Glock Talk banner

9th Circuit says medical mj card makes you a prohibited possesser

4K views 78 replies 35 participants last post by  AZ Husker 
#1 ·
#3 ·
medical marijuana card holders are presumed to be users and thus can’t pass a federal background check
So, if you have the card, but never used it, and have never used pot, you are still prohibited. Hmmmm..... Sounds to me like that "presumed" would be unconstitutional.

Otherwise, I will presume that anyone who has a penis has committed rape, or contemplating committing rape.
 
#4 ·
It's called prima facie evidence. The term is used in laws and statutes quite often.

From www.dictionary.law.com

prima facie
: (pry-mah fay-shah) adj. Latin for "at first look," or "on its face," referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial. A prima facie case presented to a Grand Jury by the prosecution will result in an indictment. Example: in a charge of bad check writing, evidence of a half dozen checks written on a non-existent bank account makes it a prima facie case. However, proof that the bank had misprinted the account number on the checks might disprove the prosecution's apparent "open and shut" case.

An example from one of my state's statutes:

Sec. 14-213b. Operation prohibited when insurance coverage fails to meet minimum requirements. Penalty. Evidence of insurance coverage required to restore suspended license. (a) No owner of any private passenger motor vehicle or a vehicle with a combination or commercial registration, as defined in section 14-1, registered or required to be registered in this state may operate or permit the operation of such vehicle without the security required by section 38a-371 or with security insufficient to meet the minimum requirements of said section, or without any other security requirements imposed by law, as the case may be. Failure of the operator to produce an insurance identification card as required by section 14-217 shall constitute prima facie evidence that the owner has not maintained the security required by section 38a-371 and this section.
 
#8 ·
It's a three judge. It will be reviewed by the full and I would not be surprised if it were overturned. This actually makes some leftists and liberals twist and squirm in that you have a head on collision of states rights versus federal laws. Leftists are big into big brother federal government, except when it come to marijuana.
 
  • Like
Reactions: janice6
#9 ·
Overturned by whom? The full 9th, that just shot down challenges to CA's CCW? Or SCOTUS that's split 4-4 on the 2nd being an individual right Incorporated onto the states to begin with?

Yeah...not happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bruce M and RussP
#10 ·
That's a pretty flawed analogy, you can't be serious?

I presume you didn't go out of your way to acquire a penis, my apologies if you are in fact a post op transsexual.

If you are, and you did, I will presume that you do in fact plan on using it to pee standing up, and plan to live as a man.

Since it takes money and effort to acquire a medical MJ card, or a penis that you didn't start out with, there's no point going through the process unless and until you plan on using it.

Randy
Beat me to it. :tbo:
 
#11 ·
The Bad News for Arizona is people will get to vote in Arizona for recreational pot, or should I say legal pot. I see more work for Arizona Law Enforcement cleaning up, and dealing with more people under the influence of POT.
 
#13 ·
...I see more work for Arizona Law Enforcement cleaning up, and dealing with more people under the influence of POT.
We are seeing more work not only while they are under its influence but its affects on their ability to keep a job. Being under the influence when reporting for work doesn't please most employers. Loosing a job tends to affect their ability to keep shelter over their heads, food on the table, heat & lights on, and other bills paid without some source of income...legal or illegal.
 
#12 ·
Like it or not, whatever your opinion on the use of recreational or medical marijuana, the ruling seems perfectly logical. The federal restrictions on the use of cannabis stand, so it follows that a person "prima facie" using this substance would not be permitted possession of a firearm.

Like the man says, it is what it is.
 
#33 ·
Like it or not, whatever your opinion on the use of recreational or medical marijuana, the ruling seems perfectly logical. The federal restrictions on the use of cannabis stand, so it follows that a person "prima facie" using this substance would not be permitted possession of a firearm.
Not logical and not supported by law. Legislating from the bench at its finest. Fed Law is clear, you must be an "unlawful user or addicted to" a controlled substance. Nowhere in the law is MJ cards mentioned one way or the other.

The irony though is this courts says no guns if you use MJ, but also says MJ is OK if you have MJ card. Neither position is supported by law. They live in their own world and make up their own rules.

Next up they will rule Cruz cannot own a gun because he renounced his [Canadian] citizenship, but illegals can own all the guns they want.
 
#18 ·
Some states are compiling databases on who has these scripts now. Wouldn't surprise me if that's one of the things that get checked during a background. All the more reason to resist any type of registration requirement.

I suspect it won't be too long before they do a California thing and start checking prior gun purchases with these lists and come take your guns
 
#24 ·
Tell that to the thousands of cancer patients who's only relief from chemo is good medical marijuana. The only FDA approved drug for appetite is Marinol (synthetic THC) that is so weak that it is worthless, and very expensive. I'm not talking about stoners, but those responsible enough to take just what they need then stay home.
 
#25 · (Edited)
I wouldn't begrudge someone dying of cancer pretty much any vice, marijuana or anything that helps take the pain away included. The argument is intellectually disingenuous, though, seeing as the overwhelming majority of conditions cannabis cards can be obtained for are nowhere near as serious as cancer. Granted, cancer and chemotherapy is always held up as the "standard" reason for legalized cannabis, but here's the list of qualifying conditions for obtaining a cannabis card in IL:

Alzheimer’s disease
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
Arnold Chiari malformation
Cachexia
Cancer
Causalgia
Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy
Complex regional pain syndrome type 2
Crohn’s Disease
Dystonia
Fibromyalgia
Fibrous dysplasia
Glaucoma
Hepatitis C
HIV/AIDS
Hydrocephalus
Hydromyelia
Interstitial Cystitis
Lupus
Multiple Sclerosis
Muscular Dystrophy
Myasthenia Gravis
Myoclonus
Nail patella syndrome
Neurofibromatosis
Parkinson’s disease Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD)
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Sjogren’s syndrome
Spinal chord disease
Spinocerebellar Ataxia (SCA)
Syringomyelia
Tarlov cysts
Tourette’s syndrome
Traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome

Oh, and headaches. That's right, headaches just got added to the list. Not migraines, which as a sufferer when I was younger, I understand to a degree, just plain old "frequent" headaches.

There certainly seems to be a wide swing in severity of conditions for which one could gain approval for a medical cannabis card in IL, yet every single person I've ever discussed this topic with jumps right to the cancer argument. Why is that? Could it be because only a monster would deny an end-of-life cancer patient something which they desire? Heck, we give cancer patients fentanyl and carfentanil, both of which kill people with even the slightest misjudged dose.

Add to that the fact that every single person I've spoken with who claims they need it medicinally says it's because they have ADHD, and is it any wonder people look at medical marijuana with a skeptical eye?

I'm sorry, stoners, but at least have the wherewithal to admit it's something you enjoy. Be enough of an adult to admit that, and then we can begin to debate the subject. But claiming it treats your dry eye syndrome, nervous twitch (yes, they're both on this list) or something equally ridiculous just makes most people not even want to hear your position.

And for the record, Husker, I'm not implying you're a stoner, I'm speaking to any outraged drug user who really does want it all. Sorry, life doesn't work like that. It's a balancing act, and I for one, couldn't care less about this ruling.
 
#27 ·
Tell that to the thousands of cancer patients who's only relief from chemo is good medical marijuana. The only FDA approved drug for appetite is Marinol (synthetic THC) that is so weak that it is worthless, and very expensive. I'm not talking about stoners, but those responsible enough to take just what they need then stay home.
I've dealt, intimately, with medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, certification, licensing, enforcement, and training since it became a thing. The circumstances you describe are a fraction of one percent. Everyone else is basically a turd and their criminality doesn't end at possessing marijuana nor does it correlate with lawful gun ownership and an otherwise healthy respect for the rule of law.

You'll have to sell that somewhere else, and probably not to a Colorado (or WA or CA) LEO.

:wavey:
 
#30 ·
So, if you have the card, but never used it, and have never used pot, you are still prohibited. Hmmmm..... Sounds to me like that "presumed" would be unconstitutional.

Otherwise, I will presume that anyone who has a penis has committed rape, or contemplating committing rape.
How likely do you think it is that a person who does not smoke marijuana would go to the trouble of getting a medical marijuana card?

I lean toward thinking that has never happened in the history of MM cards, but let's say it has. What are the odds? 1 in a million? 1 in 1,000? 1 in 100? If you say you think 1% of MM card holders do not smoke marijuana, I'm going to have to call you a liar, but even that 1% is far, far lower than it would take to arrest, indict and probably convict a MM card holder for unlawfully possessing a firearm. All it takes to charge them is probable cause and, in spite of the word "probable" that doesn't even mean "more likely than not" - it just means "enough evidence that it's reasonable to believe the person smokes marijuana."
 
#42 ·
Irony: the people who are arguing against this decision because somebody with a medical marijuana card might not really smoke dope and might not be a real "prohibited person" are really prohibited people who smoke dope.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AGF0526 and pgg00
#49 ·
If I was worried about someone that abused a drug and buying a gun it would be alcohol user over any pot smoker. I never had a pot smoker physically assault or take a shot at me. Now drunks, crack smokers, meth, PCP, huffers are a whole other story. That makes sense you can huff paint out of a bag all day long and buy all the guns you want legally.

One thing to think about after years of fighting drunks and meth heads you could end up like me on a disability retirement. After several back surgeries and arthritis spreads through your spine legal marijuana used for pain might seem a better choice then codeine or morphine. I wish it would of been available for one of my former trainee's that had a tree fall on him during a motorist assist in a storm. At 39 he woke up in the middle of the night and took his morphine to kill the pain. What he didn't remember was the morphine he had taken an hour earlier. I'm sure his widow wished he had another alterative available.

You bring up the point that it against the Federal law but it was the Federal government that decided it was ok for not enforcing that law. Laws need to make sense and be enforceable to be valid and the current marijuana laws don't make sense. Who has time to mess with pot heads anyway, in my jurisdiction unless you found a trunk load of weed the county wouldn't prosecute and the city wouldn't prosecute drugs at all.
 
#54 ·
If I was worried about someone that abused a drug and buying a gun it would be alcohol user over any pot smoker. I never had a pot smoker physically assault or take a shot at me. Now drunks, crack smokers, meth, PCP, huffers are a whole other story. That makes sense you can huff paint out of a bag all day long and buy all the guns you want legally.
It doesn't have to make sense, it is the law (that is actually a legal rule - it doesn't matter if the reasoning behind laws is wrong).

The only death penalty murder I ever investigated as a police officer was Donald H. Johnson, who is still on Kentucky's death row. Knew him for years before the murder - never drank alcohol, never used any other drugs I knew of - smoked dope to the point it was basically a religion (he had a whole story about the burning bush of the bible and dope being the way god talked to...etc.). Got stoned and robbed and murdered an old lady I had also known for years, to get money to buy a pound of dope...then went for a couple of bacon cheeseburgers because he was really, really hungry, which in turn is what got him caught.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AGF0526
#53 ·
Integrity would dictate you disclose the fact you are a MJ card holder or a regular user of it. Lacking that, I'm not certain they would.

However, if you ARE a user of cannabis, and purchase a firearm which you are then found to be in illegal possession of, I don't want to hear any sort of complaining. You knew the consequences of your actions and did them anyway.

Furthermore, you never actually answered the question I asked. More or less likely, sir?
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top