In a clash of conflicting state and federal laws, individuals enrolled in state medical marijuana programs are facing unexpected obstacles to exercising their Second Amendment rights to gun ownership. This challenge arose on November 29th, following Vera Cooper's decision to pursue purchasing a gun for her safety.
Vera Cooper, in her mid-70s, felt vulnerable and scared living alone, especially after her husband's recent passing. She also found herself entangled in a distressing incident at her workplace, where she had to fire an employee who then responded with verbal threats. Facing chronic knee pain and sleeplessness following her husband's passing, Vera Cooper turned to Florida's medical marijuana program for relief in order to use marijuana to alleviate her chronic knee pain and improve sleep quality. Following her ex-coworkers' threats Vera searched for a way to protect herself. Her quest for security led her to a gun store in her area where she selected a .22 caliber pistol that she felt comfortable with. However, as she was purchasing the weapon a complication came up when a question on the required firearms transaction form asked her about her status as an "unlawful user of marijuana or any other federally classified controlled substance".
This situation put Vera in a tough spot as she used medical marijuana legally in Florida to help with pain and sleep problems, but when she tried to buy a gun for safety, a form asked if she used any federally controlled substances. That included her legal medical marijuana. She felt stuck because state laws said she could use it, but federal rules made it seem like she was doing something wrong.
At the federal level, there are relatively few restrictions on who can buy or possess firearm. The national background check system focuses on issues such as criminal convictions, mental health concerns, dishonorable military discharges, unlawful immigration status, or domestic violence restraining orders. However, even as more states legalize marijuana for either medical or recreational purposes, participating in a state's medical marijuana program remains a barrier to gun ownership.
A picture of Vera, who was denied a firearm at a local gun store because she clicked "yes'” on a question that asked if she was a marijuana user.
Do you think that the clash between state-level marijuana legalization and federal firearm regulations could affect the fundamental principles of federalism in the United States?
14 comments:
This is a really interesting case since it involves two highly-contested policy areas: marijuana legalization and gun control. Having so many conflicting state and federal policies over these two issues makes it really difficult in cases like this in which people are affected by multiple laws at once. I think the solution here is to have clearer language about the "unlawful" use of federally controlled substances, clarifying whether unlawful refers to state or federal law. This would require more research on whether using marijuana medically has a significant effect on someone's ability to wield a firearm safely, and therefore decide whether there is an exemption there. I personally do not know how much marijuana people who use it medically consume, whether it is enough to make someone "high" or have impaired judgement, and whether dosage differs person-to-person, so I don't have an opinion on whether this should be allowed or not.
Vera Cooper's situation seems profoundly unjust and speaks to the need for greater legal clarity. As you explained, Ms. Cooper sought medical marijuana treatment legally under state law, yet ran into ambiguous federal restrictions despite simply trying to purchase a gun for personal protection. This regulatory gap effectively criminalizes otherwise law-abiding citizens seeking constitutionally protected rights. Ideally, state medical marijuana program participation should have no bearing on gun ownership as it remains a federally illegal but state-sanctioned treatment. Responsible authorities must bridge this divide and reconsider outdated federal cannabis laws that fail to align with shifting state-level legalization. Additionally, the right to self-defense is fundamental for vulnerable populations like Ms. Cooper.
I think the issue surrounding the legality of medical marijuana is particularly interesting because it's an example of federal and state law being directly mutually exclusive. An important note is that, while California state law permits the recreational use of marijuana, it is still a federal crime. This means that technically federal law enforcement may still arrest or persecute distributors or users of marijuana. 40 states (including the District of Columbia) have legalized medical marijuana, and 24 have legalized recreational marijuana. The Department of Justice is simply choosing not to persecute users of marijuana as long as they follow their state regulations. Now, seeing conflicts pop up with the Constitutionally allocated right of bearing arms, more states may begin to push for actually getting medical marijuana federally legalized, instead of having it be the weird and inconsistent artifact that it currently is that produces odd situations like this one.
Federal vs State Law
States that have legalized marijuana use
I definitely agree with Kaushal on this dilemma. I do feel like there has to be more clearly-defined outlines regarding the legality of marijuana usage and gun ownership, two hotly-contested (and controversial) topics as Lipika mentioned. I find it strange that although Vera legally uses medically-prescribed marijuana for her own benefit and within her state's jurisdiction, she cannot purchase a pistol for security as a result of the transaction questionnaire. I do understand the reasons for this, however I strongly feel that laws surrounding marijuana usage should be redefined when it comes to situations like Vera's. This shows the ongoing debate regarding the legality of "soft" drugs like marijuana and how it can be applied to other matters.
This case highlights the faults in dual federalism. It is one thing to have either just state or just federal governments create policies in a certain area (ie health or education policy), but to have both creates many complications. The lack of communication between the two levels of government affects individual citizens, as seen in Cooper's case. Yes, unpredictable individual situations like this are hard to predict. But, as any society does, Cooper's case should be taken as a learning experience, one to prevent the same issue happening again in the future.
I agree with what Chin-Yi said. Based on Cooper's situation, I believe that owning a gun was needed to keep herself safe, and she had the right to do so. But because of the conflict between federal and state governments regarding marijuana usage for her relief, she was unable to buy a gun. I hope that legislators work to remove these inconsistencies and make things easier for people like Cooper.
This situation is very interesting as, like you said, it highlights a clash in state and federal laws and the complications that arise when this happens. I feel bad for Cooper in this situation as she is faced with choosing either her safety or her comfort/sleep, which isn't an ideal situation and just proves how without correct communication many citizens are hurt.
I feel like the clash between the state-level marijuana legalization and federal firearm laws highlights the complexities and ambiguities within our legal system. While states have the power to legalize marijuana in medical cases, such as the state we are living in, problems arise when federal laws come into play, which in this case is the gun ownership background check. With people like Vera, who struggle to live without the medicine, it creates a very hard choice. For people like her, it would be choosing between protecting one's physical well being while leaving their mental sanity behind, or the opposite. I think situations like these should prompt us to retake a look at our federal system, as people like Vera shouldn't have to make these sacrifices to protect herself.
Am I the only one who’s glancing over this article, noticing that these events took place in Florida, and then lowkey thinking “oh that makes sense”? Just kidding. Well, partially kidding. People are crazy in Florida. It’s interesting to me that if the same thing happened in California, the legal process would look a lot different, because California takes a strange position on this issue: our policies regarding medical marijuana use are relatively loose, while our policies concerning gun control are rather strict. If faced with the same problem, I doubt that California policymakers would advocate for the legalization of gun possession while on medical marijuana prescription. Almost always, the stricter and more restraining of two policies (in CA’s case, our anti-gun precedent) prevails. In other words, I think California would be more inclined to be stricter with their strict laws than be more lenient with their lenient laws. On a different note, after some research, I found out that there have actually been quite a few appeals to court on the topic of this matter, and the Department of Justice is putting a fair amount of effort into working on a solution for this problem. Hearkening back to our very first unit on federalism, it’s one example of how combing out the inconsistencies between state laws and federal laws can be a very long and nonlinear process. It will take time, but I think that Vera Cooper will find a way to have both her marijuana and her gun. Whether that’s in the best interest of the broader community is a very different discussion.
I agree that this is an interesting clash between federal and state laws. However, I think that is completely valid that Vera Cooper-- along with other medical marijuana users should be restricted from the usage of guns. Regardless if it is used for medical purposes or recreational purposes, marijuana undoubtedly alters brain function. It would be unsafe to allow for people periodically use marijuana, and therefore may not have a clear state of mind, to possess a gun. Furthermore, if medical marijuana users are allowed to own guns, then it would be a slippery slope for recreational users to also own guns. Just because someone uses marijuana for medical reasons, doesn't mean it doesn't affect them in the same way that it might affect recreational users. I feel like Vera Cooper should look in to other ways to protect herself. She could look into a security system or a personal alarm device, but I don't think it would be safe to allow her to possess a gun.
This is a complex situation! I definitely think it underscores the difficulties of a federalist government. While I believe there should be strict restrictions on the purchasing of a firearm, I think Vera's case is understandable. It could potentially help her if she had proof from a person of authority that her use of marijuana was meant to alleviate physical pain and improve her sleep quality and that her reason for wanting to own a firearm is mere protection. There's a lot of room for hypocrisy in this case and it's difficult to make an easy decision, however, our government must be prepared to take care of these types of cases. There shouldn't often be cases where state governments and the federal government aren't able to make the same decisions. It just makes life harder for citizens and themselves at the end of the day. Efficeny is important!
Pro or anti gun control views aside I actually stumbled upon this case a few minutes ago: https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2023/02/04/us-ban-on-marijuana-users-owning-guns-is-unconstitutional-finds-judge/
The gist of it is a federal court ruled that the U.S. cannot ban marijuana users from possessing guns. While it may appear unclear to Ms. Cooper on the form she needs to fill out, she can safely get a gun even if she checks the box saying that she is a marijuana user, using the precedent from this court case. There is a VERY small chance that she'd get prosecuted (the federal government doesn't care in 99% of cases). Even if she did, she could use this precedent to argue her way out (and organizations like the ACLU would probably be willing to take on legal costs).
Federal and state laws often clash, leaving people like Vera Cooper confused. Vera follows her state's rules allowing medical marijuana but finds federal laws won't let her have a gun. About 38 states permit medical marijuana, some even for adults. States like Montana, Texas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina have special programs too. With so many states supporting this, the federal government should rethink its rules. They should separate medical marijuana use from laws about owning guns. As long as marijuana isn't being misused, it shouldn't stop people from having other rights. Changing federal laws to match what states are doing could help folks like Vera know what's allowed.
Much like the comments that delve into the intricate overlap of conflicting laws, this case brings into focus the ambiguity between state-permitted medical marijuana usage and the federal prohibitions that affect an individual's Second Amendment rights. The challenge posed by the Firearms Transaction Record's inquiry about marijuana use, whether legal under state law, poses a perplexing dilemma for individuals seeking both therapeutic relief and protection. this instance underscores the potential repercussions of such legal conflicts on individual liberties, echoing concerns expressed in prior discussions about the constitutional rights of individuals being impacted by these divergent regulations. The necessity for comprehensive reform of federal cannabis laws becomes more apparent, considering the nuanced intricacies of state-federal law conflicts that infringe upon constitutionally protected rights.
Post a Comment