What do y'all think about this?

https://apnews.com/34dd40d0a4484763861d357acb5129aa


HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The federal government says grass and guns don’t mix, and that is putting gun owners who use marijuana — and the strongly pro-gun-rights administration of President Donald Trump — in a potentially uncomfortable position.

As gun-loving Pennsylvania becomes the latest state to operate a medical marijuana program, with the first dispensary on track to begin sales next month, authorities are warning patients that federal law bars marijuana users from having guns or ammunition.


“They’re going to have to make a choice,” said John T. Adams, president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. “They can have their guns or their marijuana, but not both.”

That’s the official line, but the reality of how the policy might be enforced in Pennsylvania and other states is a little muddier. That includes the question of whether people who already own guns might have to surrender them, instead of just being prohibited from making new purchases.

The political sensitivity was underscored Friday when Pennsylvania regulators reversed themselves and announced its registry of medical-pot patients will not be available, as was previously planned, through the state’s law enforcement computer network.

Phil Gruver, a professional auto detailer from Emmaus who received a state medical marijuana card in mid-December, is weighing what to do with his .22-caliber rifle and a handgun he keeps for home defense.

“It’s a violation of my Second Amendment rights,” Gruver said. “I don’t know of any time anyone’s been using marijuana and going out and committing acts of violence with a gun. Most of the time they just sit on their couch and eat pizza.”

State laws allowing medical or, more recently, recreational use of pot have long been at odds with the federal prohibition on gun ownership by those using marijuana. But the government has traditionally taken a hands-off approach. Since 2014, Congress has forbidden the Department of Justice from spending money to prosecute people who grow, sell and use medical pot.

The picture has become murkier under Trump, a Republican whose attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has long denounced the drug. Sessions recently rescinded a Barack Obama-era policy that was deferential to states’ permissive marijuana laws. Now, federal prosecutors in states that allow drug sales must decide whether to crack down on the marijuana trade.

It’s not clear what impact the new policy will have on gun owners who use cannabis as medicine, or even how many people fit the bill. Nor is it clear whether any people who use legally obtained medical marijuana have been prosecuted for owning a gun, although the existence of medical marijuana registries in some states, including Pennsylvania, has some patients concerned.

More than 800,000 guns are sold or transferred in Pennsylvania annually, and more than 10,000 people in the state have signed up for medical marijuana. The registry change on Friday makes it much less likely the state’s medical marijuana users will be flagged when going through a federal gun sales background check.

A spokeswoman for Dave Freed, the new U.S. attorney in Harrisburg, said only that criminal investigations and prosecutions “will be based on a fair and transparent fact-intensive inquiry of individual cases.” State police said it’s up to prosecutors to decide when to bring a case.

The Justice Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has left no doubt where it stands. Last year, the ATF spelled out the marijuana prohibition in boldface type on gun purchase forms.

“Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medical purposes ... is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition,” ATF spokeswoman Janice L. Kemp said in an email to The Associated Press.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department referred questions about medical marijuana and guns enforcement to local federal prosecutors and a recent memo from Sessions that does not specifically address the issue.

In Ohio, which has authorized a medical marijuana program, the office of the U.S. attorney for the northern part of the state, Justin Herdman, has said Sessions’ guidance won’t change his case-by-case approach.

The gun-ownership ban has withstood at least one legal challenge. An appeals court in San Francisco, rejecting a challenge on Second Amendment grounds, said in 2016 that Congress reasonably concluded marijuana and other drugs raise the risk of unpredictable behavior.

Meanwhile, some state and local officials, particularly in law enforcement, have sought to crack down.

William Bryson, chairman of the Delaware Police Chiefs’ Council, told state lawmakers in December that people who use marijuana for medical or recreational purposes should be required to have a designation on their driver’s licenses. That would make it easier, he said, for police to enforce the ban.

And last month, a police chief in Hawaii publicized and then quickly rescinded a directive that medical marijuana patients had to give up their handguns. Two people turned in their weapons.

But marijuana activists predict a backlash should federal prosecutors begin going after gun owners who use legally obtained medical marijuana.

The issue has been largely theoretical, but there would be quick pushback if the federal government took a more aggressive stance, said Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Between 1998 and 2014, nearly 100,000 prospective gun purchasers went home empty-handed because they were flagged as using illegal drugs, according to the ATF. But the agency could not say how many of those used medical or recreational marijuana.

Dean Hazen, an Urbana, Illinois, businessman who helps broker online gun purchases, said a 75-year-old client with a medical marijuana card was turned down when his state firearm-owner identification card was run through the federal background check system.

“He’s got a collection of guns at home,” Hazen said, “and he’s a model citizen.”

Even before his administration took the medical marijuana registry off the Pennsylvania law-enforcement computer network, Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, sought to assure people the state has no plans to take their guns. And last week, state House Republican Leader Dave Reed urged residents to call their congressional representative and “urge them to make gun ownership legal for medical marijuana card holders.”

Kim Stolfer, head of the Pennsylvania organization Firearms Owners Against Crime, pointed out that people who drink heavily or use potent but legal drugs such as opioids or antidepressants can still own a gun.

“You have people that are advancing up in age that need medical marijuana and might have, say, 50 firearms and just realized they sacrificed all of those,” Stolfer said. “Where are they going to turn them in and how are they going to get rid of them?”

It's the law as it stands. If you think it needs changed than you must act accordingly to change it. I am anti-drug and that's my camp. Pot and guns don't mix and before I get lynched, booze and guns don't mix either. If you are not under the influence of either, then have at it.

Sounds like they are trying a new way to take guns away from people. Have drugs instead!

Personally I think the legalisation should be a state's issue. But until this question is removed from the background check form, users beware:

Sounds like a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
As if they care.

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance by Federal Law. No legitimate use, not even research. Until that changes it is illegal everywhere. Federal law overrides State law, see Supremacy Clause of US Constitution.

Not taking sides either way, just stating fact.

Currently marijuana is illegal any way you slice it, smoke it, snort it or eat it.

Easier to get pot then bullets in Cali now what a sad future ahead either way.

Sorry but not true.

Federal law only overrides state law where the Constitution gives it that power. It gives it that power when it comes to gun's not marijuana.

10th Amendment.... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

I don't smoke, so it doesn't affect me. But, the issue here is MEDICAL marijuana. Some states have decided to allow it for medical use. If they can take away guns from people for using marijuana as medicine, what is to prevent them from taking them away from people using antidepressants, anti-anxiety drugs, ADHD drugs, muscle relaxers, pain medications, etc.

Or alchohol for that matter.

What a slippery slope we slide on.

Always been this way, people are just now figuring it out
Federal law supersedes State law usually, but I'm not entirely certain about this issue.

In most states I'm aware of it is illegal to be under the influence and handle a firearm
Saying you can't have guns with pot is not a 2nd Amendment violation. It's no difference than saying felons cannot own firearms. The Feds are saying don't be a criminal and you can have your guns. Beating your wife and smoking a blunt aren't really comparable as far as the action goes, but it's the same blanket reasoning.
This isn't "just another way to get our guns" because if that was the case, then this would have become more widespread knowledge many years ago.

The issue addresses all types of marijuana because whether medical or not, it's federally illegal.

Illegal drugs fall under a taxation clause. That's how they get around the constitution, yes, they have been working their way around it for decades. Anyway, they decided to "Tax" illegal drugs thereby making it "commerce" This goes for most drugs by the way, they then made 100 tax stamps (for pot) but never issued them. Therefore, pot is technically federally legal if it has the tax stamp. However, the only "tax stamps" are in a museum and they are not printing any more.

If I had to hand over my loaded weapon to either a high pothead or a drunk knucklehead
I would hand it to the pothead every time

Keep a population dumbed down and unarmed is the way of liberals.

"Medical" marijuana? Is this a pill or an oil or are they still smoking it?

J

He catches on quickly! lol

As said this slope is slippery -

It makes me smile how so many people think there isnt violence with marijuana. Also hearing how it’s not a “gateway drug” and potheads just sit around eating cheetos all day.

Exactly.



Makes me smile to think people think smoking pot has ever caused someone to be violent. Name one confirmed case. Ever.

Alcohol is the real gateway drug. I love how people pick and choose based on their biases.

I say outlaw it all.

Its not the smoking. Its the selling and the mentality of youth right now. Weed is cool and slingin a couple grams makes young people feel like a bada$$. One of our most recent homicides involved two teenagers over a few grams- 70-90 bucks worth. so the answer is legalize it, right? Ask Colorado how thats going. Robberies are up because the state charges a lot more than what street value is. Legalizing it means there are dispensaries and grows popping up everywhere- legally ran and not even clise to legally ran. Weed=money. Everyone wants to talk about the physical effects of the drug-nothing else. Its more rare nowadays that a 20 something would only test positive for THC. Marijuana is hands down the leading cause of gun violence anywhere around these parts and i would imagine many other places. And truly, if we’re going to get nitpicky- one could say tobacco is the leading gateway drug.

Just another chip away at the 2nd amendment. Make something legal, then make something illegal. Outdoorsman of all people should know that there will be strings attached. Before long you get a parking ticket, well, maybe your just not responsible enough to own a gun?

I see your points. I still can't help but be highly skeptical of your statement that marijuana is the biggest cause of gun violence in your area are anywhere else for that matter. I guess I could be wrong.