No Guns For Pot Smokers

That's a big IF. I do not believe they are doing that. Everything I have read is that the pot companies are not storing data and that the scan on the back is nothing more than validating the birthday similar to the way lottery vending machines do when they scan the back of the license to verify your age.

MA limits individual purchases to 1oz and possession up to 10oz in your home (you can only carry 1oz on your person). You can also gift 1oz to someone over 18. I can't find anywhere that says you can't purchase more than 1oz per day, only that individual purchases are limited to 1oz.

They scan your license at the door, that basically proves you were in the building IF they actually keep the personal data. They don't scan your license again when you purchase the product so how would anyone know how much you purchased if you used cash?


Speaking hypothetically, the clerk in the foyer scans your license, confirms it's valid. That process "proves" your state id was used to access the building but not that you bought anything. And the security camera could be used if needed to prove it was really you.

Now you go into the secure room. There aren't hundreds of people in line. Walk up to a clerk, he probably glances at your id again, no need to rescan it. He looks at his screen and the last few people that scanned in are listed there, likely with a picture of your id. He clicks that row on the list and poof, your transaction is associated to YOU even if you pay cash.

Use a card? Even easier to correlate your data.

We might as well BE living in the Matrix... You're nothing but data.

I suppose you could steal a license from someone that that resembles you, pay with cash and be safe that way, but if you're trying to be under the radar, find someone to buy it for you, just like kids hanging outside the liquor store...
 
Buying pot does not equal to being a user, though.

When I buy my wife tampons I'm not jamming them up my ass like hminsky...ah f*** it

Reminds me of that joke (I think it was posted hereabouts recently)

A young guy from North Dakota moves to Florida and goes to a big "everything under one roof" department store looking for a job.
The Manager says, "Do you have any sales experience?" The kid says "Yeah. I was a vacuum salesman back in North Dakota ."

Well, the boss was unsure, but he liked the kid and figured he'd give him a shot, so he gave him the job.

"You start tomorrow. I'll come down after we close and see how you did."

His first day on the job was rough, but he got through it. After the store was locked up, the boss came down to the sales floor.

"How many customers bought something from you today son?" The kid frowns and looks at the floor and mutters, "One". The boss says "Just one?!!? Our sales people average sales to 20 to 30 customers a day.

That will have to change, and soon, if you'd like to continue your employment here. We have very strict standards for our sales force here in Florida . One sale a day might have been acceptable in North Dakota , but you're not on the farm anymore, son."

The kid took his beating, but continued to look at his shoes, so the boss felt kinda bad for chewing him out on his first day. He asked (semi-sarcastically), "So, how much was your one sale for?"

The kid looks up at his boss and says "$101,237.65".

The boss, astonished, says $101,237.65?!? What the heck did you sell?"

The kid says, "Well, first, I sold him some new fish hooks. Then I sold him a new fishing rod to go with his new hooks. Then I asked him where he was going fishing and he said down the coast, so I told him he was going to need a boat, so we went down to the boat department and I sold him a twin engine Chris Craft. Then he said he didn't think his Honda Civic would pull it, so I took him down to the automotive department and sold him that Ford 4x4 Expedition."

The boss said "A guy came in here to buy a fish hook and you sold him a boat and a TRUCK!?" The kid said "No, the guy came in here to buy tampons for his wife, and I said, 'Dude, your weekend's shot, you should go fishing.........'"
 
Buying pot does not equal to being a user, though.
Doesn't matter, we already lost that case. One deal was some broad had a medical marijuana card and that was enough for them to screw her.

It's been a few years though so I forgot the context of the case but I remember it was something like either an FFL saw the weed card or a sheriff cross reference some database and a background check and flunked her for it. Then it went to court in some form and she lost despite the fact that they didn't actually have to prove that she actually used weed. It was a total dog s*** case I remember that much because they basically used existence of the card as proof that the person was habitual substance user.... which of course is complete b******* that's like saying somebody who has an LTC is always a gun owner. My ex had an LTC for probably 12 years and never owned a single gun.

I don't think this is really a concern in Mass however unless they change the law here, as there's some protections in place.
 
No it isn't. Like it or not, marijuana isn't legal - despite what some states say. Bunch of stupid damn hop heads.


And no, I don't drink anymore either.

Honestly, I can't see what the difference is between having a couple beers or a couple lines of weed, but apparently one is legal and one isn't. And telling people weed isn't legal makes them go all sky-screamy, which makes me laugh.
The way they impair you are different, however they do both impair you. Alcohol impairs people in much much worse ways as far as firearms are concerned.

Used to smoke a lot in college, and while I’m really not a huge advocate for cannabis in hindsight, there really isn’t any good reason to not just legalize it federally, or at least kick it back to the states like with abortion.

Stoned people simply don’t cause 1/10th the problems drunk people do.
 
Some of you have faith the data is not currently being stored and they can't prove jack even if you were in the store. When it comes to Big Brother or in case of Maura, Big Sister, I have no faith and don't trust them at all. If one were to suppose I wanted to get my hands on some product I am pretty sure I could find someone to make a purchase and "gift" it to me.

I would operate under the assumption that the data is being stored and provided to the AG's office and in turn to the ATF, even though I do not believe it is. Let's assume those things happen: Maura matches up the licenses that show up on the pot store scan database to the LTC database, and even to the EFA10 database. Lets say she turns that over to the ATF who matches it up against the 4473 database.

So what? One database says individual A entered a pot shop. It doesn't say they bought pot unless they used their credit card (separate database) or they're on the pot shop rewards program. And they have an LTC, and they bought a gun a couple of days later at an FFL. None of that equals lying on the 4473. Here's what the 4473 asks:

e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or
decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.


  1. Going to a pot store doesn't mean you bought pot any more than going to a gun store means you bought a gun. Plenty of people go with another person and don't buy, or the store doesn't have what they're looking for and they don't buy anything. They have to prove you bought pot. If you paid cash, the only way is for them to check the surveillance video. As I mentioned previously, a lot of people wear masks because they're concerned about their fellow citizens and don't want to spread Covid. Some people also wear masks and hats at the same time <gasp>. But lets concede that they can prove you bought pot.
  2. Buying pot doesn't make you a user, plenty of people buy it for sick relatives/friends and it's legal to gift up to an ounce to someone else.
In short, going into a pot store doesn't mean you bought pot and buying pot doesn't mean you used it. They would need to give you a drug test to prove that you "are an unlawful user of..." pot when you signed the 4473.

It is only illegal if you lie on the form. You can buy all the private party guns you want and be on whatever pot database is out there.
 
Doesn't matter, we already lost that case. One deal was some broad had a medical marijuana card and that was enough for them to screw her.

It's been a few years though so I forgot the context of the case but I remember it was something like either an FFL saw the weed card or a sheriff cross reference some database and a background check and flunked her for it. Then it went to court in some form and she lost despite the fact that they didn't actually have to prove that she actually used weed. It was a total dog s*** case I remember that much because they basically used existence of the card as proof that the person was habitual substance user.... which of course is complete b******* that's like saying somebody who has an LTC is always a gun owner. My ex had an LTC for probably 12 years and never owned a single gun.

I don't think this is really a concern in Mass however unless they change the law here, as there's some protections in place.
Yikes
 
I would operate under the assumption that the data is being stored and provided to the AG's office and in turn to the ATF, even though I do not believe it is. Let's assume those things happen: Maura matches up the licenses that show up on the pot store scan database to the LTC database, and even to the EFA10 database. Lets say she turns that over to the ATF who matches it up against the 4473 database.

So what? One database says individual A entered a pot shop. It doesn't say they bought pot unless they used their credit card (separate database) or they're on the pot shop rewards program. And they have an LTC, and they bought a gun a couple of days later at an FFL. None of that equals lying on the 4473. Here's what the 4473 asks:

e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or
decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.


  1. Going to a pot store doesn't mean you bought pot any more than going to a gun store means you bought a gun. Plenty of people go with another person and don't buy, or the store doesn't have what they're looking for and they don't buy anything. They have to prove you bought pot. If you paid cash, the only way is for them to check the surveillance video. As I mentioned previously, a lot of people wear masks because they're concerned about their fellow citizens and don't want to spread Covid. Some people also wear masks and hats at the same time <gasp>. But lets concede that they can prove you bought pot.
  2. Buying pot doesn't make you a user, plenty of people buy it for sick relatives/friends and it's legal to gift up to an ounce to someone else.
In short, going into a pot store doesn't mean you bought pot and buying pot doesn't mean you used it. They would need to give you a drug test to prove that you "are an unlawful user of..." pot when you signed the 4473.

It is only illegal if you lie on the form. You can buy all the private party guns you want and be on whatever pot database is out there.

All excellent points. You sound a lot like a lawyer. Call me paranoid I still don't trust them especially in this state.
 
Doesn't matter, we already lost that case. One deal was some broad had a medical marijuana card and that was enough for them to screw her.

It's been a few years though so I forgot the context of the case but I remember it was something like either an FFL saw the weed card or a sheriff cross reference some database and a background check and flunked her for it. Then it went to court in some form and she lost despite the fact that they didn't actually have to prove that she actually used weed. It was a total dog s*** case I remember that much because they basically used existence of the card as proof that the person was habitual substance user.... which of course is complete b******* that's like saying somebody who has an LTC is always a gun owner. My ex had an LTC for probably 12 years and never owned a single gun.

I don't think this is really a concern in Mass however unless they change the law here, as there's some protections in place.

I'd need to see the particulars of that case (if it was anyone other than you or a handful of others here posting that, I'd dismiss it entirely). What kind of shit lawyer did this person have? What kind of criminal history? Did she fail the background test or was she convicted of Federal Perjury?
 

Here it is, US 9th circuit. It went to feds but not supremes


Part of the problem here is this really isnt so much about weed and guns as it is a problem with shit methodology.

Like as a fun example I could hold an ATF Explosives license for fireworks, blasting, demolition, etc. However even with that license I would never be entitled to store ANY of that
shit in my home or business without having a licensed magazine. Just "having the explosives license" does not mean that you "posess explosives". Merely getting a medical MJ card
does not mean that you possess or even use marajuana.

I think the only way to f*** with the court on that would be to find some christian teetotaler type (not saying theres anything wrong with that lifestyle, to each thier own) that believes in RKBA but doesnt necessarily care about having a gun. Then have them get a medical MJ card, brag about it at the same shit FFL this lady got bagged at, get "blocked" and then take it to court... all the while showing weekly hair follicle tests for THC use, basically demonstrating that the prohibition (in that vector) is complete and total bullshit.
 
I'd need to see the particulars of that case (if it was anyone other than you or a handful of others here posting that, I'd dismiss it entirely). What kind of shit lawyer did this person have? What kind of criminal history? Did she fail the background test or was she convicted of Federal Perjury?

I just found it. (see above) I think myself, @Knuckle Dragger and maybe a few others were discussing it somewhere here, years ago. It's an absolute garbage decision.

ETA: and I realize, yes, its not binding here etc, but it's still kind of disturbing, the level of mental gymnastics they went trhough, vs the judge asking the "state" something like "So, what actual proof do you have that she was a user or possessor of a controlled substance beyond that card? Can you tell us that, please?"
 
Speaking hypothetically, the clerk in the foyer scans your license, confirms it's valid. That process "proves" your state id was used to access the building but not that you bought anything. And the security camera could be used if needed to prove it was really you.

Now you go into the secure room. There aren't hundreds of people in line. Walk up to a clerk, he probably glances at your id again, no need to rescan it. He looks at his screen and the last few people that scanned in are listed there, likely with a picture of your id. He clicks that row on the list and poof, your transaction is associated to YOU even if you pay cash.

Use a card? Even easier to correlate your data.

We might as well BE living in the Matrix... You're nothing but data.

I suppose you could steal a license from someone that that resembles you, pay with cash and be safe that way, but if you're trying to be under the radar, find someone to buy it for you, just like kids hanging outside the liquor store...

Hypothetically, they can prove you entered the shop, possibly even that you purchased weed although I find the scenario you mentioned less than worrisome. I know people that work in a local pot shop, I have had the process explained to me in detail. Their screen does not have the scanned entry list on it, in fact their screen is usually turned towards the customer while making their selections.

There's still the matter that they still have to prove that you "are an unlawful user of..." pot when you signed the 4473. That would require a drug test or witness/video evidence of you using.
 
Actually a better analogy than what I just posited is its like a functional alcoholic with a drivers license. And the state can just "assume" that they drive intoxicated. Except that's kinda fun when, the person doesn't own a car or drive. (I know someone like this in my extended circle of friends. This guy intentionally DOES NOT drive because he knows he has a drinking
problem. So even though he's a drunk, he's responsible about it WRT not wanting to endanger others. )
 
Hypothetically, they can prove you entered the shop, possibly even that you purchased weed although I find the scenario you mentioned less than worrisome. I know people that work in a local pot shop, I have had the process explained to me in detail. Their screen does not have the scanned entry list on it, in fact their screen is usually turned towards the customer while making their selections.

There's still the matter that they still have to prove that you "are an unlawful user of..." pot when you signed the 4473. That would require a drug test or witness/video evidence of you using.

If other federal courts start using the ShitLogic ascribed in Wilson, then it doesn't matter. But I think legal challenges havent been completely exhausted, I just think it needs to be dealt with, with smarter legal minds and different strategy, perhaps in a different circuit, to force a split or whatever and get the supremes to see it. I think even if the supremes pulled a chickenshit job out of this they would probably at least still say that "the law isn't illegal, but the methodology used in determining that status is 110% illegal and unconstitutional". There are a lot of federal laws like this that got clapped down. US v Lopez was one. (the federal GFSZ case). Lopez sort of kneecapped GFSZ but technically left it standing. The outcome of that case was
bizarre. Even SCOTUS crash landing it in an open field though is better than it being stuck on top of some trees in the side of a mountain.
 
I just found it. (see above) I think myself, @Knuckle Dragger and maybe a few others were discussing it somewhere here, years ago. It's an absolute garbage decision.

ETA: and I realize, yes, its not binding here etc, but it's still kind of disturbing, the level of mental gymnastics they went trhough, vs the judge asking the "state" something like "So, what actual proof do you have that she was a user or possessor of a controlled substance beyond that card? Can you tell us that, please?"
Thanks. "...the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that federal law prohibits registered medical marijuana users from legally purchasing guns." Failing a background check based on that, as much as it sucks, is a whole lot different than going to jail for lying on a 4473. And yeah, having an MMJ card probably isn't the best thing for a gun owner.
 
I know several people, including my wife, who have a LTC and don't own any guns.

Doesn't matter, we already lost that case. One deal was some broad had a medical marijuana card and that was enough for them to screw her.

It's been a few years though so I forgot the context of the case but I remember it was something like either an FFL saw the weed card or a sheriff cross reference some database and a background check and flunked her for it. Then it went to court in some form and she lost despite the fact that they didn't actually have to prove that she actually used weed. It was a total dog s*** case I remember that much because they basically used existence of the card as proof that the person was habitual substance user.... which of course is complete b******* that's like saying somebody who has an LTC is always a gun owner. My ex had an LTC for probably 12 years and never owned a single gun.

I don't think this is really a concern in Mass however unless they change the law here, as there's some protections in place.
 
Thanks. "...the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that federal law prohibits registered medical marijuana users from legally purchasing guns." Failing a background check based on that, as much as it sucks, is a whole lot different than going to jail for lying on a 4473. And yeah, having an MMJ card probably isn't the best thing for a gun owner.

I don't think anyones going to jail on the reg for ONLY lying on a 4473, like, ever. Usually even with straw purch cases that doesnt even come up, its the act of the straw that whacks someone. The reason BATFE and ausas dont whack people simply for lying on that form is because of something like "layperson defense" or "reasonable person" defense. For example it's pretty easy to articulate to a court that some guy who moved from MA with a post 94 DUI conviction to say, Maine, and tries to buy a gun, and gets denied for it... that guys attorney is going to go "My client thought that his DUI conviction was only a misdemeanor and not a felony and did not understand the nuances of the laws in play. Any reasonable person would not conduct mentally that a 2.5 yr misdemeanor is the same as a felony, unless they were an attorney or something". I mean lets get real, everyone on that jury is going to go "I didnt know that until they just talked about it now" etc. Thats why nobody brings flimsy cases only based on that form. they bring 2 or 3 other elements on top of that one, so that if it went to a jury, they don't have an easy out.

Side Note: I think hes a piece of shit as much as anyone else here, but anyone here who thinks Hunter Biden will ever see or even sniff an indictment for his obvious 4473 violation is smoking crack just like he does every day. and it's not just because it's him it's because the case is flimsy and no USA/AUSA is going to put their win loss record on a piece of garbage like
that. Not to mention they risk upsetting the cart if he brought a big league attorney into it, with the argument of "how could you prove he was on drugs in the window of time when he bought that gun?" etc. As a practical matter it would probably be far easier to convict him on the 900 other crimes hes probably committed rather than some shitty malum prohibitum gun corner case.

ETA: i fixed the error swapping felony and misdemeanor but you guys get it
 
Last edited:
I would operate under the assumption that the data is being stored and provided to the AG's office and in turn to the ATF, even though I do not believe it is. Let's assume those things happen: Maura matches up the licenses that show up on the pot store scan database to the LTC database, and even to the EFA10 database. Lets say she turns that over to the ATF who matches it up against the 4473 database.

Maura does not even need to have a separate "pot store scan database" to see who is having their state issued ID 'confirmed' against a state held database.

I had a chuckle when stores started using scanners to confirm age against an ID when purchasing age restricted items. Started chatting up the register folks as well as some of the managers. 'Removing the human element for ID check, less liability for the store' was a common answer.

Yeah, no sh!t, human element. Less liability = paper trail. All these facilities using the ID scanners can honestly state that they do not store ID information in a local database. They don't have to!!

They can also state that they do not transmit a client list to any .gov agency because they don't.
 
If it impairs judgement, cognition and physical coordination, then Biden shouldn't have any guns either.

If you honestly think that piece of excrement has guns, I've some some waterfront property to sell you.

Has he ever been _without_ a taxpayer funded security detail?
 
Data storage is cheap
Data is valuable
Everything is saved forever at this point to be used against you in the future
I was buying it as a gift for a friend. No, I won’t piss in a cup, no I won’t tell you who the friend was and no, you can’t have my guns, sorry.

This is why so many people still just buy it from the dealer they have been using for decades
 
While trying to spare us from the bullshit minutia of 'ITS TECHNICALLY ILLEGAL1111" is anyone aware of a recent case where a legal (state wise) pot user was beat up by the ATF?

I was thinking of Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan smokes pot on his show. He also owns guns. And the ATF aint hunting him down. So is this actually be enforced or just the (justified) worry that it could someday be enforced?

You answer the user question on 4473.. Say no...

Questioned about it during a joint NATO exercise using the FBI/ATF/CIA/NATIONAL GUARD/DHS say: I quit 30 days ago, I am no longer a user.

Smoke weed again, then quit 30 days before you intent to purchase..

Or, buy everything FTF :)
 
Moral of the story... Ya dummy(not you) buying a gun from a dealer when you have a valid med marijuana card is kinda stupid. Buy it FTF, no laws broken.

If I smoked weed, I wouldn't let buying a gun get in my way.
I still don't quite understand how simple possession of a card, which is the legal ability to simply BUY marijuana could be a problem on it's face for the ATF question
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

It's pretty clear. Are you an unlawful USER. USER is the key word there. If a person posses a card that does not mean they are using it. It's like saying if the person has a state ID, ergo they can buy liquor, that the logical step is that they must use alcohol.

paging people smarter than me @Knuckle Dragger and @drgrant

FL and Fried has brought some interesting state level stuff to the table. Fried has stated that you can posses a FL CCW AND a FL Med Card at the same time.
According to Commissioner Fried, her office views therapeutic marijuana in the same way as any other medicine. Meaning that if you are in compliance with state laws and have not been convicted of habitual drug or alcohol abuse charges in the timeframe specified by the CWL application, you can again answer no to question 14B.

Once you have your CWL, it will not be revoked after you become a therapeutic marijuana patient. In short, Florida’s state laws do not prevent you from having both your legal marijuana card and your CWL – just as Commissioner Fried does.

Federal law is pretty clear on that. which is you cant have a gun if you use illegal drugs. Yet here FL is saying you can f***ing carry a gun if you have a med card. [rofl] This is 100% polar opposite from each other.

OK, so I think I have a good question. What exactly is a "unlawful user?" If I blew a line of coke off @Picton and his amazing round butt 20 years ago.... am I an unlawful user? What about last year? what about last month? When am I considered a drug user and when am I not considered a drug user? I have no idea.

Well, I think I found the answer?
Consider first the breadth of the federal prohibition. An “unlawful user” or someone “addicted to” a controlled substance covers a heck of a lot of people. Under ATF regulations, this includes “any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician.” Current use is the touchstone in the ATF definition and under those regulations “[a]n inference of current use may be drawn from evidence” of relevantly recent use, including from at least three different exemplary types of evidence: (1) a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; (2) multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; (3) or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.

So, there's apparently 3 ways to get taken down on a 4473 question e. You've been convicted within a year, you've been arrested several times over the past 5 years and the most recent one is under a year OR you were somehow discovered to have failed a drug test. Presumably a probation officer would be the only realistic way this would be outed to the feds?

If the ATF wants to bag people for simply possesing the ability to legally buy pot they seriously need to add that to the question disclaimer. Because nothing about the ability to buy pot means you are using pot.

Heres another take from the .gov
Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act) as codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), being an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance prohibits a person from receiving firearms.1 The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act (NIAA) of 2007 defines “unlawful drug use” records as those that identify a person unlawfully using or addicted to a controlled substance, as demonstrated by specified arrests, convictions, and adjudications that are not protected from disclosure to the Attorney General by federal or state law.2 These include the following criminal history records that are typically available through the Interstate Identification Index (III): 3 • Multiple arrests for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; • Convictions for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year (regardless of offense type) • Certain convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia within the past year. Unlawful drug use records may also be noncriminal history records, which can be made available through the NICS Index: • Persons who test positive for use of a controlled substance within the past year • Persons who admit to the use of a controlled substance within the past year.


Let's peak down the rabbit hole a little more. Since many of us don't use "illegal drugs" lets see how we could break this rule anyway!
Take Xanax, a Schedule IV drug. Suppose you’re facing some particularly stressful days ahead at work and you decide to take 0.5 mg of your Xanax for the next week even though your doctor prescribed only 0.25 mg. You’re now an unlawful user of a controlled substance.
Or consider Robitussin AC, a Schedule V controlled substance. Say your doctor prescribes 5 ml each night before bed to treat your bad cough caused by a tough bout with the common cold. But you are really feeling crummy and decide to take 7.5 ml for the next week instead. In both of these situations, you have committed a crime if you happen to have a gun in the house while you take the medicine. And not just any crime, but a felony punishable by 10 years in federal prison, so long as your actions are “knowing.”

I don't understand how any of this is actually a thing. It's insanity.
 
Last edited:
The story and the lawsuit are pure political bullshit the only purpose of which is to get attention.

The federal government, with very, very few exceptions, defends federal law. Hard stop. The Trump DOJ would have moved to dismiss and a DeSantis DOJ would have as well. Until weed is federally legal is some form, that won't change. And if you think about it, the answer here is to change the law, not have the government undermine laws made by Congress and signed by Presidents.

Florida can also go a long way towards fixing this problem by legalizing recreational weed - i.e. no more cards and registration. Problem solved. But DeSantis won't get behind that because drugs bad. Several years ago, sheriffs here in Oregon tried to deny concealed handgun licenses to people with medical marijuana cards. They were shut down all the way up to the state supreme court and SCOTUS denied cert.

If by some chance this dismissal goes to CA11 and then to SCOTUS, the latter will also likely deny cert or (unlikely) rule in favor of the government.

There really is nothing to see here................
 
View attachment 649049
She's done 2 good things this year.

-Gave raise to FL Forest Rangers who were being paid $15 an hour and hadnt seen any raises for about a decade
-Sued whoever about medical marijuana

Good to see her doing something useful for once. She's normally a pain in the ass.

NOT what I thought you f***ers had used for a euphemism of 'gas pump lady'. [rofl][laugh2]
 
I feel safe saying that scanning your license at a legal pot dispensary in MA won't get you charged w/ perjury for lying on a 4473 even with the AG having data on who went to the pot store and who has a MA LTC and even if she were to cross refence the databases & provide the data to the ATF. Having a medical card MAY get you bounced on a background check but even that would be remote IMO. Only took 3 pages of this thread for me to work it out in my head - might have taken more if I was a MJ user... 🤣

My ex wife has a Medical MJ card, this song is her ringtone on my phone, she thinks it's hilarious:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYsTmIzjkw
 
Back
Top Bottom