Connect with us

Gun Rights

Whoa Dude … SAF’s Medical Marijuana Lawsuit is Like … Happening

Published

on

No bogarting the 2A, man.

Two months ago, the Second Amendment Foundation asked a simple question: Why shouldn’t medical cannabis patients be allowed to own guns?

As we reported in our sister publication, Guns & Gadgets Daily, SAF recently filed a federal lawsuit in support of medical cannabis patients’ Second Amendment rights. The current state of Federal law, as readers probably know, is that gun ownership is forbidden to users of marijuana whether it has been prescribed to them by a doctor or not.

This is in direct opposition to the Supreme Court’s recent Bruen decision–which applies an originalist reading of the 2A. That reading of the 2A really only forbids gun ownership for felons, traitors, and people who have been adjudicated incompetent with proper due process. There are now only 12 states that don’t permit medical marijuana, and even in those states, possession of a small “personal use” quantity is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

This would seem to indicate–to this writer, anyway–that simple possession of cannabis shouldn’t affect one’s Second Amendment rights any more than a misdemeanor DUI or a 10-year-old shoplifting beef does. But perhaps it’s not time to have that conversation yet. The “conversation” that’s taking place right now is about medical cannabis, and the case is moving forward right now thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation. Their update is below!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and two individual plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit challenging the federal ban on gun ownership by medical marijuana users have filed a brief supporting their motion for a preliminary injunction in the case.

The brief was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. SAF is joined by Warren County, Pa., District Attorney Robert Greene, who has served in that office since 2013 and currently possesses a medical marijuana ID card under Pennsylvania law and James Irey, a veteran who was recommended medical marijuana but has refrained from obtaining a card as it would deny his ability to exercise his Second Amendment rights. They are represented by attorneys Adam Kraut, who serves as SAF’s executive director, and Joshua Prince of Bechtelsville, Pa. Defendants are Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, and the U.S. Government.

The lawsuit challenges restrictions contained in 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), (d)(3), and all related laws, regulations, policies, and procedures, including, but not limited to, 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.32(a)(3), (d)(3) which prohibit firearms purchases and possession by persons who use marijuana or other controlled substances.

In their brief, SAF and its partners remind the court that, “Defendants have prohibited a particular class of persons, including Plaintiffs Greene and Irey, along with SAF’s similarly situated members, from possessing or obtaining a MMID, and utilizing medical marijuana for treatment, while possessing firearms and ammunition in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as held by Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.”

“Due to the law individuals are placed in the untenable situation of having to choose whether to use a medicine recommended to them by a doctor to treat their symptoms at the expense of their Second Amendment rights or exercise their rights at the detriment of their health,” said Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director. “Having to make such a choice is simply wrong and we look forward to vindicating the rights of those affected.”

“It is long past the time for this restriction to be challenged,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Our lawsuit raises very legitimate issues for a growing number of law-abiding citizens whose Second Amendment rights are unquestionably and arbitrarily infringed upon. The restriction lacks any direct or analogous historical support, as required by the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling.”

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Newsletter Sign Up

Trending

Copyright © 2021 Brand Avalanche Media, LLC. Freedom's Lodge is a wholly owned subsidiary of Brand Avalanche Media, LLC. This copyrighted material may not be republished without express permission. The information presented here is for general educational purposes only. MATERIAL CONNECTION DISCLOSURE: You should assume that this website has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the persons or businesses mentioned in or linked to from this page and may receive commissions from purchases you make on subsequent web sites. You should not rely solely on information contained in this email to evaluate the product or service being endorsed. Always exercise due diligence before purchasing any product or service. This website contains advertisements.