Two bills were introduced by a South Dakota legislative committee on Friday to inform patients of the federal restrictions placed on gun ownership by people who use marijuana. The first bill would require medical cannabis patients to include a warning about the federal gun ban. The second would mandate informational signs at dispensaries and impose daily fines on businesses who don’t comply.
The House Judiciary Committee of the state approved both proposals. They unanimously passed the measure requiring a warning to be written on all patient applications, and voted 8-4 in favor of requiring signs at dispensaries.
The bills were introduced by Rep. Kevin Jensen, R, in the House, and Sen. Jim Stalzer, R, in the Senate. They had many additional sponsors.
Jensen said he wanted “to make it perfectly clear” that the bill does not prevent anyone from getting or using a medical marijuana license. He also pointed out federal laws prohibiting illegal marijuana users from obtaining firearms, which date back to 1968.
Jensen cited a press release by an official of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in St. Paul about Minnesota’s legalization of cannabis for adult use. Jensen stated that federal law does not “provide any exception” to state-legal medical and recreational uses.
Jensen warned that “people are totally unaware and could be caught.” I almost hate to admit this, but if the Biden administration wanted to enforce the law across the nation, they probably would have around 40 million people they could arrest, and they could confiscate their guns and ammunition.
This law is already in place. “If they enforced the law right now, this could happen,” said he. But that’s just a little side note. This bill is mainly about a notice.”
Jeremiah Murphy is a lobbyist with the Cannabis Industry Association of South Dakota. He said he was “gently, but surely” against the bill HB 1024, which requires written notices to be included on applications for medical marijuana patients. He said that the federal firearms purchase form includes a similar warning. A congressional budget rider also prohibits federal interference with state medical cannabis programs.
He said that a federal gun law creates confusion as to whether it can be applied against medical marijuana users.
Murphy noted that this issue was also a recent court matter, as different districts have issued conflicting rulings regarding the constitutionality federal restrictions.
Murphy opposed both Bills but was more against the dispensary legislation HB1036 which fined operators $250 per day if the failed to display signage in their stores warning of the federal rule.
He said, “Our opposition is rising at this level as you are putting administrative burdens on dispensaries by requiring them to display these signs.” “That is not a huge deal,” he said, “but the regulations surrounding this business are extensive and they are changing, they are evolving.” We’re now going to fine licensees $250 a day if they do not post a warning about gun laws, which may or may not apply today.
According to the bill, South Dakota’s medical cannabis dispensaries will be required to display at their entrances and at every register or point-of-sale a sign reading:
“WARNING Federal Law prohibits possession of firearms by certain individuals that are marijuana users or addicts. 18 U.S.C. “SS 922(g)”.
Jenson’s part pointed out that, shortly after South Dakota voters legalized medical cannabis, he had written a 2021 article about the issue for Outdoorsman Magazine. He said that this article received national attention.
His legislation, if enacted as state law in the future, would be suspended once the Attorney General certifies that federal law does not prohibit the possession of firearms by individuals who use marijuana or are addicted to it.
In numerous federal court cases, the Justice Department insisted that the ban was necessary. It argued at times that marijuana users who also own guns posed a unique threat, similar to allowing people with mental illnesses to possess firearms.
The Biden administration claimed that cannabis consumers with guns pose a threat to society, in part because they’re a data-google-interstitial=”false” href=”https://www.marijuanamoment.net/bidens-justice department says marijuana consumers are unlikely to store their weapons properly in the latest defense of federal ban/” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank/a> “unlikely”. The Biden administration argued that cannabis consumers who own guns are a danger to society because they’re ‘unlikely’ to store their weapons properly.
Marijuana Moment tracks more than 900 bills relating to cannabis, psychedelics, and drug policy in state legislatures as well as Congress. Patreon supporters who pledge at least $25/month gain access to our interactive charts, maps and hearing calendar.
Discover more about our marijuana bills tracker. Become a Patreon supporter to gain access.
—
In a brief filed in the case, attorneys from the Justice Department argued that the firearm ban for cannabis consumers is justified by historical analogies to restrictions imposed on the mentally ill or habitually intoxicated during the period of the Second Amendment ratification in1791.
The federal government has claimed repeatedly that these analogues support limiting the gun rights of cannabis users. But a number of federal courts have ruled the marijuana-related prohibition unconstitutional . This has led DOJ to appeal several ongoing cases.
In October, the Justice Department made similar arguments during oral argument in a related but separate case before the U.S. Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit. This case is about the Second Amendment rights for medical cannabis patients in Florida.
The attorneys in both cases also touched upon a U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ruling, Daniels v. United States from August that found that the ban prohibiting people who use cannabis from possessing firearms was unconstitutional. This is true even if the marijuana users consume it for non-medical purposes.
DOJ had informed the Eleventh Circuit Court that it believed the ruling to be “incorrectly determined,”, and the department’s lawyer reiterated the government’s view that “there are reasons to doubt the foundations” in the appeals court’s decision.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled last summer that the prohibition on people using marijuana possessing firearms was unconstitutional. The judge stated that the federal government’s justification for maintaining the law is “concerning.”
In U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a judge ruled in April that banning people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional–and it said the same legal principle also applies to the sale and transfer of guns.
ATF wrote to Arkansas officials in August to warn them that a recently passed law allowing medical cannabis patients to get concealed carry licenses, “creates unacceptable risks” and could compromise the state’s alternative firearm licensing policy, which was approved by the federal government.
issued a warning shortly after Minnesota’s Governor signed a bill legalizing cannabis into law in 2017. The agency reminded that those who use marijuana are prohibited from owning or purchasing guns and ammunition until the federal prohibition is lifted.
ATF will issue an advisory in 2020 that specifically targets Michigan, requiring gun sellers to perform federal background checks on unlicensed buyers. The ATF said that the state’s marijuana laws allowed “habitual pot users” and disqualified individuals to illegally obtain firearms.
The mayor of Jersey City in New Jersey is also suing the state over its policy that allows officers to carry firearms or ammunition while they are off duty. He claims that this violates federal law. The suit has been criticized as being politically motivated.
A little-noticed FBI memo from 2019, which recently surfaced, shows that the federal government generally does not view it as a crime for medical cannabis caregivers or growers to own guns.
In the first half of the current two-year legislative session, Republican lawmakers filed two bills that focused on marijuana and gun policy.
Rep. Brian Mast, co-chairman of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and a member of the House of Representatives, introduced legislation in May that would protect the Second Amendment right of marijuana users in states where the drug is legal. This bill would allow them to buy and possess firearms, which they are currently prohibited to have under federal law.
Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer (DNY) has promised to attach that legislation to the bipartisan marijuana banking bill, which advanced out of committee last September.
Mast is also co-sponsoring in this session a separate Bill from Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV), which would allow medical marijuana patients to buy and possess firearms.
While Sen. Cory Booker, (D-NJ), said in July, that while he believed the justice system had effectively handled the prosecution of the president’s child, there is still a “double standard” in the country, which has allowed presidents, members of Congress, and others to admit past marijuana use with impunity , while thousands of people who are less fortunate face punitive cannabis laws .
A ballot measure proposed in Colorado would eliminate marijuana use from the list of disqualifications for concealed carry permits. This could allow people who use the substance to carry concealed weapons in public.
12 State Attorneys General Tell DEA To Reschedule Marijuana As ‘Public Safety Imperative’
The post South Dakota lawmakers vote to fine medical marijuana dispensaries that don’t warn patients about federal gun ban first appeared on Marijuana Moment.
