DOJ Denies Guns to Medical Marijuana Patients, and the NRA is Silent

This is a discussion on DOJ Denies Guns to Medical Marijuana Patients, and the NRA is Silent within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Suspicious? Department of Justice Denies Guns to Medical Marijuana Patients, and the NRA is Silent | | AlterNet...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 34
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: DOJ Denies Guns to Medical Marijuana Patients, and the NRA is Silent

  1. #1
    New Member Array RIRdKng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    11

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array NCGunDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    65
    The DOJ only pointed out that it's already illegal to be in possession of a firearm while under the influence of a controlled substance, including MJ.

    Do you really want the NRA or SAF to go to bat on this one? Once MJ, or all drugs are legalized, for that matter, then yes, until then, pick your battles.

    Fighting this one makes no sense. Let the pot heads put their skin in the game. Here's one for you, Medical Marijauna Users For Gun Rights (MUGGER)
    shooterX and 357and40 like this.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,431
    I'm perfectly happy to have my lobby stay off this one. Better to leave it to NORML.

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array jumpwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,271
    My wife has MS and medical marijuana is an option for her (though she hasn't tried it and is reluctant to do so). I'm not trying to champion any crusades here, but let's not confuse pot heads with people who suffer from continual pain. Most people in that condition have two choices in pharmaceuticals: a drug that doesn't do squat, or one that basically renders you a zombie.

    My real problem here is that *I* own firearms. Would the ATF put one or both of us in prison because prescribed marijuana and legal firearms are both in the same house? I don't see why not. There was already a case where a man was released from prison and moved back in with his wife. SHE owned a pistol and kept it in the house. Guess who ended up back in prison for being in the same house as a firearm? Yep, the husband. No, he wasn't carrying it or handling it or anything else. The fact that he had access to it under his roof was enough to toss him back in the barrel. In other words, she had to give up her 2A right to keep her husband out of jail. Do I have to give up mine to keep my wife out of jail if she chooses to go with a marijuana treatment? Theoretically, no. Practically? Yeah, I'm pretty sure I would.
    "The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    cafepress.com/bgstudios

  6. #5
    Member Array lordhamster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    382
    This reminds me of the argument that has been going on in Ohio. Anti-gunners opposed carry in restaurants and bars because they claim "alcohol and guns don't mix" yet they always ignore the stipulation that it is already illegal to be under the influence and carrying.

    Why is it that pro-gunners can't seem to understand the same distinction in this matter? The fact that someone posses a prescription for a medication does not automatically mean that they will be running around town armed to the teeth and high as a kite.

    IMO if a person is not under the influence then a perscription should have no bearing on their gun ownership status.

    *Disclaimer: I'm not a user of any kind of drugs. Hell I didn't even drink any alcohol at all till I was 33. I just happen to believe in states rights on all issues, not just when it is convenient or I agree with the law.
    RIRdKng likes this.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array SFury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    757
    Well, the example of the ex-con husband is irrelevant. He made his choice. The wife made a choice as well. They are adults. I'm betting the PO told the parolee he was not to be around firearms.

    An adult choice led to his parole being revoked. Had better choices been made, the husband would not be a felon. Ex or otherwise.

    So, yes, the wife has to choose to be with the husband minus guns, or to toss him out. Decisions made by the husband brought about the dilemma. No one made him commit a crime. He has to live with the consequences of his actions. I can't even begin to understand how anyone can even care about this situation caused by the direct actions of one of the people in the relationship. More people need to be held accountable for their actions. Not less.

    I also fail to see why the NRA would even care about this issue. There is no argument. The DOJ is merely saying that they are enforcing the law. That is one of their primary purposes after all.

    Add to the fact that the law being enforced has been in effect for decades, what is their for the NRA to even lobby against in this case? Let's face it, many of the leading faces of the NRA have been very big anti-drug advocates. It comes with the territory of being a responsible gun owner in basic life choices. Drugs cause you to lose control, when you have a firearm you should never want to lose control. Remaining in control means you are unlikely to hurt anyone accidently.

  8. #7
    Member Array lordhamster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    382
    Quote Originally Posted by SFury View Post
    Drugs cause you to lose control, when you have a firearm you should never want to lose control. Remaining in control means you are unlikely to hurt anyone accidently.
    Nobody is arguing that point. You sound like the anti-gunners in Ohio who believe that responsible gun owners can't be trusted into a bar because they may be tempted to get drunk and shoot up the place.

    The issue is if a person who simply holds a prescription for a medication should be banned from gun ownership.
    RIRdKng likes this.

  9. #8
    New Member Array RIRdKng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    SW Florida
    Posts
    11
    We're not talking about a bunch of low-life junkies here. These are people with medical problems and a presciption being denied their 2A rights.

    I don't use pot and, thankfully, don't have any of the problems that would require such a presciption ...it just doesn't seem right to deny peoples' rights based on that.

    I'm not sure how I feel about the NRA getting involved.

  10. #9
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    This thread is already running in this same fourm on 9/27.

    This discussion should be merged. Lot's of good discussion in the other thread



    ATF says pot users cannot own, buy guns
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    I also fail to see why the NRA would even care about this issue. There is no argument. The DOJ is merely saying that they are enforcing the law. That is one of their primary purposes after all.

    +1
    If folks want to complain about dope laws they should complain to the organization that made dope illegal-the US congress.
    phreddy likes this.

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array jumpwing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,271
    Quote Originally Posted by SFury View Post
    Well, the example of the ex-con husband is irrelevant. He made his choice. The wife made a choice as well. They are adults. I'm betting the PO told the parolee he was not to be around firearms.

    An adult choice led to his parole being revoked. Had better choices been made, the husband would not be a felon. Ex or otherwise.

    So, yes, the wife has to choose to be with the husband minus guns, or to toss him out. Decisions made by the husband brought about the dilemma. No one made him commit a crime. He has to live with the consequences of his actions.
    So she has to choose between her Rights and her marriage? No, I don't think that's okay. That's punishment for association AFTER the fact.
    "The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
    cafepress.com/bgstudios

  13. #12
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,311
    The medical MJ "patients" in CA have a public Smoke Out planned where they are all going to go out in public and medicinally smoke their weed during a big street fest.
    There is no shortage of "doctors" that will give anybody a script for medical MJ.
    George Soros was funding the big push for legalized medicinal pot. Geee...I wonder why?
    Heck...if a terminal Cancer patient needs MJ then go for it if regular narcotic meds don't help or cannot be tolerated. The majority of folks are just potheads that want to toke legally but, they are slowly poisoning themselves and killing brain cells and getting irrepairable lung damage. Not that I actually care.
    Don't think that because it's "natural" that it's harmless. I can think of at least 50 other natural plants and plant derivitives that are deadly and poison.
    Some act quickly and some much slower.

  14. #13
    Distinguished Member Array ArkhmAsylm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St. Paul, Minnesota
    Posts
    1,373
    -
    The NRA probably doesn't want to wade into that muck. As Mike1956 suggested, leave this one to NORML.
    "Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right." -- U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, Re: U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array Arborigine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Calaveras County, California
    Posts
    1,698
    Quote Originally Posted by ArkhmAsylm View Post
    -
    The NRA probably doesn't want to wade into that muck. As Mike1956 suggested, leave this one to NORML.
    I went to the Berkley pot store about 8 years ago with a friend to observe the game. Most of the people coming out looked like they won the lottery and I am sure a few were going for immediate resale. There were also a few who were obviously very sick and not having any fun at all. I hope they found some relief, but i don't want them driving or packing heat.
    I'm waiting to see if DOJ starts knocking on doors. NRA should stay away from this quicksand.
    Norml is too lethargic to do anything, leave it to the "Marijuana Policy Project", as paid for by your pals at the Progressive Insurance Company LINK> snopes.com: Progressive Insurance - Peter Lewis Donations
    Last edited by Arborigine; October 1st, 2011 at 12:38 PM.
    357and40 likes this.

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array 357and40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Charles, Missouri
    Posts
    2,334
    Just do not thing people under the influence of mind altering substances should be carrying...

    As for the example above cited by jumpwing, I see a very big difference between someone who gets out of prison & goes back because they are around guns, compared to your potential situation. Nobody in your home JUST GOT OUT OF PRISON....
    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
    - Roy Batty

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

doj, gun, marijuana
,
medical marijuana and nra
,
medical marijuana guns nra
,
medical marijuana nra
,
national rifle association medical marijuana
,
nra and marijuana
,

nra and medical marijuana

,

nra marijuana

,
nra medical
,

nra medical marijuana

,
nra on medical marijuana
,
nra stance on medical marijuana
Click on a term to search for related topics.