By WFWP President, Sean T Kiernan

The proponents of Prop 64 or AUMA have planned very well for this November’s election, laying out their strategy to victory via superior financial firepower and obfuscation by intertwining hundreds of pages of law and diverting everyone’s attention with the carrot called “legalization” that if truth mattered in our politics would be more correctly defined as regulatory capture!

The future is rarely a predictable event though, especially when we are talking politics and an election day that is a little over two months away. In the words of Robert Burns, “The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray”. Well today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just erected a detour sign for Prop 64 leaving us to ask, will August 31, 2016 be forever known as the Billionaire Boys Club Waterloo.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just dropped a bomb, make that a MOAB (Mother of All Bombs) on Billionaire’s Sean Parker advance to overwhelm the opposition and change the marijuana landscape in California forever. Only time will tell if it’s a dud, but as we see the bomb float down onto the preparations for Prop 64’s victory party we smile, knowing the balance of power may just be about to change.

PROP 64

The 9th Circuit just confirmed “A federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the 2nd Amendment . . . The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court’s jurisdiction, including California. It came in a lawsuit filed by S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada woman who tried to buy a firearm in 2011 after obtaining a medical marijuana card.”

It is no secret what the Weed for Warriors Project thinks of California’s Prop 64 and we believe it is horrible law. We have written and discussed openly our disdain for the 60 plus page Proposition and it’s conjoined twin the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act or MMRSA passed into law by California’s Legislature and Governor Jerry Brown last year. By conjoined twin, we mean, MMRSA won’t survive the court system given much of MMRSA stands in direct conflict with Prop 215, California’s current supreme law of the land as it relates to Medical Cannabis.

For example, the last time California’s legislature and Governor tried to restrict patients’ rights was SB420 and in 2008 the appeals court ruled, “In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: “The prosecutor’s argument was improper. It was improper because the CUA [Compassionate Use Act] can only be amended with voters’ approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77 [of SB420]; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA.” The decision was later upheld by California’s Supreme Court.

See, the only thing that can overturn a “voter” passed initiative such as Prop 215 or CUA (Compassionate Use Act), is another voter passed initiative, such as Prop 64 or AUMA. So besides undermining the power of Prop 215 directing all in the case of ambiguity to side with the most recent voter initiative, what’s the big deal with a case related to guns and a Nevada mandated Marijuana ID card?  Well all you California Medical Marijuana patients get ready to be forced to register with the State of California for their own version of the State ID program.

Prop 64 requires all medical marijuana patients register with the State ID system to avoid the onerous taxes put in place if AUMA passes. In addition, as widely reported, “This provision in AUMA is also how the State can collect even more money from citizens: by requiring patients to get (pay for) a medical marijuana ID card — which until MMRSA passed, has been voluntary. Why has it been voluntary? Because otherwise, forcing people get these cards is a violation of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (since using marijuana is still illegal under federal law). But if the federal government re-schedules marijuana, then patients would have no legal excuse to refuse to pay for a marijuana ID card.  AUMA says that the ID cards will protect patients’ right to privacy, but how and why do people need an ID card to protect their right to privacy? A right is something you already have, so why should you need to buy a card to protect an existing right?”

The devil is in the details and the 9th Circuit just laid bare one big problem as it relates to Prop 64 and America’s 2nd Amendment. If you plan on using Cannabis as a Medical Patient in California and Prop 64 passes you can kiss your right to gun ownership goodbye! We believe a new front in California’s Marijuana War is about to open and we see a vulnerability the Trust Fund Club didn’t anticipate.