp--
The decision marked the latest instance of a court declaring a gun regulation unconstitutional after the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority in June ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ban-ma ... 023-02-04/

So, that happened.

CDFingers
Tell me sir, how does the 'government protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns'? Considering the mayhem created by legal gun owners, Club Q shooting, Denver tattoo shooting, Boulder grocery store shooting, recent shootings in Asian communities? etc, etc....??

I'm pretty sure stoners are only dangerous to piles of salty crunchy snax at 3am in a 24hr supermarket.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

8
Until that disappears on the 4473 form it is.
Marijuana and Guns
So how does marijuana relate to firearm possession? Again, we are looking at a “as clear as mud” situation.

When you purchase a firearm from a FFL (a licensed dealer such as a gun shop) you are required to complete ATF Form 4473. The 4473 to put it simply is your background check and firearm transaction record. The 4473 asks you a series of questions, on of which being “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 for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”. Does this make a light bulb in your head go off? It should! You’re required to provide accurate and honest answers on the 4473, so if you use either medical or recreational marijuana you will be required to select “Yes” for that question. At that point, the FFL cannot legally proceed with the sale. Likewise, the marijuana user is prohibited from purchasing the firearm. In addition to that, the marijuana user cannot possess any firearms or ammunition according to Federal law. This fact has been clearly reinforced by the BATFE in an open letter to all FFLs.
https://azgunlaw.com/marijuana-and-guns-in-arizona/

https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

11
I'd say possession shouldn't be a problem and if I read it correctly that's the rulings intention doesn t say anything about being stoned while shooting the gun. AZ laws say no intoxication while shooting, booze or weed or whatever.
I'd have to agree. I don't want to be around anyone that's smoking weed or drinking booze handling a gun thank you
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

12
Marijuana never should've ended up on the Schedule 1 list from the get-go. Well, Shotgun Joe Biden has the chance to fix that and make it so grass is treated like booze, and yes, he does have the statutory authority to do so (we discussed that on the LGC forums previously). He could do it with basically the stroke of a pen. Obama had 8 years. Therefore, what's taking them so long to get this done?
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

13
F4FEver wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 9:06 am
CDFingers wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 6:27 am
Feb 4 (Reuters) - A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump in Oklahoma City, on Friday dismissed an indictment against a man charged in August with violating that ban, saying it infringed his right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison's "mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm."
--snrp--
The decision marked the latest instance of a court declaring a gun regulation unconstitutional after the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority in June ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ban-ma ... 023-02-04/

So, that happened.

CDFingers
Tell me sir, how does the 'government protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns'? Considering the mayhem created by legal gun owners, Club Q shooting, Denver tattoo shooting, Boulder grocery store shooting, recent shootings in Asian communities? etc, etc....??
At least one of the recent shootings in the Asian community was with an illegal gun.

I look at the Southerland Springs shooter several years ago. He legally owned his AR-15, but had the USAF informed N.I.C.S. of his legal troubles and issues, N.I.C.S. would have denied his purchase. Bad data collection, distribution, and editing (for false info) will ALWAYS result in bad / sick people falling through the cracks, getting guns, and using them on others.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

14
sikacz wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 1:01 pm Driving is a privilege. Owning a gun is not, it’s a right. Laws for misuse exist,
so whether you partake of MJ shouldn’t matter on owning a gun.
'Partaking' in MJ isn't an issue, in MJ legal states. Altho federally, using MJ is an 'unlawful use'...
Anyone that has ever completed the Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record is familiar with Question 21(e): “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
Interesting that in MJ legal states, being 'addicted' to MJ isn't illegal. And I wonder how many people have lied my answering 'no' on this(and other) questions. The only one checked, here in CO, is your address(Colorado) and you aren't a felon...essentially.

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

15
CowboyT wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:59 pm Marijuana never should've ended up on the Schedule 1 list from the get-go. Well, Shotgun Joe Biden has the chance to fix that and make it so grass is treated like booze, and yes, he does have the statutory authority to do so (we discussed that on the LGC forums previously). He could do it with basically the stroke of a pen. Obama had 8 years. Therefore, what's taking them so long to get this done?
Must be because they don’t believe the second is a right.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

16
sikacz wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 10:44 am
CowboyT wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 10:59 pm Marijuana never should've ended up on the Schedule 1 list from the get-go. Well, Shotgun Joe Biden has the chance to fix that and make it so grass is treated like booze, and yes, he does have the statutory authority to do so (we discussed that on the LGC forums previously). He could do it with basically the stroke of a pen. Obama had 8 years. Therefore, what's taking them so long to get this done?
Must be because they don’t believe the second is a right.
I'm sure that's it..... :sarcasm:
Congress has so far rejected all bills to reschedule cannabis
That would be the GOP...I guess they don't believe the 2A is a right...

Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch. Congress has so far rejected all bills to reschedule cannabis. However, it is not unheard of for Congress to intervene in the drug scheduling process; in February 2000, for instance, the 105th Congress, in its second official session, passed Public Law 106-172, also known as the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reed Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000,[21] adding GHB to Schedule I.[22] On June 23, 2011, Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 2306,[23] legislation that would completely remove cannabis from the federal schedules, limiting the federal government's role to policing cross-border or interstate transfers into states where it remains illegal.

The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule cannabis administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical cannabis without an act of Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited the lengthy petition review process as a reason why cannabis is still illegal.[10] The first petition took 22 years to review, the second took 7 years, the third was denied 9 years later. A 2013 petition by two state governors is still pending.

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

18
highdesert wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:31 am Republicans held the trifecta from 2016 to 2018 and Democrats held the trifecta from 2020 to 2022 and neither party made legalizing MJ a legislative priority. Neither party wants to be seen as soft on drugs.
We know the Republicans won't do it; they've made that very clear for a long time, despite the Reagan Administration's funneling crack cocaine into Black and Latino (but not White) neighborhoods to fund Iran/Contra in the 1980's. We already know they're total and utter hypocrites when it comes to drugs, if for that reason alone.

However, the Democrats have had multiple chances to fix at least the problem with cannabis being on Schedule 1. They held the trifecta in the 1990's as well from January 1993, after Bill Clinton got elected and inaugurated, until the "New Republican Congress" took control of both the House and Senate in January 1995. Then they held it again from 2008 to 2010 during the Obama Administration. They then, as highdesert points out, had it again from January 2021 to January 2023, just over a month ago. They've had ample chance. Back in the 1990's, I might've understood the "soft on drugs" concern by the Democrats. But in the 2020's? Things have changed quite a lot, and in my view, for the better, with regard to public view on treating cannabis like alcohol.

But, as F4Fever correctly points out, if even a Democrat-run Congress is too chicken to do it, then the executive branch itself can do it. That means Obama had 8 years, and Shotgun Joe has had just over 2 years. It's long overdue to get this done.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

19
Well, here's a twist.
"To be clear, we're not saying that coffee shops should be allowed to sell cannabis," Haney said. "We're saying that cannabis shops should be allowed to sell coffee. It shouldn't be illegal for an existing cannabis business to move away from only selling marijuana and instead have the opportunity to grow, thrive and create jobs by offering coffee or live jazz."

Assembly Bill 374 is an attempt to reclaim California as the international capital of pot. Though the state is known as the birthplace of cannabis culture for its early acceptance of medical marijuana, it is still feeling the consequences of taking a pharmaceutical approach to dispensary operation policies. Businesses across the state are having a hard time competing with illegal sellers, which can sell weed for cheaper because they circumvent the state's tax and permitting policies.

"California's small cannabis businesses are struggling," said Haney. "Issues like over-saturation, high taxes, and the thriving black market are hurting cannabis businesses who follow the rules and pay taxes."
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/ne ... att-haney/

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

20
It's really upped the black market game as far as quality goes. No ones selling junk butt weed anymore. It's all sinsemilla.
But seeds are going for 10 bucks a pop or more. The seed market is where it's at
That's just what I've heard.
I expect Monsanto to jump into that market as soon as the fed allows it
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

21
Amsterdam used to be the cannabis capital of the world. Cannabis isn't actually legal in the Netherlands, it's just decriminalized for certain amounts.

Image



The current Amsterdam mayor wants to do away with coffee shop pot that attracts tourists, she thinks it leads to hard drugs. The Netherlands does a have problem with drugs, it's called the narco-capital of Europe.
"We definitely have the characteristics of a narco-state," confides Jan Struijs, chairman of the biggest Dutch police union. "Sure we're not Mexico. We don't have 14,400 murders. But if you look at the infrastructure, the big money earned by organised crime, the parallel economy. Yes, we have a narco-state." His words echo in a society that has been convulsed by a murder that went far beyond the bubble of the criminal underworld. The deadly shooting of Derk Wiersum destroyed a common misconception here: that drug cartels only kill their own. A 44-year-old father of two, he was shot dead in front of his wife outside their home in Amsterdam in September.
"It's street slang. Young Moroccans call each other 'Mocro'," says Laumans, who wrote the book with Marijn Schrijver. "We came up with Mocro Mafia to encapsulate what the book was about. Now I see they're using it in police reports. But it's not only Moroccans. It's about young boys growing up in areas of Amsterdam where tourists never go. "It's not canals, the Rijksmuseum, Van Gogh. It's the housing estates. They don't have the same opportunities. They are aspirational, they are looking for a career in the underworld."
But does that mean that the Netherlands has turned into a narco-state? "We don't have bodies dangling from bridges," argues Wouter Laumans, "but we do have corruption in the docks, violence against lawyers, threats to journalists. It definitely has some of the characteristics of a narco-state lite." If it does have such an unenviable status, it manifests itself mostly below the radar. The Dutch economy may not be dependent or defined by the drugs industry, but that industry is exerting increasing influence on society.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50821542
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Ban on marijuana users owning guns is unconstitutional, U.S. judge rules

25
sikacz wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 3:30 pm Obviously that is the point, it shouldn’t be on the form to begin with and cases like this should hopefully fix it at some point.
The ONLY way this line on the 4473, a federal document, will be removed is if MJ is removed from the Schedule 1 list. AND the GOP have been blocking that since forever.

I guess the GOP don't believe in the 2A...sarcasm intended.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Bing [Bot], CDFingers and 3 guests