A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging Kentucky's congressional delegation to support amending the Gun Control Act of 1968 to allow users of medical cannabis to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Summary
SCR124 is a concurrent resolution urging Kentucky’s congressional delegation to support changes to the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 so that people who use medical cannabis would not be barred from purchasing or possessing firearms solely because of that use. The resolution frames the issue as a conflict between federal firearms law and Kentucky’s medical cannabis program, which was enacted in Senate Bill 47 and took effect on January 1, 2025.
The resolution states that cannabis remains a controlled substance under federal law, with no exception for medicinal use, and argues that this creates confusion and legal risk for patients who should not have to choose between medical treatment and their Second Amendment rights. It does not change Kentucky criminal law or state firearms law directly; instead, it is a formal legislative request to Congress to amend federal law. If adopted, its practical effect would be limited to advocacy and transmission of the General Assembly’s position to federal officials.
Impact
SCR124 would not amend Kentucky statutes or create a new state program. Its legal effect is advisory and political: it directs the Senate Clerk to send the resolution to Congress and Kentucky’s congressional delegation, asking them to support a federal amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968. The resolution is aimed at resolving the federal firearms disability that currently applies to unlawful users of controlled substances, including medical cannabis users under federal law, and would primarily affect medical cannabis patients, firearm purchasers, and federal lawmakers rather than state agencies.
Sentiment
The bill’s tone is strongly supportive of medical cannabis patients and gun rights, presenting the measure as a common-sense fix to an inconsistency between state medical cannabis policy and federal firearms restrictions. The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented opposition in the provided materials. The resolution appears to have been introduced and referred to committee without recorded floor action in the supplied history.
Contention
The main point of contention is the underlying federal-state conflict: supporters argue that medical cannabis patients should not lose firearm rights because they are complying with state law, while critics of such changes would likely emphasize that cannabis remains illegal under federal law and that firearm possession by users of controlled substances raises public safety concerns. Another potential issue is that the resolution asks Kentucky’s congressional delegation to support a change in federal law rather than altering state law directly, so its practical impact depends entirely on congressional action. No specific opponents or committee objections are identified in the provided record.
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION urging Kentucky's congressional delegation to support amending the Gun Control Act of 1968 to allow users of medical cannabis to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
A RESOLUTION urging the General Assembly to oppose the adoption of a "Red Flag" law, or any legislation intended to infringe upon a law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms as afforded by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.