Sunday, June 22, 2014

Montana Senator: Protect Gun Rights of Medical Marijuana Users

walsh 109 021114 445x294 Senator: Protect Gun Rights of Medical Marijuana Users
Walsh was sworn in on Feb. 11. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

If you use marijuana in a state that has legalized pot for medicinal purposes, Sen. John Walsh wants to make sure you don’t lose your guns.
The Democratic senator from Montana, appointed earlier this year and facing a difficult race on Nov. 4, has filed an amendment to a spending package being considered on the Senate floor.
Walsh joins libertarian leaning Sen. Rand Paul in attaching a marijuana-related provision to the broad spending bill that includes funding for Commerce-Justice-Science, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development and Agriculture-FDA. But questions are arising over whether the Senate can complete work on the package because an agreement on amendments remains elusive.
Paul’s legislation would prevent the Department of Justice from blocking states attempting to implement their own laws related to medical marijuana.
“The federal government cannot deny Montanans who rely on medical marijuana their Second Amendment rights,” Walsh said in a statement. “This measure will ensure that patients can hunt, purchase ammunition and protect their homes without fear of prosecution.”


  1. "If you use marijuana in a state that has legalized pot for medicinal purposes, Sen. John Walsh wants to make sure you don’t lose your guns."

    Or better yet, what about recreational pot users. Washington and Colorado have already legalized recreational marijuana use, and more states are likely to follow. These states have at least some level of approval from the federal government for these moves.
    So, if the activity is legal, then the people engaging in this now legal activity have a reasonable expectation that it not affect their exercise of individual rights. Even more so, for those that use various drugs under the supervision of a Dr.

    1. I guess what we have to do is identify the limit of intoxication that is acceptable with concealed carry, sort of the way we do with driving.

      For me it's still problematic though. A gun in the home of a drunk or high gun owner is bad news. As you know, I feel alcohol or drugs are absolutely incompatible with gun ownership but since it would be nearly impossible to enforce legally, I limit myself to insisting that if you drink or drug, however moderately, you cannot call yourself a responsible gun owner.

  2. Unlike alcohol, traces of other drugs like pot can be detected in the body even though the body is not being affected by the drug. We cannot conclude if one tests positive for pot, that means they are under the influence at that moment, but there are other ways to know one is under the influence of pot at any given moment. If the mind is under the influence of any drug, then influence laws should kick in. The side effects of legal drugs pose a larger danger of misjudgment than pot.

    1. Absolutely, prescription drug users should be disqualified from gun ownership, depending on the medication, of course.