Federal Court Upholds Gun Ban for Medical Marijuana Patients

by Joe Klare

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” – 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Yeah, about that.

Yesterday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rocked the medical cannabis community by upholding a ban on the sale of guns to those who are legal medical marijuana patients.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by a Nevada medical marijuana cardholder, S. Rowan Wilson, in 2011. A judge had previously ruled that a gun store owner was right in refusing to sell to Wilson on the grounds that a federal rule bans the sale of guns to medical cannabis cardholders.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, it is “reasonable” for a gun store owner to assume a medical marijuana cardholder is a user of illegal drugs.

From the Associated Press:

The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision agreed that it’s reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder is more likely to use the drug.

In addition, a ban on the sale of guns to marijuana and other drug users is reasonable because the use of such drugs “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated,” Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff said.

For a moment, let us put aside the ridiculous nature of the federal prohibition of cannabis (don’t worry, we’ll return to it very soon).

It’s “reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder is more likely to use the drug?” So a person can be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights because it’s “assumed” that it’s “likely” that they broke federal law? And this is determined without any sort of due process through an investigation, a trial or even a hearing?

And medical marijuana users are more at risk of “irrational or unpredictable behavior” as determined without any sort of due process, so they can be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights? Isn’t infringing on the constitutional rights of someone without due process a gross violation of the Constitution under the 5th and 14th amendments?

Beyond all of that, of course, is the matter of someone being denied his or her natural right to defend themselves because of their choice of a less dangerous, less addictive medicine to treat their ailments: a choice the state they live in says is a legal one. But because the federal government has arbitrarily deemed cannabis to be illegal and cannabis users to be criminals even though they have not infringed on the rights of anyone else, a gun store owner can deny them their 2nd Amendment rights.

Denying someone their constitutional rights without due process is unconstitutional. Denying someone the right to defend oneself because they chose not to take deadly, addictive pills is immoral. The 9th Circuit Court’s ruling violates human rights on every level.

The system is broken. There is no fixing or tweaking it. If you have a pile of crap before you and you stir it around with your foot a little bit, it’s still a pile of crap. And if you wad up a copy of the U.S. Constitution and shove it into that pile of crap, you have yesterday’s ruling.