linky

 

ATF Ruling Disarms All Medical Maurijauna Users

by John Velleco

Posted 10/11/2011 ET

 

The Obama administration is at it again.

 

With the stroke of a pen, the U.S. Justice Department has just subjected hundreds of thousands of Americans to a lifetime gun ban.

 

In an open letter to all licensed firearms dealers, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) unilaterally decided that any person who is prescribed marijuana for medical purposes is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

 

That means over 300,000 people in the states that allow medical marijuana suddenly cannot buy or possess a gun. Oh yeah, and for the many who already own firearms, watch out. They are now felons and could be subject to lengthy prison terms of up to ten years.

 

Gun Owners of America is not going to wade into the marijuana debate, but the fact that such a large group of people are losing their constitutional rights without even seeing the inside of a courtroom leaves a lot of people scratching their heads.

 

After all, this is the same Justice Department that, in 2009, basically advised federal prosecutors to turn a blind eye to medical marijuana use.

 

And, in a bit of twisted irony, the ATF itself has helped thousands of guns to get into the hands of known and dangerous drug cartels in Mexico through their operation “Fast and Furious,” which has led GOA to call for anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation.

 

The Justice Department makes it perfectly clear in the letter what it expects from gun dealers and gun purchasers, even though the Department and ATF obviously consider themselves above the law—both at the federal and state levels. According to the agency:

"Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medical purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition."

 

Notice that persons need not be regular users of the prescribed drug; just the mere possession of a prescription card from a doctor is sufficient to trigger the gun ban. Firearms dealers are further instructed by the ATF:

 

"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."

 

As far as the overbearing, overreaching federal government is concerned, there is no need for a finding in a court of law that the person is a criminal, and there is no need for a finding that a person is a danger to self or others.

 

In fact, the gun ban is not even limited to when a person is actually using the drug for medical purposes. If you have the prescription card, you can’t own a gun—period.

 

This is just one example of how the government uses various existing laws to sweep people onto its gun prohibition list. The same thing occurred over the past decade to more than one hundred thousand military veterans who were prohibited from owning guns because of ailments such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)—in this instance, too, without the benefit of due process of law.

 

The fact that the ATF is acting against a state-sanctioned medical issue is also particularly troubling. The reason Gun Owners of America has opposed ObamaCare so vociferously is over the concern that medical records databases could be abused by the government.

 

How many other heretofore legally prescribed drugs could be frowned upon by federal agencies and subject masses of people to a lifetime gun ban?

 

If the ruling in the ATF letter is allowed to stand, we will have allowed the federal bureaucracy to arbitrarily carve out—with no input from the peoples’ representatives in Congress—an entire class of persons for whom civil rights may as well not exist.

 

And, to make matters worse, this letter looks like more proof that the ATF is doing all it can to draw attention away from its own “gunrunning” scandal and to avoid investigating and punishing official wrongdoing along the U.S.—Mexico border.

 

John Velleco ([email protected]) is Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, a grassroots lobbying organization with over 300,000 members nationwide. GOA spokesmen are available for comment.

If its legal, who cares? I'de rather have somebody stoned with a gun than drunk or on percocets with a gun.

If its legal, who cares? I'de rather have somebody stoned with a gun than drunk or on percocets with a gun.

 

+1 nothing to ad...

That's next ---- if you drink alcoholic beverages, you can't own a gun!

Can't say i'm surprised by this...the feds have been going Ape over the various State-level Medical MJ laws

I'd be surprised if a habitual marijuana user has any interest in anything other than vegging on the couch and eating chips. I knew a couple of those types in college. It still should not remove their rights to own a firearm. I haven't smoked pot since the 80s and then it was twice so this doesn't affect me at all but the feds are just itching to find ways to deny gun rights. Each bulwark you surrender to the feds simply allows them to advance. They're already sniffing around PTSD as a disqualifier. How long until it's alcohol at any level or anti-depressants or heck, just plain ole marriage counseling. Enough. It's a right and until someone proves to be violent or a menace, they deserve their rights.

I'd be surprised if a habitual marijuana user has any interest in anything other than vegging on the couch and eating chips. I knew a couple of those types in college. It still should not remove their rights to own a firearm. I haven't smoked pot since the 80s and then it was twice so this doesn't affect me at all but the feds are just itching to find ways to deny gun rights. Each bulwark you surrender to the feds simply allows them to advance. They're already sniffing around PTSD as a disqualifier. How long until it's alcohol at any level or anti-depressants or heck, just plain ole marriage counseling. Enough. It's a right and until someone proves to be violent or a menace, they deserve their rights.

 

+100 My own personal feelings about marijuana aside..where does the line get drawn?? You get a tooth pulled and get a Scrip for Vicodin, or have surgery and get percocet..does THAT obviate your rights as well?

+100 My own personal feelings about marijuana aside..where does the line get drawn?? You get a tooth pulled and get a Scrip for Vicodin, or have surgery and get percocet..does THAT obviate your rights as well?

 

no because a pharmaceutical company is granted they right to dope you up through the roof (legally) and that is considered "normal"..

 

i don't smoke pot.. but have known people who do.. and have yet to see any violent outburst.. were NOT driving around high.. or other crazy situation that would concern me.. they are literally some of the most mellow laid back people in the world.. I know.. no shock there.. lol

no because a pharmaceutical company is granted they right to dope you up through the roof (legally) and that is considered "normal"..

 

i don't smoke pot.. but have known people who do.. and have yet to see any violent outburst.. were NOT driving around high.. or other crazy situation that would concern me.. they are literally some of the most mellow laid back people in the world.. I know.. no shock there.. lol

over the years i HAVE actually encountered a few at the other end of the Spectrum Vlad, one guy came out of a car in a cloud of smoke that would do a cheech and chong movie proud, and proceeded to try and duke it out with 3 of us.

over the years i HAVE actually encountered a few at the other end of the Spectrum Vlad, one guy came out of a car in a cloud of smoke that would do a cheech and chong movie proud, and proceeded to try and duke it out with 3 of us.

I think his point was merely that marijuana doesn't turn people violent, my guess is these people are violent and itching for a fight with or with out it.

 

 

 

 

First and foremost, Marijuana should have been removed from a class 1 controlled substance years ago. The Federal government has an agenda when it comes to this topic and just like trying to reason with NJ's laws, The feds operate much in the same manner. The whole idea here, IMHO is not to take guns from users, but rather to stop people from using or dissuade them from getting prescribed under the guise they will loose their rights. The more states that start to legalize, including NJ, the more and more power the feds are loosing on this battle and there trying to revamp control.

I think his point was merely that marijuana doesn't turn people violent, my guess is these people are violent and itching for a fight with or with out it.

 

 

 

 

First and foremost, Marijuana should have been removed from a class 1 controlled substance years ago. The Federal government has an agenda when it comes to this topic and just like trying to reason with NJ's laws, The feds operate much in the same manner. The whole idea here, IMHO is not to take guns from users, but rather to stop people from using or dissuade them from getting prescribed under the guise they will loose their rights. The more states that start to legalize, including NJ, the more and more power the feds are loosing on this battle and there trying to revamp control.

I agree completely.. The agenda comes down to the inability of Politicians to admit they've been screwing the pooch for 60-odd years. They have invested Billions of dollars in this and NOBODY wants to be the one to stand up there in front of america and say "We've been wasting your money and our time for the past few decades.

Wait, so, people who have been authorized by physicians for medical marijuana are disqualified, but politicians with felony charges aren't (and can get a conceal permit)?

Wait, so, people who have been authorized by physicians for medical marijuana are disqualified, but politicians with felony charges aren't (and can get a conceal permit)?

 

Is that the "Progress" you were talking about sir?

Is that the "Progress" you were talking about sir?

 

Ha, that progress was regarding other topics, and not something as murky as politics and their shenanigans. But I'm more surprised you remembered that conversation.

I agree completely.. The agenda comes down to the inability of Politicians to admit they've been screwing the pooch for 60-odd years. They have invested Billions of dollars in this and NOBODY wants to be the one to stand up there in front of america and say "We've been wasting your money and our time for the past few decades.

 

and the fact that LEO who is out on the street enforcing laws can see the writing on the wall says it all..

 

the war on "weed" is without question one of the largest wastes of money out there.. and what I mean by waste is not even the dollar amount itself.. I mean more the fact of throwing money at something completely useless..

I so had a vibe this **** would happen.

So if you are prescribed pot you are a target. People rob houses for pills so do you honestly think robbing a house for pot is far fetched? Now the criminal knows you can't defend yourself. Way to go.