Crime

Should Legal Medical Marijuana Users Lose Gun Rights?

HELENA, Mont. (The Blaze/AP) — Firearms dealers in states that allow medical marijuana can’t sell guns or ammunition to registered users of the drug, a policy that marijuana and gun-rights groups say denies Second Amendment rights to individuals who are following state law.Should Medical Marijuana Users Lose Gun Rights?

Federal law already makes it illegal for someone to possess a gun if he or she is “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” marijuana or other controlled substances. A Sept. 21 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, issued in response to numerous inquiries from gun dealers, clarifies that medical marijuana patients are included in that definition.

“There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law,” said the letter by Arthur Herbert, the ATF’s assistant director for enforcement programs and services.

Federal firearm licensees, or FFLs, can’t sell a gun to someone who answers “yes” when a required form asks whether the buyer is a controlled substance user. Last week‘s letter also says that licensed dealers can’t sell a gun or ammunition if they have “reasonable cause to believe” the buyer is using a controlled substance.

That includes if the buyer presents a medical marijuana card as identification, or if the buyer talks about drug use, having a medical marijuana card or a recent drug conviction, ATF spokesman Drew Wade said Wednesday.

But there are no new obligations for gun dealers outlined in the letter, Wade said.

“We received lots of queries from the industry from various states of how to deal with state legislation and the federal law,” he said. “It’s our responsibility to provide advice and guidance.”

The clash between state and federal drug laws has led to lawsuits and criminal cases in some of the 16 states that have legalized medical marijuana use.

Officials in two Oregon counties have said they’ll appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after state judges said sheriffs couldn’t deny concealed handgun licenses for medical marijuana patients.

The Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court said the state law that authorizes concealed handgun permits is separate from the federal law that outlaws gun possession by drug users, and the state gun law doesn’t address medical marijuana use.

Federal authorities also raided dozens of medical marijuana operations across Montana this spring, chilling a once-booming pot industry and leading to sweeping changes in Montana law.

The Department of Justice followed up with a warning letter to political leaders in many states that federal prosecutors will pursue marijuana distributors but not individual patients who are following state law.

The letter the ATF sent to gun dealers last week was first reported by Lee Newspapers of Montana.

Should Medical Marijuana Users Lose Gun Rights?Pro-marijuana and gun groups said the policy clarification amounts to rescinding the gun rights for the thousands of people licensed to use medical marijuana laws. And it appears to contradict a 2009 Department of Justice memo that said the Obama administration would not pursue prosecution of individual medical marijuana users who obey state laws.

Besides that, the government is putting an additional burden on gun dealers to police their customers, said Montana Shooting Sports Association Gary Marbut.

“Their business is to be merchants, not to be cops. Unfortunately, the federal licensing scheme complicates that,” Marbut said. “It sounds as if the (ATF) is expecting them to drift further into the cop role.”

Wade said both the 2009 memo and last week’s letter were approved by the Justice Department and he does not believe there is a contradiction in the two messages. He also that the dealers are in a good position to help prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands.

“The FFLs aren’t cops but they are at the front line of protecting America from criminals or people who are prohibited from possessing firearms,” Wade said.

A salesman at one licensed firearms dealer, Montana Outdoor Sports in Helena, said he doesn‘t expect much to change as a result of the letter because it’s largely up to the buyer to reveal whether he or she is a medical marijuana user.

“Who’s going to say yes to that?” asked Damon Peters, a sales associate for the store and a licensed hunting guide.

“A lot of users of medical marijuana aren’t really shooting sports enthusiasts, anyway. I think we may see a sale or two lost, but I don‘t see anything dramatic that’s going to affect us,” he said.

Comments (148)

1 2 3
  • freedomisasfreedomdoes
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:22pm

    no

    Report Post » freedomisasfreedomdoes  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 9:06pm

      Hey, that is a Smith model 66. One of the best revolvers Smith produced. The shorter barreled version makes a great cary piece.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • Phoenixsoulfire
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 9:37pm

      Hope you read that wrong because you are saying take their guns away even if they are on any kind of pain killer prescribed by their Dr. THEY CAN’T touch the second amendment it is illegal to do so.

      Report Post »  
    • Mopar 1969
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:00pm

      I had a model 686 ,I kick myself in the butt for trading it off.Now have a taurus66 and a ruger security six.You know your revolvers bro.

      Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:04pm

      Sorry people but, there is a Federal Law that states that no person who has psychological problems that require medication can own firearms. Why do you think all the Children in schools are on Ritalin or Prozac? Congress has tried (twice) to get this law enforced so when you go to buy a gun your medical records are available just like a criminal record? Medical Marijauna users will also fall under this Federal law. That’s why the Government wants to legalize it. Check out this link:
      http://www.redding.com/news/2011/sep/28/atf-its-illegal-medical-marijuana-users-own-buy-gu/?partner=RSS
      “Federal firearms regulators are telling gun shops it’s illegal for someone who uses marijuana to own or buy guns or ammunition, regardless of whether states have passed laws allowing patients to use the drug for medicinal purposes.
      Federal law says marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 drug similar to heroin, in spite of 16 states, including California, having passed making the drug legal for medical use. The federal government doesn’t recognize marijuana as a medicine, Herbert says.”
      Check it out. And stay off of any pschotropic drugs if you want to buy or “KEEP” your firearms!

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:11pm

      @rangerp
      I had a model 66 Highway Patrol with a 6″ barrel but I preferred my model 19 Combat Magnum with competition grips. That was, of course, way back in the 70′s.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • colt1860
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:11pm

      A right is a right. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you folks understand. As long as any man has LIFE and is at Liberty (not in prison or detention), he has all his fundamental and natural Rights. The right to express himself, to earn a living, to religion, to publish his thoughts, to have a free conscious, to travel, to defend himself, etc. Legal medical marijuana users are allowed to travel, be religious, work, have a job, hire, contract, publish, sing, dance, defend their life, property, liberty, etc. Don’t feed the Progressives by giving them one more reason to deny our RIGHT to own and use arms. I remember seeing reruns of old westerns, no matter the crime, the sheriff always returned the gun to the proper owner. Justice, individual liberty and private property rule in this country.

      A right, such as self defense, is so ingrained into our human nature that it cannot be denied. Your denial of a legal medical marijuana user’s right to own and use a gun, can be the difference between that man saving and defending his family, children and home from other attackers or threats, and him losing and being unable to protect his own, though they be innocent. You think you’re denying HIM a right, but if he has a daughter at home to protect, you’re also denying her a father to defend her from others.

      “The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.” President James Monroe (Novemb

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:15pm

      I don’t care who you are. Rights are endowed by God. The Government, since it has not originated or granted even one natural or fundamental Right, has no power to disarm a free man.

      “The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press.” Jefferson

      “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Jefferson, Draft VA Constitution

      “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Sam Adams

      “A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression.” Madison

      “Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.” J Adams

      Report Post »  
    • colt1860
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:16pm

      One more disarmed American, is one more reason for Tyranny to prevail.

      “That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot by any compact deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” G Mason

      “Every free man has a right to the use of the press, so he has to the use of his arms.” Tench Coxe

      “The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” Blackstone

      “The true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.” Edmund Burke

      Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:27pm

      @colt1860
      I completely understand what you’re saying. But, and sometimes there is always a but, there is a Federal Law that says that no person who is prescribed a psychotropic drug can own or possess a firearm. That is way all the progressive teachers and schools are so eager to get all the children on Prozac and Ritalin. As soon as a person’s medical history is available to gun dealers… the ownership of firearms will diminish greatly, just like they have planned for many years.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • colt1860
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:35pm

      @the-monk I agree. I know what your saying. In Legalize terms per Federal Law you can’t even sell raw milk in a public place, it’s basically a federal drug crime or treated as such. There are laws on the books that are arbitrary, vague and unconstitutional or contrary to our founding. Heck, legally speaking, we are now mandated in 2014 to buy health insurance. It may be on the books, wherefore, it‘s considered legal but it’s still unlawful according to the Constitution.

      Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:38pm

      @riseandshine
      See how it’s done? People comment on a topic, other people respond with opinions and links to websites that support their opinions and the conversation and debate goes on in a civil tone with no insults or “you need to do some research”. Most of the people that visit this website are adults who have lived far more years than you so pay attention and learn how to interact with people. It’s called social graces and not social justice.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • colt1860
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:39pm

      @the-monk Great catch on that connection with school kids being prescribed all kinds of drugs and perhaps later on being denied their right to own guns. There definitely is an agenda within the circle of corrupt politicians to disarm Americans. Thanks for the info.

      Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:43pm

      @Mopar 1969

      never been much of a fan of Smith autos, but love their revolvers. First hand gun I ever owned (still own) is a Smith 686 .357 mag with six inch barell. I use a Ruger security six for carry.

      While in Iraq, I found an old Smith Combat Masterpiece. I wanted to bring it home. One day I will pick one up from Gunbroker

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:45pm

      @the monk

      Good post tonight.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • Rational Man
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:52pm

      rangerp
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 9:06pm
      Hey, that is a Smith model 66. One of the best revolvers Smith produced. The shorter barreled version makes a great cary piece.

      Sorry!…. Thats a M-27. Take a look at the short cylinder in the N size frame. It’s a .357mag in a large frame.

      Report Post » Rational Man  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:55pm

      @colt1860
      Had to look up what a Colt 1860 was. Nice side arm. Thanks for being so gracious and not like the trolls that cruise around for simple one-liners. I was listening to Glenn back in 2005 on the radio and heard him talking about his AADD and the drugs that he was prescribed. I did some research and found the law that I stated above. I sent him an e-mail called, “No Guns for Glenn” but never heard back from him. That was a long time ago in Internet time. The only “Colt” that I have had the privilege to fire was a 1911A. My first rifle was a 241A Remington and my first side arm was a Browning 9mm with adjustable sites, $109 including the adjustable sites at that time. Giving away my age with that price.
      Have you been in the military?

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • Rational Man
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 11:58pm

      @rangerp

      Oh ya, and all S&W model numbers that start with a 6, are stainless.
      M-66 is a K, (medium), frame………………

      Report Post » Rational Man  
    • Rational Man
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:06am

      I really should try to get everything I want to say in one post.

      The Model 27 “Highway Patrolman” has an aftermarket Millet adjustable target rear sight on it too.

      Report Post » Rational Man  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:07am

      @Colt1860 and RangerP
      I’ve always enjoyed both of your posts and comments. I’ve been telling people about this law for many years and not one person has believed me or tried to look it up online. If either of you get to Central Florida on the West Coast… look for me on The Blaze and let me know you’re in town. It would be my pleasure to buy you breakfast, lunch or dinner.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • colt1860
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:21am

      @the-monk My first side arm was a replica of a Colt 1860 Army, it’s a cap and ball black powder revolver. It’s fun to shoot, it takes time to load though. No, I’m not in the military. I’ve considered joining though. I’m actually in my early twenties, but am complimented by some folks on how mature and well mannered I act. I try to be, at least. There’s nothing wrong with a good conversation or debate, so as long as it’s civil and respectful. The 1911 Colt in 45ACP is definitely in my wish list for next gun to purchase. I live in Maryland, one of the strictest states in regulating firearms (especially when it comes to public carry), so I try to be well informed on gun issues. You’re right. Gun prices were more affordable back then. I usually read, on gun forums, other users saying that they used to buy a gun at Wal-mart, Sears, (even Home Depot at one time) for 85-180 bucks. Unfortunately, Government run public schools and the agenda driven media have made sure and conditioned my generation and the public for that practice to be a no-no in our society today. Apparently, only criminals own guns, according to them.

      Report Post »  
    • glashole
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:33am

      The whole med mary jane deal is not about psycological, but rather pain control. Taking the guns away from people dealing with pain legally, is pushing it with the second amendment. Besides, have you ever seen a stoned person angry or aggressive toward someone? 16 years of smoking it back in the day and all it did was allow me to calm my otherwise aggressive nature and use that energy to ride and ski with more intensity.

      Report Post » glashole  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 3:46am

      NO!

      First of all, I haven‘t heard of a single time where a ’MMU’ has used a weapon in ANY context. This is just one more attempt to get a foot in the door on shutting down 2nd Amendment Rights to yet one more segment of the general population demographic.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • rangerp
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 6:43am

      @Rational Man

      I stand corrected.

      The Model 19 was produced from 1957 (first model number stampings) to November 1999. The Model 66 was produced from 1970 until 2005. The Model 66 differed by its use of stainless steel and its smooth target-type trigger. The Model 19 and the Model 66 had the same trigger options.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • Bill
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 8:41am

      I agree. No!

      Report Post » Bill  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:51am

      I use to love getting high and target shooting at my uncle’s gun range. See gun safety doesn’t stop when you put the bong down it is always the first and for most thought before pulling the trigger. We would shoot smiling face and try to spell words on the targets with the 10/22 and the 50 round drum.

      Report Post »  
    • Zorro6821
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 9:54am

      Pot heads don’t own guns. This is so insane. Booze and Guns are fine but Pot and Dorrito Chomping folks are a threat. I have never heard of a PoT smoker going on a rampage. Pot smokers are the most pacifist crowd. I think Obama just lost a big chunk of his base. Moreover when the DOJ goes after Gibson Guitar, that ended Rock The Vote. What are they thinking?

      Report Post »  
    • Vinny C.
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:55am

      Right on, Freedom! Colt is right! A Right is a Right “Shall not be infringed”. I love how these Big Government types always say,”I want da gub’mint outta my life! But, not yers!”
      Me, personally, I think that people that have children, pets, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, eat meat and fatty foods, and believe in “god”, live in an apartment/trailer or with family members/near a school/hospital/police station/fire department/shopping mall/village hall/library/courthouse shouldn’t be allowed to have firearms either! It’s too dangerous for the population at large for you to be armed.

      Report Post » Vinny C.  
    • DanWesson455
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:00pm

      You are wrong. the answer is YES. Any gun handling/ownership comes with serious responsibility. Having a stoned person out there with a Colt 1911 strapped to his hip is scary for the most liberal of gun owners. One would not mix alcohol and guns nor should they. Why would one who tokes on more than a few bowls a day get a pass. He would be stoned 24/7. Intoxicated. One should be of clear head and mind when one chooses to own a gun. Not smoked up like some 2d Amendment Lovin Conservative Hippie. God, one just can’t teach common sense to some.

      Report Post » DanWesson455  
    • the hawk
      Posted on September 30, 2011 at 12:58pm

      Smoking pot will leave you with COPD you wont be able to pick your gun up !

      Report Post »  
    • jdw2469
      Posted on October 1, 2011 at 10:30am

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed…….. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

      Report Post »  
  • PFN
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:18pm

    What part of “Shall not be infringed” do the idiots not understand? I would be happy to clairify it for them…

    Report Post »  
  • Patriot Z
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:09pm

    No! Period!

    Report Post » Patriot Z  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:26pm

      So you would take the guns away from ANYONE who is using a prescription drug? SAME THING!

      These people are NOT using an illegal drug! Therefore they need NOT say “yes” on the illegal paperwork demanded by the federal government!

      Patriot??? More like PATSIE!

      Report Post »  
  • raenichole7
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:08pm

    Haha if they do this they better stop selling to all the damn alcoholics because they would be first to do that, think of all the alcoholics who are violent!! The last thing you wanna do is shoot a gun when your high hahaha idiots!

    Report Post »  
  • majorsco
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:52pm

    Absolutely. Marijuana is a drug that is an illegal, controlled substance. It causes those who smoke it to loose full control of their mental abilities. If you put a gun in the hand of someone who is high, you’re condoning what ever crimes that may result.

    Report Post »  
    • Secret Squirrel
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:13pm

      .
      This is convoluted, so listen up.
      When you buy a firearm, you fill out a form 4473 at the gunstore.
      On that form, you say you do not use illegal drugs.
      In the eyes of the feds, even medical marijuana is illegal. There is no legal marijuana at the federal level.
      So, if you use pot, you may not own a gun.
      Done.

      You decide, what is more important, pot or gun? You can’t have both.

      Report Post » Secret Squirrel  
    • 1me2ao
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:23pm

      you do realize this has nothing to do with pot, it is about backdoor opening for gun control..

      Report Post »  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:27pm

      So you will take the guns away from anyone who takes a drink of alcohol??????? SAME THING!

      Report Post »  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:31pm

      To Secret Squirrel: The marijuana these people are using is LEGAL AT THE STATE LEVEL. Any state that has it’s own “instant check” system is knocking the feds completely out of the picture.

      I’d much rather see someone who smokes a little weed for their chemotherapy buying a gun, than a drunk!

      Think past the anti-drug propaganda for a change!

      Report Post »  
    • bement14
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:42pm

      Talk about a liberal win-win. Either we agree drug addicts should get their second amendment privilege or we have to fight against the second amendment. I’m so glad America has let these drugs become so mainstream that useless drugs are now legal for the “medical” purpose of being stoned 24/7.

      Report Post »  
    • Conservative Voice
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:50pm

      When the founders signed the constitution people used Heroin and alcohol…and yet didn’t feel it prudent to add a clause…why? Because they were declaring a fundamental right…this right precedes the constitution, the constitution only recognizes it. The right to bear arms is a God given right….and government that undermines that right is guilty of tyranny.

      Unless the person has proven to be dangerous for the community…hence prison or hospitalization…they should be allowed to open carry, conceal carry, own tools for their defense

      Report Post » Conservative Voice  
    • Phoenixsoulfire
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 9:39pm

      If that is the case, then everyone who drinks needs to lose their guns too. It is just more control over the peoples rights. I had done pot before and it didn’t make me want to go shoot people and steal. It is a drug that mellows you out.

      Report Post »  
  • ThePatrioteer
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:49pm

    By this suggestion, you should not allow people who drink beer or liquor to own a gun. If it is legal in your state for medical marijuana, then there should be no penalty to when it comes to owning a gun. It would be no different than being prescribed vicadin for a root canal or something.

    Report Post » ThePatrioteer  
    • Servant Of YHVH
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:14pm

      @thepatrioteer
      I agree with you, alcohol can affect a person’s capabilities (even more than marijuana). However, alcohol is legal in all the states so that doesn’t conflict with federal law, per se. The way that I see it, if someone uses a firearm against anyone with impaired function by alcohol, marijuana or any other substance that impairs function should make it become a felony one charge higher up than normal. I f a person performs at least a level higher than it normally would be.

      By this suggestion, you should not allow people who drink beer or liquor to own a gun. If it is legal in your state for medical marijuana, then there should be no penalty to when it comes to owning a gun. It would be no different than being prescribed vicadin for a root canal or something.

      Report Post » Servant Of YHVH  
    • booger71
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 9:16pm

      The right to bear arms is a natural individual right that cannot be dissolved,changed, or regulated by any level of government, just like the freedom of speech. The end

      Report Post » booger71  
  • jungle J
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:44pm

    It should be an offense to be in the possession of a fire arm under the influence.

    Report Post »  
    • C. Schwehr
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:32pm

      Nah, only if they’re stupid enough to use it while under the influence!

      Report Post »  
  • jungle J
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:43pm

    Uh what were we talking about i forgot?

    Report Post »  
  • hidden_lion
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:42pm

    The state governors need to start forming up official , state sanction militias, as is their responsibility. Militia’s not beholden to the federal overlords.

    Report Post » hidden_lion  
  • PoliticalSmackdown {Subscribe & Friend me on YouTube}
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:30pm

    What i find funniest of all is that fact the ATF who is in charge of your right to own a gun wants to ban you from owning guns if you smoke pot. while at the same time providing guns to the importers of drugs with no verification at all using our Tax money to do it…

    Report Post »  
  • PoliticalSmackdown {Subscribe & Friend me on YouTube}
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:27pm

    Note to pot smokers : LIE! Last time i checked the government was not exactly honest with you were they? besides your medical Records are suppose to be confidential so they cant use them without violating your rights.

    Report Post »  
  • Tim Law
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:25pm

    I don‘t think that medical marijuana user’s should loose their right to own gun’s. But they should not use guns while stoned. No gun and drugs are a good combo. Drinking and guns don’t mix well. The law should be the same for pot as it is for drinking. Any one that has a C.C.W. permit knows that if your going drinking leave your gun at home. Know one wants to lose their CCW but will if caught with a gun while out drinking. Common since can handle the whole debate. I’m a range officer at our local range and we have had a policy of no booze or drugs at the range for over 30 years. I’ll die for the 2nd amendment, but I will not let a anyone get shot because of some idiot that’s drunk or stoned out of his mind. Everyone is welcome at our range but if you come drunk or stoned, you wont be shooting today.

    Report Post »  
    • dsind
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:37pm

      yes, common sense would apply, one would hope.

      Report Post »  
  • whatthecrazy
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:20pm

    Uh what were we talking about i forgot?

    Report Post »  
  • FNG
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:06pm

    I suppose the matter can be resolved, and in many cases is indeed resolved at the level of the individual… Self defense is a natural right, and while there are systems in place to regulate the individual’s ability to obtain measures by which they intend to defend themselves, it’s up to the individual to figure out a means to get around those systems. So, if you’re a pothead, and you want a gun, don‘t reveal that you’re a stoner, and be prepared to suffer the consequences should the authorities discover you’ve lied. Or get your firearms from a private seller.

    Report Post » FNG  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:31pm

      @FNG,

      “Self defense is a natural right, and while there are systems in place to regulate the individual’s ability to obtain measures by which they intend to defend themselves …”

      The 2nd Amendment is for protection from govt.

      Federalist Papers #46
      http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

      “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”

      Report Post »  
    • A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:33pm

      Please end the character limit!

      Report Post »  
    • FNG
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:56pm

      That‘s what i’m saying… If the individual feels the need to protect himself, he’ll find a way to do it.

      Report Post » FNG  
  • Kaoscontrol
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:54pm

    Ban the BONG.

    Report Post » Kaoscontrol  
    • Gerrymanderer
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:00pm

      Don’t touch our SECOND AMENDMENT rights! Defend the Constitution and refine the Elastic Clause. Not everything is ‘necessary and proper’ Congress! Support the rights guaranteed to us by our most cherished Founding Fathers.

      Report Post » Gerrymanderer  
    • jhaydeng
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:05pm

      It should be an offense to be in the possession of a fire arm under the influence.

      Report Post »  
    • booger71
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:13pm

      jhaydeng
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:05pm

      It should be an offense to be in the possession of a fire arm under the influence.
      ——————————————–
      Under the influence of what, idiot progressives that shatter the Constitution?

      Report Post » booger71  
    • MHP
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 7:49pm

      jhaydeng

      It actually is under our state law.

      Report Post » MHP  
  • BrandyWilson
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:48pm

    Hell to the NO!

    Report Post »  
  • bhelmet
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:47pm

    This WILL FINALLY get all the guns out the hands of gangs. About time.

    Report Post » bhelmet  
  • Lloyd Drako
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:45pm

    Drug laws and gun laws: two sides of the same worthless coin.

    Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
  • Blazer123
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:45pm

    You’re not allowed to carry a gun while intoxicated no matter the substance, seems like a logical starting point when addressing this issue.

    I’d assume a non trivial number of people with disabling conditions which qualify for medical cannabis are physically unable to protect themselves so I would support their right to own a firearm. Concealed carry, I dunno…

    Report Post »  
  • Rational Man
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:43pm

    NO!

    Nice M-27 Smith&Wesson!

    Report Post » Rational Man  
  • texasfarmer
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:29pm

    There’s no problem, unless someone tries to take his stash.

    Report Post » texasfarmer  
  • scout n ambush
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:28pm

    Ohhh wow mann……………..Hey light up another one.

    Report Post » scout n ambush  
  • TX_45_ACP
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:27pm

    Is there currently a problem with legal marijuana users and guns? No. They’re just looking for an excluse for gun control. Nothing to fix. However, they certainly won‘t be able to carry concealed because you can’t carry while intoxicated.

    Report Post » TX_45_ACP  
    • Blazer123
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:32pm

      Why do you assume every person with a medical card is intoxicated all day long?

      Report Post »  
    • TX_45_ACP
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:38pm

      I don’t think that, and I didn’t say, you’re just imaging it or read into it too much. People on here sometimes have to type fast or have typos or this or that. The thought of concealed carry just popped into my mind. So sorry I wasn’t clear.

      Report Post » TX_45_ACP  
    • Patriot Z
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:11pm

      because we know that majority of med marijuana users cards are just kids lookin to toke up that use it as a way to get weed legally. sorry but there are not that many cases of 22 yr olds with glaucoma

      Report Post » Patriot Z  
  • ares338
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:26pm

    If you are doing something legal you shouldn’t lose anything! People who drink have gun rights and we all know how well that works.

    Report Post » ares338  
  • Bigolfascist
    Posted on September 29, 2011 at 6:22pm

    Oh boy, more fundamental transformation……or maybe I did inhale after all……..

    Report Post » Bigolfascist  
    • ImWatchingYouAll
      Posted on September 29, 2011 at 8:19pm

      So do other people that have a Rx fall into the same category? It is Time to legalize pot and take away the power of the Gov’t to micromanage our lives.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love