There’s a case currently at the Supreme Court that has commerce-clause implications and could affect marijuana and abortion-pill laws across the states. Given how unpredictable the current court majority is, I’m not confident saying what could happen.
It may not matter to you, but you are not allowed to purchase firearms anymore, at least not from a licensed dealer.
Thats why I never applied for a medical card in Michigan. Was happy when it was legalized here, still am.
Nvm gun emoji is borked
There is also a spot on the application for a background check at your FFL dealer when you buy a gun that asks something about marijuana use. The last time I bought a gun in Oregon they pointed it out to me and told me not to answer yes or I would be denied.
Here are the disqualificatios for buying a gun through the federal NICS background check system. So technically anyone, even in a legal marijuana state, who has used pot cannot buy a gun.
Federal Disqualification Categories
- Conviction (Felony or Misdemeanor) where the crime has a maximum imprisonment term exceeding 1 year (even if you did not receive actual imprisonment exceeding 1 year)
- Warrant (Felony or out-of-state Misdemeanor)
- Felony Pre-Trial Release
- Misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence
- Restraining, Stalking, or Protection Order
- Mental health adjudication or commitment
- Unlawful use or addicted to a controlled substance (including Marijuana)
- Dishonorable Discharge from the Armed Forces
- Renounced U.S. Citizenship
- Illegal Alien
My reaction to learning this:
Correct, it doesn’t currently matter to me. Should a firearm other than my old shotgun be needed in our home, my gf will be the purchaser. Also, when I got my medical card I sold my handgun to a friend.
IIRC when Roberts cast the deciding vote against invalidating ACA he specifically said that the government’s Interstate Commerce Clause argument was invalid, while upholding the requirement for insurance as a tax. For what was reported at the time, I interpreted this as a sideways step towards limiting the unbridled use of the ICC in any possible scenario. (That a state not requiring medical insurance would cause some patients to cross state lines for treatment?)
Yep. What’s tough for me to understand is that support for ICC at SCOTUS is difficult to predict. Upholding the ICC would seem to make it more difficult for states to have their own regulations for marijuana, meat, and pills, while restricting it would make it easier for states to independently regulate.
Are you confusing this with state constitutions not being able to restrict rights granted by the Federal Constitution?
The argument for ICC makes sense for materials that habitually cross state lines - meat being a good example. dealing with 51 different meat standards would probably be a huge headache and most meat production involves interstate commerce. Same with pills - most states don’t have pharmaceutical factories, it is by its nature interstate.
However, the ICC was stretched to say, for example, that the feds could restrict possession of or growing marijuana because it might find its way into a different state. That’s obviously a debatable proposition, but back in the more “Law & Order” days the SCOTUS rubber-stamped this idea.
I presume the more originalist and states rights court might seek to restrict this interpretation…
States go out of their way to ensure that the Marijuana products are produced in the state. Its a huge revenue for the states.
Could be construed as a “straw purchase”. Just sayin.
So, the dealer advised you to lie on a form that could in theory put you in prison?
Not even that. IIRC, the approved rationale is that there exists an interstate commerce (albeit an illegal one) in marijuana and other narcotics with or without home growers. However, marijuana is essentially fungible. Being as it is a commodity traded interstate, it matters not whether one particular home grower sells outside of their state or not: their supply is in some way influencing the wider interstate commerce in marijuana to the extent that someone might now draw from the home grower’s supply rather than from the stream of interstate commerce. It’s like it influences the stream by creating an absence of demand rather than adding to the supply directly. It’s the difference between throwing a rock into the river, and taking a rock out: both influence the flow, just in different ways.
Informed, not advised.
There is still a Federal law in place prohibiting transporting and distributing cannibus across state lines. So it’s not just “going out of their way” to ensure that cannibus sold in state is produced in state.
In Colorado, there are still major cannibus busts and arrests made regularly. They are for unlicensed growers selling cannibus without remitting the taxes to the state. Bootleggers!
No, not legally.
Until, cannibus is legal at the Federal level, it will be an ineffecient market. The best places to grow it are probably concentrated in southern states with more sunshine. You currently can’t legally buy weed from Florida and ship it to Michigan to be sold locally.