The Gun Rights Consequences of Marijuana Legalization

Illinois marijuana attorney general


By Chris Rabby

What does “legal” and medical marijuana law do to your gun rights, you and many gun owners ask?

The short answer is that the feds won’t allow a dealer to sell a pot-card holder a gun, and they shouldn’t possess one.

Florida and some other states have decided to legalize low-dose marijuana/THC for medical treatment or personal use. Many states have even amended the their constitutions to allow it. However, a “legal” user is not allowed to purchase a firearm.

In Wilson V. Lynch, Rowan Wilson was a “legal” marijuana prescription card holder in Nevada. She sued because a federal firearms licensees dealer (FFL) would not sell her a firearm, pursuant to directions from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

In September, 2011, the ATF directed all FFLs “that regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana for medical purposes, a person is an unlawful user and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.” Any potential purchaser is required to answer that they are such a person on ATF Form 4473,  question 11.e.

weed marijuana second amendment gun rights atf


The court’s ruling said Wilson’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution had been infringed, but that the government had a right to infringe upon it. Marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812.

A Schedule I controlled substance is deemed to have “no currently accepted medical use in treatment…and…a lack of accepted safety for use of the … substance under medical supervision.” Id. § 812(b)(1)(B) & (c). Federal law outlaws possession of a firearm by an “unlawful user” of, or by a person addicted to any controlled substance, to possess a firearm (Title 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3)). The penalty is the same as for a convicted felon possessing a firearm, a maximum of 10 years in prison.

The United States Supreme Court declined to accept the Wilson ruling for review making this the law. . The Wilson case did not specifically address if it was legal to possess a weapon by a pot card holder, because there was no showing that Wilson actually had a firearm.

weed marijuana second amendment gun rights atf


The US Supreme Court previously allowed a medical marijuana card holder to possess a firearm and a concealed weapons permit by declining to hear a case from Oregon. There, Jackson County, Oregon, Sheriff Mike Winter refused to issue a concealed gun permit to an admitted marijuana user. She appealed that decision and was issued a concealed weapon permit by the state appeals and Oregon Supreme Court.

The Sheriff’s petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied, making the Oregon ruling law at that point (132 S.Ct.199(2012)). But it appears the Wilson decision is now controlling, so you should not possess a firearm if you have a pot card.

This possession issue will certainly be brought before the Court again with more states legalizing marijuana in some form.  My advice, after 25+ years as a criminal defense lawyer is to not mess with the feds. You do not want to be the person before the United States Supreme Court five years from now. So for now, you will hav to choose between your pot or your gun.


Chris Rabby is a criminal defense attorney practicing law in Pensacola, Florida.


  1. avatar dph says:

    I know it’s the law , but on the face of it it is stupid. You could be a drinking a bottle of vodka and smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day and get a gun, but take a toke, tough luck for you.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Cigarettes don’t measurably affect your mental state. Alcohol gets out of your system in a few hours. THC can stay in your system for weeks. Until we have a good understanding of exactly how THC affects the human brain and how long it impairs judgement, keeping it illegal is a good idea. I’m not against legalizing it eventually, but we need to move it to a different schedule first to do the proper testing and only then move to full legalization.

      In the meantime, I’ll stick to my scotch and my cigars. Prohibition was a bad idea, but it’s not like we have zero laws on the subject.

      FYI: In a lot of states, it is illegal to carry while intoxicated. How would you judge intoxication for a drug as poorly researched as THC?

      1. avatar Random says:

        The only problem is that is classified as a schedule 1 drug which means it can’t be used in research or studied. Makes it hard to find out anything about it. I don’t use it but many people I know do.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Agreed, which means it needs to be moved to a different schedule until the research is done.

      2. avatar Red in CO says:

        There’s a difference between staying in your system and actually effecting you though. Alcohol stays in your system for days but it doesn’t mean your drunk for that long; same thing with weed

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’d love to see the research that demonstrates that. My experience with stoners indicates otherwise

        2. avatar B.D. says:

          Your experience with stoners?

          son, put the bong down.

      3. avatar Felix Schmelix says:

        You sound like an overvaccinated fascist.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Hi pg2… nice to see you giving your other troll account a spin.

      4. avatar Jim from LI says:

        People didn’t discover pot a couple years ago. It’s been in wide use in this country for at least 50 years. How long do we need to continue doing “research”? Until we know the affect on occupants of the Mars colony?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Given that it’s been a schedule 1 drug since long before modern scientific standards? Let’s try doing something that resembles modern research. My biggest problem is the lack of a scientifically supported legal intoxication standard.

        2. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          It’s been in wide use in this country since it’s founding – there’s ample evidence our founding fathers were stoners. There are letters from George Washington instructing that the male hemp plants be weeded out from his well-documented crop to prevent seeding. The only reason to do this is to increase the potency of marijuana – it serves no purpose whatsoever in the cultivation of hemp for all other purposes, and in fact would be counterproductive as fewer to no seeds would be produced. Hemp seed oil itself was/is a profitable part of cultivating hemp for uses other than getting the sticky-icky. It is well documented that use was prevalent during the civil war as well (wars generate lots of documentation). The history of why marijuana/hemp was made illegal in the first place is a quite convoluted tale that goes far beyond the realm of Anslinger’s butthole, but why it remains so probably has more to do with societal norms and resistance to change than any evidentiary-backed reason, particularly considering that alcohol – one of the most debilitating conscious-altering drugs known to man – is perfectly legal. Federally, pot is controlled by the marijuana tax stamp act – a stamp they just don’t issue. Sound familiar?
          In my opinion, the government has no business opining on any drug at all, other than perhaps verifying that it is what the label says it is. Laws against drugs seem to be what created all the problems in the first place. In the 1800’s (and before), one could walk into most any apothecary and get whatever one wanted – cocaine, heroin, whatever. Of course there were always individuals who developed addiction issues, but those instances hardly affected society as a whole, just as there are alcoholics now while few people currently consider that a societal issue worthy of governmental intervention. No, the problems with drugs all started when the government decided to try to legislate morality and stepped in and regulated and/or prohibited everything. As usual.

        3. avatar Marty says:

          How do you do a real study on something that affects different people differently? When I was a teenager, I tried pot with some friends. It was horrible. It totally affected me different than the others. We got the ‘munchies’ so I drove the group to Jack in the Box. As hard as i tried to concentrate on keeping the truck going straight, one of the guys had to keep turning the wheel for me to stay on the road! They were fine, I was toast. First and last time I tried the stuff.

      5. avatar COstew says:

        It is detectable in urine for a few weeks but is only active and detecable in the bloodstream for a few hours, depending on amount, very similar to alcohol. That’s why blood testing is the only way to prove cannabis “DUI” in the state of CO. Just because someone may “pee” dirty, does not indicate their current state. It is an archaic law that should be abolished. Many good and honest people are felons due this infringement.

      6. avatar strych9 says:

        “Cigarettes don’t measurably affect your mental state.”

        Sure they do. Put a non-tobacco use behind the wheel and give them a drag while they’re driving 75mph and say hello to the ICU or the undertaker. Nicotine is a potent intoxicant. We just build a tolerance to it rapidly.

        It’s also highly addictive. People who are quitting smoking are irritable as hell for four or five days.

        They definitely affect your mental state, in a way that, if you’re quitting or just starting, people 50 yards away can detect.

      7. avatar Allen Thompson says:

        You bring up the fact of THC, well in medical marijuana the content of THC is minut, while the cannabinoid levels which they have studied is much higher. So with medical marijuana you dont get the high

    2. avatar Joatmon says:

      You’re absolutely right and I’m not a Marijuana user.
      If you’re a citizen of the United States of America, you have a 2nd Ammendment right.
      This is a very sticky situation. I’m pretty sure most medical users don’t get high and then decide to go to their local range.
      Same with alcohol. I know I won’t and if I have a beer or 2, I won’t carry.
      Are there exceptions? I’m sure there is as some people are dumber than a box of rocks. Same as with any situation.
      Until Marijuana comes off the list, it is what it is tho.
      When they run a background check, are the states that have legal use looking for this information or is it separate from a NICS check?
      I know it’s on the form.

    3. avatar Alan says:

      As your post notes at the outset of your post, “It’s the law”. That said, “the law” is subject to Amendment, it can be repealed also, but until such action is taken, the law is the law. The individual may thumb their nose at it, they may willingly and obviously violate it, or try, however the law, as it stands, must be abided by, until changed or removed.

    4. avatar guest says:

      You could just do what the vast majority of cannabis enthusiasts do when they buy a gun. Lie. The govt doesn’t know if you partake or not. I sold guns for 3 years and not a single person ever checked yes on that box once they added it, but I did clarify the fact it was on a federal form, who didn’t care what the states said.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        I’m sure you’re right. Lying about this on a federal form is an example of an addiction continuing out of control.

  2. avatar LKB says:

    While the article correctly articulates the existing tensions between federal gun laws, federal drug laws, and state drug laws, it whiffs badly (twice) on a pretty basic principle of federal appellate law.

    A denial of cert by the Supreme Court is *not* precedent, and thus does not “make the lower court ruling the law.”

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Pretty sure that any judgement that is allowed to stand is precedent for the court that issued it. For federal courts, that’s generally the circuit level. For state supreme courts, it’s the state level. That’s been the case for a long time until federal district courts got the magical idea that they have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

      1. avatar LKB says:

        But in those cases, the ruling of the Court of Appeals / State Supreme Court is *already* precedent for that circuit / district. A denial of cert doesn’t make it “super duper precedent.”

        Indeed, nothing about a cert denial stops a circuit / state supreme court from later reversing itself on the issue. E.g., just because the Supreme Court denied cert on a panel opinion from X circuit on legal question Y, X circuit can later take up question Y en banc and come out the other way. (Or in the Seventh Circuit, another panel can simply disagree with an earlier panel — fortunately, this bizarre practice is limited to that circuit.)

        I say it again, because it is a basic principle of federal appellate law (which I have been practicing for over 30 years): cert denials are not precedent.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I concede the point. You’re absolutely right. I’m just not clear on how such a distinction makes an appreciable difference.

        2. avatar LKB says:

          Here’s a hypo that explains it:

          Case 1: 9th Circuit panel holds that “X” is the law. That’s now precedent in the 9th Circuit, and lower courts and other 9th Circuit panels are required to follow it (i.e., that “X” is the law).

          Case 2: 5th Circuit panel says, “we think the 9th Circuit was wrong in Case 1, and we hold ‘not X” is the law.” “Not X” is now precedent in the 5th Circuit (and creates a circuit split).

          Now, assume that the loser in Case 2 files a cert petition, noting the circuit split. Obviously, if the Supreme Court grants the petition and decides the case, the Supreme Court’s decision on whether “X” or “not X” is the law becomes the precedent that ALL circuits are bound by.

          But what if the Supreme Court simply denies the cert petition? (Yes, Virginia, the Supreme Court doesn’t resolve all circuit splits.) According to the OP, that cert denial means that “not X” is the law — which means that the cert denial resolved the circuit split and implicitly overruled the 9th Circuit. As anyone who has done any federal appellate practice will tell you, that is simply not correct: a cert denial is not precedent, and as a result the circuit split would remain.

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      It didn’t make the Oregon Supreme Court ruling the law in Oregon, it let the ruling stand as law.

      What’s up for question now is whether the Wilson case in the 9th Circuit applies to the Oregon ruling and overrules it, assuming Oregon is in the 9th as I believe it is.

  3. avatar Roger J says:

    Legal cannabis, felons voting, sales tax increase. WTF has happened to the voters of Florida? Are there really that many degenerate Northeasterners here?

    1. avatar Marsha Marsha Marsha says:


      1. avatar Marsha Marsha Marsha says:

        To be clear, though, I’m fine with the weed.

  4. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Just blast your shotgun off the porch if you get nervous while gacked out.

    The Biden Defense is the law of the land.

  5. avatar BobS says:

    While California’s then-Lt Gov Gavin Newsom was campaigning simultaneously in 2016 for the Governor’s mansion, Proposition 63 (criminalize lots of gun stuff), and Proposition 64 (legalize marijuana), his campaign held an online town meeting with live Q&A from the public.

    I asked whether, presuming two of the three were successful (all three were), he would advocate with the federal DEA to remove marijuana from their Schedule 1 list, and thus from the list of disqualifiers on the ATF’s Form 4473 question 11(e).

    Unsurprisingly, he ignored my question.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      No wonder all of the lefties want pot legalized. It’s all part of the plan to disarm us! Good question btw.

      1. avatar Marsha Marsha Marsha says:

        I mean, that’s why we should decriminalize it. Take away their ability to use it against us. It made cancer substantially easier to deal with for me… But that’s an actual medical use. Some seem to want it the way drunks want alcohol. Hell, why not, it’s seemed less ‘mind altering’ than alcohol and I don’t have cravings for it like alcohol.

        I’ve known drunks, and I’ve known stoners. I have yet to meet an alcoholic that I’d trust my life too, or that I could trust to be sober for more than a few hours. Cannabis seems significantly less dangerous to me.

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    Just git yer weed the old-fashion way.Now that CBD oil/ products all the rage is there ANY legal caviot about using it? Asking for a friend😄

  7. avatar jarett says:

    “So for now, you will hav(e) to choose between your pot or your gun.”

    However, if your a drunkard you are good to go.

    Meanwhile the federal law making marijuana a schedule one drug was passed to deter illegal immigration from mexico. Which was laughable when it was implemented and at this point is/has been a lost cause and accomplished no such thing.

    Excerpt below…..enjoy the guvs laughable description of its effects

    Despite its medical usefulness, many Americans’ attitudes towards cannabis shifted at the turn of the century. This was at least partly motivated by Mexican immigration to the U.S. around the time of the 1910 Mexican Revolution, according to Eric Schlosser, author of Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market.

    “The prejudices and fears that greeted these peasant immigrants also extended to their traditional means of intoxication: smoking marijuana,” Schlosser wrote for The Atlantic in 1994. “Police officers in Texas claimed that marijuana incited violent crimes, aroused a ‘lust for blood,’ and gave its users ‘superhuman strength.’ Rumors spread that Mexicans were distributing this ‘killer weed’ to unsuspecting American schoolchildren.”

    It’s worth noting that research has shown alcohol to be more dangerous than marijuana. In addition, cannabis doesn’t really cause superhuman strength, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s fact sheet on the drug says that “No death from overdose of marijuana has been reported.”

    Even though there was no evidence to support claims that marijuana had a Jekyll-and-Hyde effect, 29 states outlawed marijuana between 1916 and 1931. The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 essentially banned it nation-wide despite objections from the American Medical Association related to medical usage. This act came just a year after the film Reefer Madness warned parents that drug dealers would invite their teenagers to jazz parties and get them hooked on “reefer.”

    1. avatar Marshal says:

      I fear that we are about to re-live the 1920-30’s with something easier to build than a still, much less alcohol…

  8. avatar strych9 says:

    Meanwhile your local gangbanger smokes crack while toting a 9, some redneck snorts crank while cradling a pistol gripped shotty and some old time slugs down a quart of whiskey and spins the cylinder of his revolver.

    This is one of those places where I simply say “fuck them and their undefined terms”. I don’t advocate that you smoke weed, or eat it or whatever but I will say this: since they have not properly defined “user” unless you’re puffing on the stuff while filling out a 4473, you’re not lying when you check the “no” box.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:


      I am all for a smaller government, it keeps its nose out of my personal affairs.

      Strangely, it’s the conservatives and their love of a government just big enough to drowned in the bathtub who want a big government telling me what I can smoke. Let’s get the government out of our garden.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        Couldn’t agree more. A statist is a statists, plain and simple. And statists are the enemy of freedom

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        See my comment above. We agree that punishing people for endangering other people through reckless behavior is a good idea. Let me know when we have a scientifically verified legal standard for testing THC intoxication like we do with alcohol and I’ll be all about letting you get as toked up as you want.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          In my mind the intoxicant doesn’t matter at all. What matters is the harm you caused.

          If I shoot you in the face and you die, it’s a crime. The question is if it’s accidental or intentional. If I’m intoxicated on booze, pot, LSD, legal medication I was prescribed and had a bad reaction to or just took too much of my medication is irrelevant in my mind.

          If it’s an accident it’s manslaughter. If it was intentional it’s murder. We have punishments for both. What I may or may not have been intoxicated by isn’t, in my mind, an issue. What matters is that I shot you and I better have a damn good explanation for that or prison it is.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          I have a hard time arguing that we shouldn’t have a law against DUI.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          The problem with DUI is, IMHO, two fold.

          If a person does no harm to another and there is therefore no victim, where’s the crime? When we start creating laws that have criminal punishments attached, including felonies in many jurisdictions, we’re ruining people’s lives over a mistake that the vast majority of people could make. This isn’t something that you’d have to be excessively reckless to do because tens of thousands of people do it each year, probably millions if you count those who don’t get busted.

          It’s also arbitrary. Two drinks might get me shitfaced, in fact since I haven’t had a drink in over a year, they probably would. But you might be fine after three drinks. Women process alcohol differently than men. So the “objective standard” is BAC which the person really can’t know and neither can the cops, hence the loads of different ways they test someone and get different results. Roadside test, roadside breath test, blood test, breath test at the station etc. So clearly they know this is bullshit. Otherwise they’d have one test and call that the standard.

          On top of that there’s the issue of the “limit”. Even if we had a standard test that was universally accepted as being accurate, how is one to know if they’re at 0.079, 0.080 or 0.081? Should every bar have a big PD station breathalyzer? How do we account for the margin of error on that thing? What about the variance between that test and the blood test which nearly always registers higher because it also finds metabolites that last for 72 hours?

          We also make no distinction for people who may be drugged with, say, GHB after one drink. Is a woman who gets drugged at a bar but manages to make it out of the bar before the rapist gets to her but is too fucked up to think clearly and so gets behind the wheel a criminal? Could she claim she was fleeing her rapist as a defense? I’d say she’s a victim but the State says otherwise.

          So harm to another person or another’s property, IMHO, should be the objective standard here. If you made it home without incident then there is no crime because there is no victim.

          Further, current DUI law encourages people to drive drunk. Someone who realizes they are too drunk to drive and pulls over to sleep it off has obviously made a mistake but they’re doing the right thing to get off the road until sober right? Well, not according to the law. So, knowing that pulling over and sleeping is almost a guaranteed DUI is an incentive to drive more and try to make it home without getting caught. That’s “pants on head retarded” as you would say.

          The whole thing is a mess, and is generally the case with malum prohibitum laws, I cannot support it.

  9. avatar BradleyD says:

    So, in order for it to be heard by the court, I take it you would have to own a firearm, have it acquired legally, and then start smoking marijuana in a legal state. Something would have to come along that would result in your firearm being confiscated only due to you smoking pot with what I would assume no other crime taking place. For example, if you were high and driving they would treat it like drinking and driving, and take your firearm. I guess if you were smoking in your living room with a friend, showed them your gun collection, and then they called the cops? Maybe?

    Also, what defines a user of? Can I smoke once a month? A week? I could say without a doubt I am not addicted.

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      “I could say without a doubt I am not addicted”

      So would most pot addicts.

      1. avatar Marshal says:

        Well, if that’s the scale we’re using… Research has shown that it is less addictive than social media. Better hand in them guns bloggers/Twitter’ers/redditors! Anyone who owns a phone, too! Anyone who drinks coffee is in arguably using a mimd altering substance.

  10. avatar Wally1 says:

    Well, it’s a disqualifier on ATF form 4473. if you are a marijuana user and lie on the form to purchase a firearm, you now have committed a crime. This bring up another issue concerning these dopers money. If you are a Marijuana drug grower or seller in a state where it is legal, it’s still against federal law. If you deposit any of those proceeds from a marijuana manufacture or sale into a federally deposit insured bank, you are money laundering, electronic transfer of those funds could also be determined to be a separate crime.
    I would never associate or trust anyone involved in marijuana or any other illegal drug trade. I have seen the long term effects of children and teenage marijuana use. It is factually linked to mental health issues such as schizophrenia during brain development. I also do not condone excessive alcohol use, but hey, it’s legal. Just my opinion, your mileage may vary…

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Given the choice I would never choose to associate with a government that believes prohibition is a good idea.

      Said government undoubtedly believes that gun grabbing is also a good idea because the root thought behind gun control and prohibition is exactly the same.

      When I run into people who say guns should be legal but drugs shouldn’t be I wait for the “but…” because it’s always there. Such a person just likes guns, they have no philosophical underpinning for their beliefs and, like many on the Left believe “It should be legal if I like it. If I don’t like it then fuck those people who do it, make it illegal” which is grabber thinking to a T.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        Well said

        1. avatar daveinwyo says:

          Spent time in the ’70s in colorado. Was around potheads, drunks and a mix of both with a little coke thrown in. I was never afraid of the gun owning potheads. The drunks were enough to scare the socks off me. Had a .44 mag round go past my shoulder by the drunk. Never had the same with the potheads. But that was then. Mostly I want the gov OUT of my life. G. Washington and other FFs grew medicinal hemp (pot). And cooked up their own rye wiskey. Also, my observation only, the pot heads never got mean and ugly like some drunks.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Ok… how about “it should be legal once we have a legal standard for punishing people who abuse it”? That work for you? There is no science on the duration of behavioral impairment due to THC consumption. I’m no happier letting someone toked out of their gourd run around with a gun than I am with doing so for someone who is blind drunk. Here’s a fun fact, you can’t even call it a false comparison because the science to make that claim does not exist.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I understand what you want here the problem is that it isn’t possible.

          What is abuse? Personal physiological and psychological differences mean it’s not possible for us to have an objective standard.

          If two people smoke pot, say 3.5 grams a day, are they both abusing it? Well, one might have PTSD or be dealing with other trauma in their life or using it because of cancer or some other malady I can’t think of. Their six months of smoking a ton of weed every day isn’t abuse. Me doing the same thing, that’s probably abuse. How can you tell the difference? You can’t.

          So I would say that when it comes to “criminal” actions we have to define them as behaviors that adversely affect other people in a way that violates their legal rights. At that point we can have an objective standard. No one has the right to put a gun in your face and take your stuff. It doesn’t matter if they’re doing it to feed a habit or to feed some hungry homeless kids. Their behavior violates your rights and therefore we can say that their behavior is illegal.

          If their behavior simply inconveniences someone else or is something maybe we don’t approve of that’s not illegal and shouldn’t be. I personally don’t approve of smoking meth at all. I wouldn’t choose to hang out with people who engage in the practice. However, I would defend their right to do it so long as they don’t harm anyone else or entice those under the age of consent to use meth.

          I’ve taken heat here before for being against DWI laws but I have the same logic. The rational basis for DUI law is that “drunk driving increases the risk to everyone on the road”. However, the logical extension of that argument is that anything that increases risk to someone else should be banned, which includes just about everything. But we need not extend the logic to the absurd, we can see exactly the same logic behind a proposed AWB. You can’t have an AR-15, or other semi-auto rifle. Why? Because some asshole somewhere did something stupid with one.

          Millions of people own AR’s and harm no one. Why should they lose that item because a few people abuse it? They have harmed no one and therefore violated no law that has logical reason to exist. If they do harm someone with it we already have laws on manslaughter, murder and negligence to cover that harm. Same with DUI. Having an extra SIP is the difference between a crime and not a crime. That’s insane. If you don’t harm someone else then there should be no crime. But DUI goes way farther into the realm of stupidity than that and actually encourages drunk driving in some cases. Even worse, legally speaking in many places you cannot get legally drunk even accidentally (having “one too many”) and “do the right thing” of taking a cab home because taking the cab may require you to leave private property and transit a sidewalk to get to the cab. That’s drunk in public and also illegal.

          This shit is all stupid. Malum prohibitum laws are insane. They’re also an excellent way to control a population which is why statists LOVE such laws. Fuck that. No harm, no foul.

          I simply don’t believe in the idea of “show me the man I’ll show you the crime” which is where these kind of laws get us to. I prefer to say “Show me the victim and let’s go find the perp” but if there isn’t a victim then I’m not seeing the reason to even begin to think there might be a crime.

      3. avatar Marshal says:


    2. avatar Dude says:

      I’m guessing you wouldn’t condone me screwing your wife, but hey, it’s legal!

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Others may have different opinions but if you tried to fuck my wife I’d just call a cleanup service because she’s likely an unwilling participant and your blood is going to cause permanent stains in my house and decomposing bits of you are going to smell. That’s what she’s going to do to you.

        If, by some stoke of luck, you managed to get her to be a willing participant then I’d go to the bank, get a copy of my prenup, call a lawyer and laugh at both of you for fattening my investment portfolio.

        Either way, I win because I’m richer and less a foosie that you exposed, or you’re dead and I’m suing your estate for damages because you forced my wife to kill you and all that “mental anguish” is costly. Vacations to tropical spots so she can “forget the trauma” ain’t cheap, ya know.

  11. avatar Greg says:

    Got a pot card use the straw buyer loophole.🤣🤣

  12. avatar James W Crawford says:

    I always cited the BATF that guns and booze don’t mix even before they deomonstrated it at Waco. Contrary to propagsnda about .50 BMG machinegujs and full auto AK-47s, at least three out of the four dead agents were killed with .223 or .308 projectiles consistant witu the rifles employed by BATF snipers deployed at the undrrcover house who somehow managed to fire three dozen rounds without hitting any of the Branch Davidians.

    After having the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program knowingly and intentionally enable my psychopathic pot plantationist tennant to commit perjury to avoid eviction and conviction for firing two rounds from a 12 gauge shotgun (probably loaded with slugs) at my son, I am inclined to side with the Feds that guns and pot don’t mix either. While the OLCC has been reasonably diligent about regulating recreational marijuana, OMMP has made it their mission to enable marijunna bootleggers to operate with impunity. Most people who have OMMP medical marijuana patient cards abuse them to grow or buy in bulk then market pot either to children or out of state.

    1. avatar Marshal says:

      Allowing one asshat Stoner to ruin medical marijuana for you (and others) is like letting one school shooter ruin guns for you (and others)…

  13. avatar JMB says:

    This article underplays a couple of things. One is the scale and scope of legalization. At this point there are only three states that have not taken action to legalize cannabis in some form and end the misguided war on drugs. Secondly, the state versus federal conflict covers not just guns but also taxes, banking, transport and a million other areas. The Feds have wisely done very little to prosecute legal cannabis users and businesses because they know they are on the wrong side of popular opinion. At this point even a majority of Republican voters are pro-legalization.

    I expect cannabis to be fully legalized within the next 2-3 years. If Trump has any sense he would legalize it now in order to take it off the table for 2020 elections. If Dems win in 2020, it’s a certainty.

    1. avatar Marshal says:

      But this whole article is about pot AND guns. I think it’s time for a third party… I just some of the other parties would hire a good economist because their financial idea’s are lunacy. Sigh…

  14. avatar Red in CO says:

    Sounds like the moral of the story is to buy everything with cash from private parties. Involving the government always makes things more complicated and involves more risk for you

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Dems will eventually occupy the White House, and private party sales will be illegal.

      1. avatar Marsha Marsha Marsha says:

        On one hand, yeah they are going to try. On the other, how? There’s already more unregistered guns in circulation than there are people in the US.

  15. avatar Thixotropic says:

    The War on Drugs has done nothing but improve the potency and quality, increase the availability, and decrease the price of illicit street drugs.

    This kind of prohibition NEVER works.

    Legalize ALL drugs and narcotics NOW, while leaving all other laws against intoxicated driving, public intoxication, etc. in place.

    We as citizens should be judged on our actions, NOT what we decide to put in our bodies for recreation or other purposes.

  16. avatar Steven says:

    The short answer is that the feds won’t allow a dealer to sell a pot-card holder a gun, and they shouldn’t possess one.

    And that’s just your opinion. People have been smoking pot foooorrrrrr I don’t know 50 years or so now…..and a lot of them have also owned guns that long. I don’t remember any incident of someone getting high on marijuana and going in a shooting rampage. You act like marijuana is something new.
    I’ve never tried it and don’t intend to but from my experience I’ve never seen anything to make me believe there is a problem or will be.

    This is just another reason that allows liberal gun haters to take away peoples gun right. Everyone keeps looking for the big gun confiscation to happen while little by little people are losing their guns right slowly day by day. Everyone needs to wake up and realize it’s just a matter of time before the liberal gun haters make everyone ineligible to own a gun and that’s how they are gonna take everyone guns.

    1. avatar Marsha Marsha Marsha says:

      There’s evidence in tombs that humans have been cultivating and enjoying marijuana for millennia.

  17. avatar UncleK says:

    …and another dumb way to loose your gun rights…
    If you are on the nude beach at Gateway National Recreation Area (federal land) in NJ and one of the rangers that hide in the dunes with binoculars, didn’t like the way u put sunscreen on your wife, you get hauled off to a court in NJ and slapped with a public lewdness charge, And that also wins u the prize of loosing your gun rights.

    Gunnison Beach

  18. avatar HuntingtonGuy says:

    My views on the subject notwithstanding, I’d rather the gubmint get behind one set of rules and friggin stay there. Contradictory and (intentionally) confusing laws at local, state and fed levels only compound an already serious issue.
    Serious question: is a medicinal marijuana considered a prescription? Is it, because of its association with a diagnosis, HIPPA protected?
    I’d question the legality of a medical (prescribed) marijuana users database’s legality, or at least the publishing of it.

    1. avatar Marshal says:

      It should be covered under HIPPA, but many of those overseeing HIPPA are staunch antigun… So… Maybe?

  19. avatar James W Crawford says:

    All of you marijuana spiders will become the crack spider’s bitch.

  20. avatar Kyle says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong but if you do use medical marijuana and you lie on that form, saying that you dont, would that not constitute a violation of 5th amendment right against self incrimination and therefore be invalid?

    I think only if you did not use pot, and said you did, for whatever stupid reason, you would be in violation of the law.

    1. avatar Denison the venison says:

      Wait, we still have a 4th and 5th amendment? I thought that was already made moot?

      /s (…hopefully)

  21. avatar Kendahl says:

    The conflict between federal, state and local laws is serious and growing. I suspect it hasn’t been this serious since just before the Civil War. (I may be exaggerating since I immigrated to the United States as an adult and have learned US history mostly by osmosis rather than formal study.) Sanctuary states and cities refuse to support the federal government in enforcing immigration law. Some states have made it a state crime for a federal officer to enforce federal laws. Some counties and county officials have declared themselves firearms sanctuaries in defiance of state law. So far, no level of government has dared to fight this out in court. I’m not sure whether they fear the political upheaval that would result no matter how a question was decided or if they fear that the US Supreme Court might establish a general hierarchy of federal over state over local.

    As far as the War on Drugs is concerned, it’s obviously a failure. Otherwise, availability would be low enough and prices high enough to put drugs out of most users’ reach. All the War has accomplished is to enrich Latin American drug lords the way Prohibition enriched Al Capone, America’s home grown drug lord. If I had absolute authority, I would
    (1) Repeal all drug laws except for providing drugs to minor children.
    (2) Provide treatment at public expense for every addict who wanted to get off drugs. Funding would be driven by demand rather than budgetary constraints. I’m especially sympathetic to those who become addicted through medical treatment.
    (3) Addiction would never be an extenuating circumstance in prosecution and sentencing for crimes committed under the influence of drugs.
    (4) As much as possible, drug overdose cases would receive life saving emergency treatment. However, no sympathy would be wasted on those who could not be saved.

    1. avatar Denison the venison says:

      That would never happen. It makes too much sense and we can’t have laws that make sense, otherwise people would actually be able to take personal responsibility and have true autonomy… And, lord knows, some of them might actually become productive citizens! We just can’t have that happen, now can we?

      (Modern) Politics sickens me.

  22. avatar what a joke says:

    I wonder who is more dangerous, a bunch of people blackout drunk chugging whiskey or a bunch of people smoking doobies and eating pizzas?

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      I’d say both… since both alter your state of mind, who knows how the MJ could change one vs. the liquor to another. I have seen people do crazy shit for drugs, yes, even simply just MJ. Once they find sobriety, they are totally different people.

      Doesn’t matter how you look at it… you don’t need it. You may want it because peer pressure introduced it to you and the govt has established ways of taxing it to keep you numb, but you should work on that mindstate too while you get sober.

      1. avatar Denison the venison says:

        Uh, you do know that anything you ingest alters your state of mind and neuroplasticity. Hell, coffee is a drug and an incredibly addictive one. There’s plenty of research that shows caffeine is more addictive than cocaine! Better ban Starbucks!

  23. avatar Aleric says:

    Pot heads who think they are legal when they are breaking FEDERAL LAWS. You don’t have the right to take illegal drugs and own a firearm. The only thing legal weed does is increase the amount of “homeless”, burglars and shoplifters in a community not to mention the increase in welfare mothers.

  24. avatar raptor jesus says:

    just check “no?” on the NICS form?

  25. avatar Richard Hurtz says:

    There’s a lot of ignorance when it comes to marijuana use. Marijuana is no worse than alcohol. In many cases, medical marijuana has proven very beneficial. Just because YOU don’t smoke, doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be able to. This very argument is very similar to the concealed-carry debate. In other words, the anti-pot crowd can fuck off.

  26. avatar B.D. says:

    Que the “it’s my body and I’ll do what I want to it” idiots.

    Doesn’t matter, MJ, Booze, cigs, fucken tylenol…. If you think you need it, you have a problem. If you cannot have a good time or be healthy without it, you have a problem. It’s one thing to use a medical drug to fight an infection, but there are still TONS of harmful side effects with ANYTHING you put in your body like that shit.

    Eat healthy, be active, live well. It really is that fucking simple.

    1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

      Hmmm… no. How about this instead:

      Cue the “I’m going to dictate how people should live their lives” assholes – like you.

      If you think you need to tell other people how to live their lives, YOU have a problem.

      You live in the manner you choose to live. I’ll live in the manner I choose to live, and you keep your fucking nose out of my business.

      It really IS that fucking simple.

    2. avatar Denison the venison says:

      Anything you ingest alters your state of mind and neuroplasticity… Even water… Are you going to try to ban water next?

  27. avatar Joel IV says:

    I wonder what the federal government’s stance is for patients who are enrolled in the FEDERAL IND medical marijuana program since it is legal for use, federally, under that program.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email