jurisdiction us-federal-government medical-marijuana
Does the ATF have jurisdiction to prohibit gun sales to marijuana users when the marijuana used is not subject to federal jurisdiction?
<p>Does the ATF have jurisdiction to prohibit gun sales to marijuana users when the marijuana used is not subject to federal jurisdiction? </p>

<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause</a></p>

<p>If the marijuana used was grown locally and did not travel in interstate commerce it would seem that the use of marijuana in states where this use is legal could not be construed as illegal under federal law because the federal government lacks jurisdiction under the commerce clause. </p>

<h1>Apparently smoking marijuana takes away your 2nd amendment rights:</h1>

<p><a href="https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/all-ffls-sept2011-open-letter-marijuana-medicinal-purposes/download" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/all-ffls-sept2011-open-letter-marijuana-medicinal-purposes/download</a></p>

<p>The Supreme Court has ruled, in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html" rel="noreferrer">Gonzales v. Raich</a>, 545 U.S. 1, that Congress is empowered to pass the Controlled Substances Act: whether or not you agree with the ruling, that is what the current law is. Citing <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/317/111" rel="noreferrer">Wickard v. Filburn</a>, 317 U.S. 111 and <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/402/146" rel="noreferrer">Perez v. US</a>, 402 U.S. 146, the court held that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If Congress decides that the “‘total incidence’” of a practice poses a
  threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class</p>
</blockquote>

<p>because Congress may conclude that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the
  regulation of the interstate market in that commodity</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Then comparing Raich (a medical marijuana case) and Wickard, the court held that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce
  power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption,
  be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and
  demand in the national market for that commodity.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>and</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>the Court has no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational
  basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate
  manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in
  the CSA</p>
</blockquote>

<p>While there are various differences between Wickard and Raich, the court gets to decide which similarities are most important and which differences should be set aside. The disagreement is not trivial: O'connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented, finding that the Commerce clause is there to </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal
  encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power
  fundamental to our federalist system of government</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But it was a minority view that the states should have to power to set in-state rules for commerce.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If the marijuana used was grown locally and did not travel in interstate commerce it would seem that the use of marijuana in states where this use is legal could not be construed as illegal under federal law because the federal government lacks jurisdiction under the commerce clause. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>You might think that, but you'd be wrong. In <em>Gonzales v. Raich</em> (<a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/1/" rel="noreferrer">545 U.S. 1</a>), the respondents were California residents who used locally-grown marijuana in ways that were legal under California law. One respondent actually grew the marijuana herself and only used it herself, never selling or distributing it to anyone. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that the federal Controlled Substances Act could constitutionally regulate the respondents' activities. The basic reasoning was that despite the illegality of the marijuana market, there still <em>is</em> a national marijuana market that personal growth of marijuana could affect. You might think this is a tenuous argument, and you wouldn't be the only one to feel that way, but it is the law of the land.</p>
