You Can Have Either Guns or Cannabis in Minnesota

Minnesota’s medical cannabis laws are, to put it nicely, absurd. Instead of legalizing cannabis across the board like Colorado, the Minnesota legislative and executive branches allowed law enforcement to effectively write the initial bill. The result was a bill that allowed patients with very specific conditions to access cannabis at prices that today remain artificially inflated due to the government granted duopoly of approved growers. Now that the bill is through minor tweaks are being made. One of the tweaks is adding more approved conditions to the list. Recently post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was added to the list:

ST. PAUL, Minn. (KMSP) – The Minnesota Department of Health on Thursday announced the decision to add post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a new qualifying condition for the state’s medical cannabis program.

PTSD was one of 9 conditions considered for addition this year, including depression, arthritis, autism, diabetes, insomnia, schizophrenia, phantom limb syndrome and Ehlers Danlos Syndrome – a genetic disorder that can affect the joints and skin.

I bring this up primarily because it’s an interesting intersection of cannabis and gun laws, especially for one beloved group of individuals that commonly suffer from PTSD and enjoy shooting sport: veterans. Unfortunately, due to the disagreement on cannabis between state and federal governments, using cannabis in a state where it’s legal means you lose your gun privileges. In fact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) recently updated Form 4473 to clarify this. In Minnesota, unlike states that have completely abolished cannabis prohibition, you have to register as a patient with the state, which means that it only takes one agency communicating with another to list you as a prohibited person in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

So now those veterans who suffer with PTSD and enjoy shooting sports have a choice to make. They can either treat their condition or they can own firearms. At least legally.

Illicit cannabis dealers are still happy to provide their product to people suffering from PTSD without requiring any registration with a government agency that might report them to the ATF. The lesson here is that if you’re suffering with any of the approved medical conditions that allow you to legally buy cannabis in Minnesota buy your cannabis illegally instead.

9 thoughts on “You Can Have Either Guns or Cannabis in Minnesota”

  1. You know that change on form 4473 probably violates the fifth amendment when it comes to self incrimination, at least that’s how I would attack it in court.

    1. As far as I’m concerned, Zerg539, the existence of the 4473 requirement violates the Second Amendment. But since I don’t wear the magic robe of a judge my opinion on the matter doesn’t count for much.

  2. Welll… We have about the same in AZ, and it is not without people holding “Medical Mayjane” cards wantonly misunderstanding exactly WHAT it is they are allowed. Many believe it is their personal “Drive while stoned” card, and their “I can smoke a joint anywhere” card. And , yes, they even show up in my LGS and think they can buy firearms in spite of what it says on the 4473, because it is prescribed, in spite of being prohibited by Fed law. They sometimes return in a week and attempt to lie to the staff, or try an also prohibited “strawman” purchase, where their facilitator has to have the gun desired literally placed in his ( or her ) hands because he/she knows nothing about guns and must somehow convince the staff that this one is his/her choice. Either that or they read directly from a prepared script, and are denied either way. In short, NO ONE wants to be the one who sells a firearm to the liar, and have the shop loose it’s license, stock, reputation, the owner’s holdings, trade, etc. On the 4473, intent to violate the law is a Federal crime, and the legal way to not do so is to refuse to answer the question. If you do refuse, NO SALE. There MUST be requirements to at least forestall the entropy overtaking this once proud nation.

  3. “thinkingman”: “There MUST be requirements to at least forestall the entropy overtaking this once proud nation.”

    A handle of “Mr. Sanctimonious” would be more appropriate, but perhaps not pompous enough to suit you. The Second Amendment is very clear: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Do you need my help in understanding the meaning of those words? Anyone who pushes the use of Form 4473 is a criminal, who should be stopped by any means that prove necessary.

    As for your backhand sneer (“Drive while stoned” card), if you’re interested in a glimpse of reality rather than your “thinkingman” fantasies, check out

  4. Nice. Using the Washington Post, the liberal mouthpiece equal only to the confirmed bias of the NYT as a source? Tell me, were this the same Feds who come up with studies proving how much Obamacare saves the average working man or woman? ( Yes, my deductibles are going up again this coming calender year; that is, until it is replaced ) . As to Article 2 of the Constitution- it does NOT protect Felons, and is not meant to protect felons, nor users of illegal substances. Perhaps you would like to make an argument for any child old enough to save money from his allowance as being fit to keep and bear arms. No, a single attribution in the WP is NOT the end all determination of reality- one need only look to Colorado, a state whose experiences with legalization of MJ helped turn the tide in the recent FAILED effort to have a “recreational marijuana” law here in AZ.

    1. As to Article 2 of the Constitution- it does NOT protect Felons, and is not meant to protect felons, nor users of illegal substances.

      As far as I know, there’s no mention of users of illegal substances in the Constitution. In fact, that would have been a rather strange concept to the founding fathers, especially since so many of them grew cannabis. Heck, George Washington was likely a cannabis user.

      Furthermore, the Bill of Rights is supposedly a list of human rights. You don’t suddenly lose your human rights because you’ve broken an arbitrary rule created by a bunch of suits in a marble building.

  5. having glanced at the so called study, it becomes apparent that the facts presented are not a definitive representation, likely due to the fact that most law enforcement agencies used, have no data base as of yet to accurately track impairment involved auto accidents as being other than alcohol related . In other words, the data is old ( that is, not in real time ), and SLANTED as FEW states have “legalized” MJ in any way, so of course, NATIONALLY, there are still more alcohol related auto accidents. To get a more accurate picture, it is necessary to look at single a STATE that have both data on Alcohol related and MJ related auto accident rates- like Colorado.
    I say “Nice Try”, but it was in fact a poor effort by a poor intellect.

  6. “As to Article 2 of the Constitution- it does NOT protect Felons, and is not meant to protect felons, nor users of illegal substances.”

    The powers in Article 2 are used to protect felons, not often enough for my liking but Obama has used the pardon power in Article 2 section 2 more than the last 11 presidents.

  7. I’m. Sorry but everything thinkingman says just comes across as Statist statisms worshipping at the feet of the state.

Comments are closed.