When Nevada medical marijuana patient S. Rowan Wilson stopped by a gun seller in late 2011, he thought his license would be a cakewalk of the non-edible kind. Unfortunately for him, the merchant was aware of an open letter the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives posted to federal firearms licensees on September 2011 that year. He refused the purchase because Wilson was a marijuana user which he technically was at the time. It would take another two years for the Silver State to regulate medical marijuana.
The gist of the ATFE open letter reads:
“[A]ny person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.
Such persons should answer “yes” to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473 . . . and you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to them. Further, if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have “reasonable cause to believe” that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance.
As such, you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person, even if the person answered “no” to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473.”
La Weekly reports the California-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the validity of the gun dealer’s decision on 2 September 2016, ruling that marijuana users in its jurisdiction “do not have the constitutional right to gun ownership”. The Drug Policy Alliance points out that “using a gun in connection with an offense such as cultivation or possession with sale can result in additional criminal charges”.
Understandably, the bizarre decision created a disturbance in the pro-marijuana lobby, generally along the lines the link between violence and marijuana is tenuous. S. Rowan Wilson’s attorney took the argument to another level. “We live in a world,” he complained, “where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don’t get a gun, but if you’re on the no-fly list, your constitutional right is still protected.”
While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was technically correct, we would have thought alcohol, if anything caused more problems. The debate is not over on this one by any means, but no smoking guns for now.