![\"weed\"](\"https:\/\/hcsblogdotorg.files.wordpress.com\/2016\/09\/weed.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Comments on the latest 9th Circuit decision on marijuana and firearms purchases, paraphrased from several lawyer friends, and me:<\/p>\n
I\u2019ll preface comments by saying that I\u2019ve personally never used marijuana, nor any other illegal drug, at any time in my life. In addition, I have never consumed ethyl alcohol.<\/p>\n
Nor, do I have the benefit of a law-school education.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, some may find fault with the following:<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The notorious Federal Appeals Court, 9th Circuit, has just ruled that the mere possession of a medical marijuana authorization card, properly issued by a state government, can be used by ATF to disqualify an otherwise legal firearms purchase and thus disenfranchise an, in all other ways law-abiding citizen, denying him his Second Amendment rights. Actual marijuana use by the individual is not even the issue.<\/p>\n
Your Constitutional rights are now withdrawn, simply because you MIGHT use marijuana, legally (at least according to state law)!<\/em><\/h3>\n
When state permission to use any particular medication becomes a legal basis for denying a citizen\u2019s right to keep and bear arms, why not universally apply the same restriction to anyone who has in his possession a \u201cnormal<\/em>\u201d prescription for an opioid, diazepam, or any other potentially impairing, or consciousness-altering, drug?<\/p>\n
What about ethyl alcohol? Its consciousness-altering\/impairing properties are beyond dispute. Yet, every American over the age of twenty-one has an \u201cimplied prescription<\/em>\u201d to consume ethyl alcohol, in any amount, and for any reason. Should all potential ethyl-alcohol consumers (which includes nearly all adults<\/em>) be automatically denied a driver\u2019s license? The fact that you don\u2019t drink doesn\u2019t matter. It only matters that your are AUTHORIZED to drink!<\/p>\n
Between:<\/h3>\n
\u201cYou may fill this prescription,<\/em>\u201d and\u00a0\u201cYou are in possession of a firearm while significantly chemically impaired,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0there is a chasm!<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s not lose track of the real issue. Let\u2019s not open a can or worms by drawing \u201clines in the sand,<\/em>\u201d based solely on prejudice against a single substance [in this case marijuana].<\/p>\n
Why would the mere possession of a prescription for any medicine, absent any other disqualifying evidence, in and of itself, represent a legitimate basis for denial of Second Amendment rights, or of any right? If that is Constitutional, it will predictably be used as a convenient pretext to permanently disarmed all of us!<\/p>\n
On ATF forms, putting a check-mark in the box that asks if you are \u201caddicted to a drug<\/em>\u201d has for decades represented an automatic veto for legal gun purchases.<\/p>\n
However, \u201caddiction<\/em>\u201d is a slippery term, with no universally-agreed-upon definition, and until now, no particular drug has ever been singled-put for presumed association with villainy. In fact, the form never even asks if the \u201cdrug<\/em>\u201d involved is legal or illegal!<\/p>\n
A chronic pain patient may be on prescribed opiates for years, developing a tolerance that permits normal functioning. Unmedicated, he would be overcome with pain and thus \u201cimpaired.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n
Should they all be automatically disenfranchised?\u00a0Technically, they are \u201caddicted<\/em>\u201d to opiates, but not impaired.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Addiction? Yes. Impairment? Likely not for the chronic pain patient. Addiction is a \u201cside-effect<\/em>\u201d of the drug which, while regrettable, cannot be avoided. Nor can it be ignored, but it has little bearing on whether or not the person can safely possess a firearm.<\/p>\n
Some people, owing to demonstrated criminal behavior, are identifiable as unfit to possess firearms. No dispute there! However, the classification must have a credible factual bases.<\/p>\n
This decision has no factual basis, and simply does not make sense.<\/p>\n
Too much government? I\u2019m shocked!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
How about:\u00a0\u201cResponsible, adult behavior is legal. Irresponsible, adult behavior is illegal?\u201d<\/h3>\n
We need to rely upon logic, credible evidence, and our Constitution, not emotional hysteria, unsupportable fads, and agenda-driven politics.<\/p>\n
Legally, there is a word for all this.\u00a0The Latin is \u201cbullshit!\u201d<\/p>\n
\/John<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reprinted with Permission from John Farnam<\/p>\n