Florida Shooters Network

SAF SUES U.S. AG, HEADS OF ATF, FBI OVER MEDICAL MARIJUANA 2A BAN

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and a District Attorney in Pennsylvania have filed a federal lawsuit against Attorney General Merrick Garland, the heads of the FBI and ATF, and the U.S. Government, challenging the federal prohibition on gun ownership by medical marijuana users.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In addition to Garland, the lawsuit names FBI Director Christopher Wray and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach as defendants. SAF is joined by Warren County, Pa., District Attorney Robert Greene, who has served in that office since 2013 and currently possesses a medical marijuana ID card under Pennsylvania law. They are represented by attorneys Adam Kraut, who serves as SAF’s executive director, and Joshua Prince of Bechtelsville, Pa.

The lawsuit challenges restrictions contained in 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), (d)(3), which prohibit firearms purchases and possession by persons who use marijuana or other controlled substances.

“Medicinal marijuana has been adopted by 38 states despite federal inaction on the issue,” said Kraut, who is also a practicing attorney in Pennsylvania. “With the increasing acceptance of medical cannabis, millions of Americans are forced to choose between the exercise of their Second Amendment rights or treating their symptoms with a substance that disenfranchises them from their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. Such a choice is incompatible with the constitution and finds no basis in this country’s history and tradition. We look forward to vindicating the rights of medical marijuana users.”

“The use of medical marijuana should not translate to an automatic surrender of one’s Second Amendment rights,” added SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The current restrictions unquestionably and arbitrarily infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and the restriction lacks any direct or analogous historical support, as required by the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling.”

ABOUT TIME!!!

As an instructor, I've had people come to my classes stoned to the point slurring speech. First thing I think is drunk, when I enquire, they pop out the medical pot card to which I reply, go home and I hope you don't kill someone on the road.
Yes I understand that not all medical pot users are stoners.

But mind altering(thc) drugs and alcohol and guns do not mix legal or not. Call me an old fashioned old bastard stuck in the mud prude if you will it won't hurt because my daughter says it to me all the time.

Chigger wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 5:25 am As an instructor, I've had people come to my classes stoned to the point slurring speech. First thing I think is drunk, when I enquire, they pop out the medical pot card to which I reply, go home and I hope you don't kill someone on the road.
Yes I understand that not all medical pot users are stoners.

But mind altering(thc) drugs and alcohol and guns do not mix legal or not. Call me an old fashioned old bastard stuck in the mud prude if you will it won't hurt because my daughter says it to me all the time.

No one should be handling a gun (or a motor vehicle) while intoxicated on anything. That's not the issue at bar in this lawsuit.

I wonder if a shooter catches a glimpse of a "billboard" on the side of a slide and decides to stop shooting and read it.

Starting over and over and over and over...again...

The law is very specific.
If someone owns a bunch of guns, & applies for the card, can they keep their guns? Yes.
Can someone make a private purchase if they have the card. Yes.
Can someone make a purchase from a FFL, & fill out the 4473 if they have the card? No.
GARY.

Odd. No where on the 4473 does it ask if I take opiates or muscle relaxers as prescribed by a Dr. It doesn't question if someone uses anything legal, no matter the dosage or frequency. If I lie on the form about illegal drugs, the odds of being prosecuted are virtually zero. So, why ask the question in the first place? It serves no good to the public, making no one safer. If someone is under the influence of anything and harms someone or puts them in danger, there are plenty of laws in place that provide criminal and civil recourse.

N4KVE wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2024 10:45 pm The law is very specific.
If someone owns a bunch of guns, & applies for the card, can they keep their guns? Yes.
Can someone make a private purchase if they have the card. Yes.
Can someone make a purchase from a FFL, & fill out the 4473 if they have the card? No.
GARY.

You should get a refund from whatever law school you went to.

You can have whatever "cards" you wish. Famously, that disgusting JAP bitch who was FL Sec. of Ag. boasted of having a CWP and MM card. So what?

What "the law" prohibits is in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). It has nothing to do with "cards."

(g)It shall be unlawful for any person—
...
(3)who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (i.e., as judged by federal law)
...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.


Given the Supreme Court's insane decision in Gonzales v. Raich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich), Scalia's most infamous betrayal, this likely means that even just possessing your own otherwise lawful homemade gun can get you busted.

4473 itself, of course speaks nothing of "cards," but only of use and addiction, per the section quoted above. If gun dealers want to use "cards" as their own brightline test, that's up to them. But there are no "cards" in the statute or 4473.

George W wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 5:02 pm Odd. No where on the 4473 does it ask if I take opiates or muscle relaxers as prescribed by a Dr. It doesn't question if someone uses anything legal, no matter the dosage or frequency. If I lie on the form about illegal drugs, the odds of being prosecuted are virtually zero. So, why ask the question in the first place? It serves no good to the public, making no one safer. If someone is under the influence of anything and harms someone or puts them in danger, there are plenty of laws in place that provide criminal and civil recourse.

Whatever the original intent of "the law," it is now being used by The Regime primarily to disarm hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of vets who suffer from physical pain or PTSD as a result of their service.

Gee, I can't imagine why our benevolent leaders would want to do this....

tector wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 5:32 pm
Gee, I can't imagine why our benevolent leaders would want to do this....

It's one of life's biggest mysteries...

tector wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 5:32 pm

George W wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 5:02 pm Odd. No where on the 4473 does it ask if I take opiates or muscle relaxers as prescribed by a Dr. It doesn't question if someone uses anything legal, no matter the dosage or frequency. If I lie on the form about illegal drugs, the odds of being prosecuted are virtually zero. So, why ask the question in the first place? It serves no good to the public, making no one safer. If someone is under the influence of anything and harms someone or puts them in danger, there are plenty of laws in place that provide criminal and civil recourse.

Whatever the original intent of "the law," it is now being used by The Regime primarily to disarm hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of vets who suffer from physical pain or PTSD as a result of their service.

Gee, I can't imagine why our benevolent leaders would want to do this....

I am one of those Vets. My VA Docs frequently "unofficially recommend" weed. I won't use because I get drug tested by the VA quarterly to ensure I am taking my other prescribed meds. I know they will report me if I come up hot for weed.