Firearms-Cannabis-Never in California
The CA-9’s current ruling is Firearms-Cannabis-Never-California. The holding in Wilson v. Lynch, [No. 14-15700 D.C. No. 2:11-CV-01679-GMN-PAL] states:
The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint challenging the federal statutes, regulations, and guidance that prevented plaintiff from buying a gun because she possesses a Nevada medical marijuana registry card.
The panel preliminarily held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which criminalizes possession or receipt of a firearm by an unlawful drug user or a person addicted to a controlled substance.
The panel held that plaintiff’s Second Amendment claims did not fall within the direct scope of United States v. Dugan, 657 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2011), which held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms.
Taking plaintiff’s allegations in her first amended complaint as true – that she chose not to use medical marijuana – the panel concluded that plaintiff was not actually an unlawful drug user.
The panel held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to federal firearms licensees, which prevented plaintiff from purchasing a firearm, directly burdened plaintiff’s core Second Amendment right to possess a firearm.
Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel nevertheless held that the fit
between the challenged provisions and the Government’s substantial interest in violence prevention was reasonable, and therefore the district court did not err in dismissing the Second Amendment claim.
The panel rejected plaintiff’s claims that the challenged laws and Open Letter violated the First Amendment.
The panel held that any burden the Government’s anti-marijuana and anti-gun-violence efforts placed on plaintiff’s expressive conduct was incidental.
The panel held that the challenged laws and Open Letter neither violated plaintiff’s procedural due process rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nor violated the Equal Protection Clause as incorporated into the Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiff did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in simultaneously WILSON V. LYNCH holding
a registry card and purchasing a firearm, nor was she a part of a suspect or quasi-suspect class.
Finally, rejecting the claim brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, the panel agreed with the district court that the Open Letter was a textbook interpretative rule and that it was exempt from the Act’s notice-and-comment procedures.
Hence, the answer, for the time being, is clear. If you are on a cannabis registry in California, not only is it illegal to own a firearm, but the authorities will come knocking to CONFISCATE BY FORCE the firearms that you currently possess. [See this article]
The Honolulu HI Police Chief has stated “Your medical marijuana use disqualifies you from ownership of firearms and ammunition,” and you “have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms.”