:::::::USA Set to Reschedule Cannabis::::::: HHS Releases Recommendation Documents:::::::

[pipeline]

See they are studying drug abuse, instead of the most common method most adults use, responsible moderated use. Sounds like the government wants to get certain types of results for people who are in a habit of abuse, for what ever reason, instead of looking at the population in legal states and the most common use patterns.

They're trying to get biased data to retain more stringent regulations.

 

[pipeline]

I have a feeling this is what its about. A number of legislators have been looking for an excuse to restrict gun rights.

DOJ Says Allowing A Pennsylvania Prosecutor Who Uses Medical Marijuana To Possess A Gun Would Be ‘Dangerous’

In a new court filing by the U.S. Department of Justice, attorneys for the federal government argue that the nationwide ban on marijuana consumers owning firearms is constitutional and should remain in place, arguing it aligns with other restrictions on gun ownership by dangerous, mentally ill...

www.marijuanamoment.net

DOJ Says Allowing A Pennsylvania Prosecutor Who Uses Medical Marijuana To Possess A Gun Would Be ‘Dangerous’​

Published

on
October 3, 2024
By
Ben Adlin

In a new court filing by the U.S. Department of Justice, attorneys for the federal government argue that the nationwide ban on marijuana consumers owning firearms is constitutional and should remain in place, arguing it aligns with other restrictions on gun ownership by dangerous, mentally ill or intoxicated people.


The brief, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, is the latest in a case filed earlier this year by Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, a registered medical marijuana patient in the state. Greene teamed up with the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) to file suit in January against the government, including U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the heads of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and the FBI.


The original suit says that while Greene “intends to lawfully purchase, possess, and utilize firearms and ammunition so that he may exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and all other lawful purposes,” he’s forbidden from doing so because of his status as a state-certified medical cannabis patient.



In DOJ’s latest filing, the government says that’s by design. Its motion asks the court to dismiss Greene’s case.


“Marijuana’s physical and mental effects make it dangerous for a person to handle firearms,” it says, “and also impair a person’s judgment, including judgement about whether to use firearms.”



It also notes that possession of even state-legal medical marijuana remains a federal crime. The government, however, has not prioritized enforcement of prohibition against state-regulated medical cannabis programs, and a federal budget rider prevents the use of funds to interfere with the state-legal programs.


As the government argued earlier this year in a separate case around cannabis and guns, DOJ says in the new Pennsylvania filing that the prohibition on gun ownership by marijuana users is also supported by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Rahimi, that upheld the government’s ability to limit the Second Amendment rights of people with domestic violence restraining orders.



“Rahimi only strengthens the conclusion that the Second Amendment does not preclude Congress from disarming those who unlawfully use controlled substances,” government attorneys wrote in the brief, which was first reported by Law360. “That includes those who, pursuant to a state medical marijuana program, unlawfully use marijuana, a drug whose impairing effects render it dangerous for a person to operate firearms.”


As for the Pennsylvania district attorney, DOJ’s motion charges that “Greene regularly commits the federal crime of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and wishes to possess firearms while continuing to commit that crime.”


The filing also says the plaintiff Second Amendment Foundation lacks standing because it’s not directly harmed by the policy.



Plaintiffs’ attorney Joshua Prince told Law360 on Tuesday that the latest DOJ arguments “border on the frivolous and fail to show a historical analogue as required by the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent.”


“We expect the motion to be denied,” Prince said, “and to be victorious in our forthcoming summary judgment motion.”


In a separate case centering on the ban on gun ownership by marijuana users, a federal appeals court in a different part of the country ruled a little more than a month ago that the policy is unconstitutional. That ruling does not cover Pennsylvania, however, which is part of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.



“The short of it is that our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon,” judges wrote in the recent appellate opinion, handed down in the Fifth Circuit, “but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”


That case, U.S. v. Connelly, is one of a handful of federal court cases that center on the federal government’s prohibition on gun ownership by users of illegal drugs. And the court’s ruling in favor of Paola Connelly, who was found in possession of a pistol following a domestic conflict in which her husband was wielding a shotgun, may have implications for other pending cases.


“Marijuana user or not,” opined the court, “Paola is a member of our political community and thus has a presumptive right to bear arms. By infringing on that right, § 922(g)(3) contradicts the Second Amendment’s plain text.”



Judges also said the government failed to demonstrate that lawful restrictions on gun ownership by domestic abusers or the mentally ill were sufficiently similar to its law against firearm possession by drug users.


“Laws designed to disarm the severely mentally ill do not justify depriving those of sound mind of their Second Amendment rights,” the court wrote. “The analogy stands only if someone is so intoxicated as to be in a state comparable to ‘lunacy.’”


Another case, U.S. v. Daniels, is also currently before the Fifth Circuit, with oral argument set for this month. It, too, hinges on the constitutionality of the law against gun ownership by marijuana users.



In a brief filed this summer in that case, DOJ pointed to the high court’s Rahimi opinion, arguing that decision reinforced the constitutionality of restricting firearms for cannabis consumers, whom government lawyers called “presumptively risky people.”


DOJ has made similar arguments in a case in a separate case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In that matter, a group of Florida medical cannabis patients contends that their Second Amendment rights are being violated because they cannot lawfully buy firearms so long as they are using cannabis as medicine, despite acting in compliance with state law.


The Biden administration, meanwhile, argues that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.”



The other marijuana and Second Amendment case before the Fifth Circuit, Daniels, was set to be considered by the Supreme Court but was among a number of firearms-related cases remanded back to lower courts following the domestic violence case ruling. The Fifth Circuit had previously struck down the cannabis consumer gun ban in the case last year before DOJ appealed it to the High Court.


The Justice Department has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.


Last year, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.


Earlier this year, meanwhile, President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was convicted by a federal jury of violating statute by buying and possessing a gun while an active user of crack cocaine.


Two Republican congressmen challenged the basis of that conviction, with one pointing out that there are “millions of marijuana users” who own guns but should not be prosecuted.



Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws either further restricting or attempting to preserve gun rights as they relate to marijuana. Recently, for example, a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.


Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state, but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short.


The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled last year that the ban prohibiting people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, with the judge stating that the federal government’s justification for upholding the law is “concerning.”


In U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a judge ruled last April that banning people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional—and it said the same legal principle also applies to the sale and transfer of guns.


Last August, meanwhile, ATF sent a letter to Arkansas officials saying that the state’s recently enacted law permitting medical cannabis patients to obtain concealed carry gun licenses “creates an unacceptable risk,” and could jeopardize the state’s federally approved alternative firearm licensing policy.



Shortly after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed a legalization bill into law last year, ATF issued a reminder emphasizing that people who use cannabis are barred from possessing and purchases guns and ammunition “until” federal prohibition ends.


In 2020, ATF issued an advisory specifically targeting Michigan that requires gun sellers to conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers because it said the state’s cannabis laws had enabled “habitual marijuana users” and other disqualified individuals to obtain firearms illegally.


The Hawaii attorney general’s office also recently released data showing that, of the roughly 500 firearm permit applications denied by officials in the state last year, more than 40 percent were rejected because of applicants’ status as medical marijuana patients.


Read the full DOJ motion in Greene v. Garland below:

 

[pipeline]

So don't become a registered medical cannabis patient or else you could have your right to possess a firearm revoked.

Registration as a patient could be cross referenced by ATF and could at least block you from purchasing a firearm.

 

[armedoldhippy]

being registered as a patient does not mean that you are actually using cannabis. i have been prescribed several meds i don't take. i don't see this working out the way that weed/gun haters hope. every single time that i have been busted for weed, i have been in possession of firearms, and LEO does not care. not one bit. they know that cannabis users are not violent people.

 

[pipeline]

Thankfully we have good people in law enforcement.

I wonder how the pharmaceutical psychiatric drugs would fare in research related to adverse side effects on mental health.... I know they can be very detrimental, but cannabis will have a very strict standard because its a plant not a synthesized big pharma drug for profit.

Pharmaceuticals have a well paid aggressive lobby and also contributes to campaigns of politicians who help make them more money by getting bills passed which benefit big pharma.

 

[armedoldhippy]

Thankfully we have good people in law enforcement.

not something i see voiced on cannabis sites often...but you are correct. most LEO are normal people, but it doesn't take many pushy assholes to give them all black eyes. even when i have been nabbed, they have been unfailingly polite and businesslike. but...(here it comes) i'm old, white, and polite, with the "polite" being critical. "yes, sir" and "no, sir" go a long way, as does leaving your "FUCK YOU, PIG!" tee shirts/attitude at home.

 

[moose eater]

not something i see voiced on cannabis sites often...but you are correct. most LEO are normal people, but it doesn't take many pushy assholes to give them all black eyes. even when i have been nabbed, they have been unfailingly polite and businesslike. but...(here it comes) i'm old, white, and polite, with the "polite" being critical. "yes, sir" and "no, sir" go a long way, as does leaving your "FUCK YOU, PIG!" tee shirts/attitude at home.

When they turn in their colleagues and arrest them for filing perjurous affidavits, lying in incident or arrest reports, or lying on the witness stand, all of which are felonies where I live, then I'll consider them to be decent people who honor their oaths of position. Until then, they're simply members of an immunized gang that seldom bears the dues for their often-protected gang-like criminality. When they protect those who are guilty within their ranks by turning a blind eye, they're complicit in felonies, and should be treated (and shunned) as such.

And the behaviors I described above occur daily.

 

[pipeline]

Corruption has always been an issue in places of power. I know several good police officers. I don't know all the details about their careers, but I feel like they would do their best to see justice is served. I respect them enough to trust their good judgement. They put their lives at risk to protect the people.

 

[pipeline]

Both Major-Party Presidential Candidates Signal Support for Cannabis Policy Reform: Where Trump and Harris Stand on Legalization

We Change Laws!

blog.mpp.org

I think every state needs to be focused on voting for a good upstanding governor since they hold so much power. They can veto legislation and also create executive orders.

 

[pipeline]

2024 Cannabis Policy Reform Legislation and Voter Measures

We Change Laws!

www.mpp.org

 

[moose eater]

Corruption has always been an issue in places of power. I know several good police officers. I don't know all the details about their careers, but I feel like they would do their best to see justice is served. I respect them enough to trust their good judgement. They put their lives at risk to protect the people.

Police orgs in the US have (at least) twice been to the SCOTUS to assert that they're not obliged to protect or keep safe anyone other than their own officers, and even then.....

At least one of these cases involved a woman with a TRO against a former mate who killed her, in part due to police negligence/failure to properly respond..

The cars they drive might often have "To Serve & Protect" written on them, but the cases they were victorious in at the SCOTUS tell another story.

Even looking at their avoidable delays in entering schools where there were active shooters with minor children and teachers dropping dead says who they actually protect; themselves. Badged bullies and cowards, complicit in their colleagues' felonious behaviors. The rather thick blue line..

Their MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) testing shows them and many other authority-prone position holders and seekers as demonstrating a higher-than-average propensity for narcissistic and sociopathic personality types.

 

[pipeline]

Its a difficult job though, I'm sure. I have a lot of respect for law enforcement officers despite all that. They are first responders and are there to help others. They have to face some difficult situations on a daily basis. It would not be easy.

 

[Hammerhead]

Its all nonsense. Its OK for someone to be on Opiates or other pharmaceuticals and own a gun which is far more additive with major impairments vs weed. It makes no logical sense.

 

[pipeline]

Yeah cannabis users tend to drive more carefully if anything, thats all you need to know.

 

[moose eater]

Its a difficult job though, I'm sure. I have a lot of respect for law enforcement officers despite all that.

I've known some decent cops who would turn in their offending fellow officers, both federal and state/local.

One federal UC higher-up who'd run teams busting corrupt cops (among other targets) from NOLa to Houston, and other places as well, said (told me) that if he found one of his own on the take, he'd put a bullet behind their ear himself. I had utmost respect for him in particular, though we approached the drug war from two -very- different sides of the tracks. He had honor and a dedicated not-fucking-around attitude when it came to official corruption.

I could relate some interesting stories from him of having his guys in a poker game with known distributors in Texas, when rogue local cops came in on a shake-down, taking guns, dope and money for their own personal coffers, including seizing one of his UC's weapons and cash..

(*All on surveillance video then, by the way.. fools.)

 

[pipeline]

I had a though earlier that if firearms rights are able to be taken away from medical cannbis patients, would they also then seek to take away parental rights by child protective services? Why wouldn't they..

If you let them take your right to own a firearm, it may not stop there. We not be able to vote, or some other natural right could be taken. Could be under surveillance, could take our kids away.

Then it got me thinking why would they take away our rights. Because we are regular people who talk and stand up against their lies on average.

Also its a major distraction from the major issues such ans monetary and foreign policy.