Theoretical Question regarding Sacramento CCW

[FireCloud9]

Again, this is just a theoretical question, but I was curious given the changes in marijuana laws going on across the country.

Lets say there are three people:

1. One is applying for a Sacramento CCW.

2. One IS a Sacramento CCW.

3. One is Sacramento LEO.

All 3 are eligible for a California Medical Marijuana card OR get one.

Question #1: Do any of them lose their 2nd amendment rights?

Question #2: Do they have to choose between their 2nd amendment rights and their medical treatment?

Question #3: Is the decision governed by the State or Federal?

Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate, but that is the point.

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

...All 3 are eligible for a California Medical Marijuana card OR get one.

Question #1: Do any of them lose their 2nd amendment rights?

Question #2: Do they have to choose between their 2nd amendment rights and their medical treatment?

Question #3: Is the decision governed by the State or Federal?...

1. State law on marijuana is irrelevant.
   
   
   1. See The Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2:

      This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

   2. And a in its decision in a case much discussed on gun board the Oregon Supreme Court nicely illustrates the application of the Supremacy Clause in connection with state marijuana laws. In Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011), ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. The case did not substantively address the federal law issue. In fact, the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):

      ...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...

      In other words: Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun; but she can still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).
   
   
2. Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801, et seq.), marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance which may not, therefore, be lawfully prescribed or used. Therefore, any user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is, under federal law, an unlawful user of a controlled substance.
   
   
3. Under federal law, a person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition (18 USC 922(g)(3)). Therefore, any one who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is a prohibited person and commits a federal felony by possessing a gun or ammunition.
   
   
4. Federal law defines "unlawful user" as follows (27 CFR 478.11):

   Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.

5. And in U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009) the Sixth Circuit found that (at 355):

   ...the regular use of a controlled substance either close in time to or contemporaneous with the period of time he possessed the firearm...

   would support conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3).
   
   
6. Being a prohibited person in possession of a gun or ammunition is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine. And since it's a felony, conviction will result in a lifetime loss of gun rights.

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

...Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate, but that is the point....

Phooey! You just like to stir up crap.

And you're also too lazy to use the search functions on this board. This general subject has been discussed a great many times here.

The bottom line is clear: a user of marijuana, even when doing so legally under state law, is prohibited under federal law from having a gun or ammunition in his possession.

[Jester3]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

1. State law on marijuana is irrelevant.
   
   
   1. See The Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2:
   2. And a in its decision in a case much discussed on gun board the Oregon Supreme Court nicely illustrates the application of the Supremacy Clause in connection with state marijuana laws. In Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011), ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. The case did not substantively address the federal law issue. In fact, the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):In other words: Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun; but she can still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).
   
   
2. Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801, et seq.), marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance which may not, therefore, be lawfully prescribed or used. Therefore, any user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is, under federal law, an unlawful user of a controlled substance.
   
   
3. Under federal law, a person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition (18 USC 922(g)(3)). Therefore, any one who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is a prohibited person and commits a federal felony by possessing a gun or ammunition.
   
   
4. Federal law defines "unlawful user" as follows (27 CFR 478.11):
5. And in U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009) the Sixth Circuit found that (at 355):would support conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3).
   
   
6. Being a prohibited person in possession of a gun or ammunition is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine. And since it's a felony, conviction will result in a lifetime loss of gun rights.

Phooey! You just like to stir up crap.

And you're also too lazy to use the search functions on this board. This general subject has been discussed a great many times here.

The bottom line is clear: a user of marijuana, even when doing so legally under state law, is prohibited under federal law from having a gun or ammunition in his possession.

Ahhhh yes, I do love how our wonderful laws are written so well for us to understand.

But yeah, fed laws usually trump state laws.

Funny, a friend of mine from Europe observed so well. You are the United States as a whole, bit every state is like it's own little country, governed and ruled by it's own set of laws, some ignoring federal law. WTF???

[Junkie]

I believe some states have also said they won't enforce other federal firearms laws (SBR/SBS I think it was), but that's a bit more likely to get you caught...

I wonder whether having a card is adequate evidence that you are a user, as it would be possible to have a card but never use.

[tleeocinca]

Getting a card does not make you a user. Some get the card to be a grower, but never actually use. Others get the card as a novelty, but again never use.

[Sleighter]

Legality aside, I think in a practical sense you lose the ability to carry while you're under the influence. So depending on your medical needs, you may not be in a position to carry simply because of your "medication." That would be no different than prescribed narcotics or any other drug that has side effects that alter decision making.

Drugs and guns simply aren't compatible. So a reasonable person would have to prioritize which is more important in their life given their circumstances.

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by Jester3

Ahhhh yes, I do love how our wonderful laws are written so well for us to understand.

But yeah, fed laws usually trump state laws.

Funny, a friend of mine from Europe observed so well. You are the United States as a whole, bit every state is like it's own little country, governed and ruled by it's own set of laws, some ignoring federal law. WTF???

Your friend from Europe observed quite well.

But there's no "WTF" in the deal.

That's the way our Founding Fathers intended for our country to be.

Those same fathers saw the harm that resulted from too much power being concentrated in the hands of too few rulers and they tried to build a system that wouldn't replicate those faults.

And, looking at how well most of Europe has (mal)functioned since the Revolutionary War days, I have to think our Founding Fathers got something right.

Fiddletown gave an excellent commentary on the law, about the only point I would add is that Marijuana has no generally accepted medical usage, and that is why is has been placed on Schedule One of drugs under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, there is no "forced choice" between violating the law and receiving proper medical treatment (responding to OP's question #2).

[CSACANNONEER]

All three are able to get their MMJ cards but, if any of them use or even possess MJ and have access to a firearm, they are committing multiple Federal and state crimes. It's unfortunate that a compassionate caretaker who does not use MMJ but has a card because he/she is caring for a dying friend or relative and supplying MMJ to the patient would not be able to own or possess a firearm for self defense but, those are the current laws.

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by Junkie

I believe some states have also said they won't enforce other federal firearms laws ...

That can't stop the feds from enforcing federal law.

Originally Posted by Junkie

...I wonder whether having a card is adequate evidence that you are a user,...

Not for a conviction. But if you're known to have guns it's probably good enough to get DEA/FBI/ATF agents a search warrant and a court order for a drug test.

[Junkie]

Originally Posted by RickD427

Your friend from Europe observed quite well.

But there's no "WTF" in the deal.

That's the way our Founding Fathers intended for our country to be.

Those same fathers saw the harm that resulted from too much power being concentrated in the hands of too few rulers and they tried to build a system that wouldn't replicate those faults.

And, looking at how well most of Europe has (mal)functioned since the Revolutionary War days, I have to think our Founding Fathers got something right.

Fiddletown gave an excellent commentary on the law, about the only point I would add is that Marijuana has no generally accepted medical usage, and that is why is has been placed on Schedule One of drugs under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, there is no "forced choice" between violating the law and receiving proper medical treatment.

The feds have declared that it has no generally accepted medical usage, but that doesn't make it true. There are absolutely things it's good for - when my father was dying of cancer he got more appetite/relief from nausea from the real stuff than marinol. The feds won't let people do tests to show that it's effective. I don't like the stuff, just saying that the feds declaring something doesn't automatically make it true.

Originally Posted by fiddletown

That can't stop the feds from enforcing federal law.

Not for a conviction. But if you're known to have guns it's probably good enough to get DEA/FBI/ATF agents a search warrant and a court order for a drug test.

You're far less likely to run into a fed at a range than a state/local LEO, but you are correct that if you did run into a fed they could enforce federal law.

You're correct that it's almost certainly PC though.

[CSACANNONEER]

Originally Posted by Junkie

You're far less likely to run into a fed at a range than a state/local LEO, but you are correct that if you did run into a fed they could enforce federal law.

You might be surprised to know just how many Federal agents are around. Most don't advertise the fact and, many work for agencies that you've either never heard of or didn't realize they had LE branches.

[Ferrum]

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER

You might be surprised to know just how many Federal agents are around. Most don't advertise the fact and, many work for agencies that you've either never heard of or didn't realize they had LE branches.

A lot of truth in that statement...

[RickD427]

Originally Posted by CSACANNONEER

You might be surprised to know just how many Federal agents are around. Most don't advertise the fact and, many work for agencies that you've either never heard of or didn't realize they had LE branches.

Also please keep in mind that a lot of enforcement actions result from "Task Force" operations. Such organizations often contain both state and federal officers, and there are provisions for state LEOs to become federally deputized for the purpose of enforcing federal law.

[Sleighter]

Does anyone else think that the OP's name is "junkie" and he's asking questions about MJ and firearms? A little to "on the nose" to be considered irony.

[Junkie]

Originally Posted by Sleighter

Does anyone else think that the OP's name is "junkie" and he's asking questions about MJ and firearms? A little to "on the nose" to be considered irony.

huh? I didn't start this thread.

[Sleighter]

Originally Posted by Junkie

huh? I didn't start this thread.

Dam. Well, that's a fail on my part.

[FireCloud9]

Thanks for the thorough response fiddletown!

It's quite an interesting response and raises additional questions.

Originally Posted by fiddletown

1. State law on marijuana is irrelevant.
   
   Hmm, not exactly. I understand what you mean though. If it's Marinol - which is a Cannabinoid approved by the FDA and prescribed by doctors, then what?
   
   
   
   1. See The Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2:
   2. And a in its decision in a case much discussed on gun board the Oregon Supreme Court nicely illustrates the application of the Supremacy Clause in connection with state marijuana laws. In Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011), ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. The case did not substantively address the federal law issue. In fact, the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):In other words: Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun; but she can still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).
   
   That's an interesting point - Federal law trumps State law. So how is it that the California roster even exists since under Federal law there is none. So technically, the CA State law (in this case) is trumping Federal laws and Constitution.
   
2. Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801, et seq.), marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance which may not, therefore, be lawfully prescribed or used. Therefore, any user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is, under federal law, an unlawful user of a controlled substance.
   
   So Marinol, which is FDA approved and Schedule III and lawfully prescribed would be ok.
   
3. Under federal law, a person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition (18 USC 922(g)(3)). Therefore, any one who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is a prohibited person and commits a federal felony by possessing a gun or ammunition.
   
   I reiterate my Marinol example. I suppose that once marijuana comes off Schedule I (as it will by 2020), then my question may be more relevant at that time though Marinol is FDA approved schedule III so in that case a user would not be in violation of any law.
   
4. Federal law defines "unlawful user" as follows (27 CFR 478.11):
5. And in U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009) the Sixth Circuit found that (at 355):would support conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3).
   
   
6. Being a prohibited person in possession of a gun or ammunition is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine. And since it's a felony, conviction will result in a lifetime loss of gun rights.

Phooey! You just like to stir up crap.

And you're also too lazy to use the search functions on this board. This general subject has been discussed a great many times here.

I like to ask questions and discuss topics that fall in gray areas. After all, if it's black and white there nothing to discuss. As for the search function.....

You can't win around here. If you use the search function and post on an old topic then everyone complains that the topic is X number of years old. If you start a thread, then everyone complains that you can search and read everyone's answers.

I thought this was a DISCUSSION forum. Noone is obligated to reply (though I do appreciate it)

The bottom line is clear: a user of marijuana, even when doing so legally under state law, is prohibited under federal law from having a gun or ammunition in his possession.

So I reiterate then. Since Federal law seems to trump State law on this case, how is it that State law is trumping Federal law when it comes to the CA "approved gun roster"?

If the answer is, States can make their own laws, then it's interesting how medical marijuana or even non-medicinal marijuana (when legalized between now and 2020) is illegal b/c it violates Federal law.

Seems to me that the Feds are going to be very busy as states legalize marijuana - what is it, 22 or 23 states that have medical marijuana laws and 4-5 states that have completely legalized for recreational use?

That's not to mention the 12 States that currently have bills to decriminalize / legalize marijuana in their respective states.

[FireCloud9]

Originally Posted by Jester3

Ahhhh yes, I do love how our wonderful laws are written so well for us to understand.

But yeah, fed laws usually trump state laws.

Funny, a friend of mine from Europe observed so well. You are the United States as a whole, bit every state is like it's own little country, governed and ruled by it's own set of laws, some ignoring federal law. WTF???

Exactly!

Lets say CA decided that it didn't like the Supreme Court's recent decision legalizing gay marriage and decided that it was going to pass a new law that gay people could not marry.

Would it be legal? No. The U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court trump the State.

So how is it that CA can pass a law that limits gun purchases to an "approved" gun roster? Why doesn't Federal law trump State law in that case, but does so when it comes to medical marijuana and gay rights?

[FireCloud9]

Originally Posted by Sleighter

Dam. Well, that's a fail on my part.

And to be clear, I'm no junkie.

But I do find a tremendous number of gaps between Federal and State laws.

[FireCloud9]

This is also interesting to me.

And in U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009) the Sixth Circuit found that (at 355):

Quote:
...the regular use of a controlled substance either close in time to or contemporaneous with the period of time he possessed the firearm...

would support conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3).


That strikes me as poorly written. Quite frankly, I would challenge it. Why? Simple.

Prescriptions filled by a doctor are controlled substances.

Currently, there are ~100 million American that are "regular users" of prescription medications for anxiety, depression, PTSD, and numerous other conditions. That represents 1/3rd of Americans and yet it's estimated that 50% of Americans (I may be off a bit) are gun owners.

And that's just an example of a few prescription meds. If we take ALL prescription that are prescribed for regular use, I would estimate those numbers to be much, much higher.

So that means that if the above is accurate, we would have to incarcerate approximately 10-15 million more Americans beyond the 1 million we already have incarcerated 50% of which are in jail for drugs.


Moreover, question 11e in ATF Form 4473 clearly states, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

So for argument's sake, lets exclude marijuana. First, you'd have to be an unlawful user, or addicted to, a prescribed drug.

Regular, legally prescribed, use of a drug like lets say Adderall XR (a controlled substance), does not mean the user loses their 2nd amendment rights. If that was the case, we're all about to have jobs building prisons because I'd say that no less than 50% of ALL Americans are on prescription (controlled substance) drugs and use them regularly (daily for most).

[Junkie]

FireCloud9, I started a thread not too long ago asking about the 4473 question. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1087344 there's some good info in there

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

Thanks for the thorough response fiddletown!

It's quite an interesting response and raises additional questions....

Actually, it's not nearly as gray an area as you think. It only appears gray because you want to continue to stir the pot. So far example, you ask about Marinol. If it, or any other drug, is FDA approved and lawfully prescribed by physicians, a person using it pursuant to a proper prescription is not an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

Marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance may not be lawfully prescribed.

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

...So I reiterate then. Since Federal law seems to trump State law on this case, how is it that State law is trumping Federal law when it comes to the CA "approved gun roster"?...

Because you don't understand the principles of federal preemption. There are many examples of areas with respect to which there are both federal and state laws. And in many cases a state law will apply with regard to a particular point not addressed in federal law.

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

...If the answer is, States can make their own laws, then it's interesting how medical marijuana or even non-medicinal marijuana (when legalized between now and 2020) is illegal b/c it violates Federal law....

And in the case of marijuana, there are States in which it is or can be legal under state law. And that means the local cops won't arrest you for standing on the street corner smoking your spiff (unless smoking in pubic is illegal).

But if you're legally smoking your doobie on the street corner while legally openly carrying your roscoe, an FBI agent can arrest you for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun. In that case, you'll be tried in federal court and tossed into federal prison.

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

... question 11e in ATF Form 4473 clearly states, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

So for argument's sake, lets exclude marijuana. First, you'd have to be an unlawful user, or addicted to, a prescribed drug.

Regular, legally prescribed, use of a drug like lets say Adderall XR (a controlled substance), does not mean the user loses their 2nd amendment rights. If that was the case, we're all about to have jobs building prisons because I'd say that no less than 50% of ALL Americans are on prescription (controlled substance) drugs and use them regularly (daily for most).

It's really only your ignorance and inability to understand what you are reading that turns this into a problem.

If one is using a drug pursuant to a physician's lawful prescription, he is not an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Of course if he is addicted to, say Prozac, and feeds his addiction by going around to multiple physicians and getting multiple prescriptions for Prozac far beyond a therapeutically appropriate quantity, he could now be a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(g)(3).

But again, in the case of marijuana there is no such thing as a lawful prescription. Thus any user of marijuana is an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

[BeFrank]

To me, it sounded like the OP was looking specifically at the Sacramento county perspective on this. How does local LEO see enforcement? Would it be the same for locally carded MJ users as the non enforcement of federal immigration law/ sanctuary city policies?

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by BeFrank

To me, it sounded like the OP was looking specifically at the Sacramento county perspective on this. How does local LEO see enforcement? Would it be the same for locally carded MJ users as the non enforcement of federal immigration law/ sanctuary city policies?

All of that is irrelevant. Whatever Sacramento County law enforcement agencies might choose to do as a matter of policy, any marijuana user in possession of a gun is subject to arrest and prosecution by federal authorities.

[code_blue]

Pretty sure it can be cause for termination of the LTC as well; akin to Sac County's "Void while consuming alcohol" stipulation.

[FireCloud9]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

Actually, it's not nearly as gray an area as you think. It only appears gray because you want to continue to stir the pot. So far example, you ask about Marinol. If it, or any other drug, is FDA approved and lawfully prescribed by physicians, a person using it pursuant to a proper prescription is not an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

Marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance may not be lawfully prescribed.

Asking questions in a discussion forum is "stirring the pot"? While I appreciate your responses and the discussion, don't feel obligated to respond in this thread if this discussion is ruffling your feathers.

Perhaps your responses need to be clearer or clarified without misstatements.

For example, you state, "Marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance may not be lawfully prescribed".

Clearly that sentence needs clarification - ie. ...may not be lawfully prescribed under federal law.

The fact is that marijuana is lawfully prescribed under state law every single day in California.

If you're in the anti-mj camp, I get it, but that's no reason to misstate facts or law.


Because you don't understand the principles of federal preemption. There are many examples of areas with respect to which there are both federal and state laws. And in many cases a state law will apply with regard to a particular point not addressed in federal law.

I don't make claim to being an attorney, judge and I certainly don't sit on the Supreme Court. That being said, I have successfully defended myself as a pro per (self-represented) in court 6 times including run ins with 2 non-LEO State of CA agencies (and their multiple attorneys). Not only did I successfully defend, but have been paid thousands of dollars in the process.

All of those have been "gray areas" - even when I sought counsel, they viewed it as a "lost" case, hence the self-representation.

The reason for so many of my questions is that I'm considering taking on the DOJ and State of CA as a pro per on the issues that I'm raising here under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code - for interference in Commerce). I have undergraduate and graduate degrees and the "gap" that I see here is bigger and wider than the "gaps" in all my previous cases. So I see it as another opportunity to sue the State of California.

Currently, I'm self-representing a 7th time and opposing counsel is getting their *** kicked.

I fully understand the principle of FEDERAL preemption. You state:

"And in many cases a state law will apply with regard to a particular point not addressed in federal law."

Except that the 2nd amendment has addressed firearm possession. It takes those that see the gray areas to fight back against an overreaching government. Hence why the NRA and others, including citizens and local police are fighting back against the ongoing "gun grab".

Idaho Sheriff Guarding U.S. Navy Veteran Against Federal Gun Confiscation.





And in the case of marijuana, there are States in which it is or can be legal under state law. And that means the local cops won't arrest you for standing on the street corner smoking your spiff (unless smoking in pubic is illegal).

But if you're legally smoking your doobie on the street corner while legally openly carrying your roscoe, an FBI agent can arrest you for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun. In that case, you'll be tried in federal court and tossed into federal prison.

I believe that's already been established (until the doobie is taken off Schedule I which given 75% of Americans are demanding that the doobie be decriminalized / legalized, it won't take much longer - and then it'll be like any other Schedule III controlled substance (doctor's prescriptions).

It's really only your ignorance and inability to understand what you are reading that turns this into a problem.

I would appreciate it if you refrain from insults. Like I said earlier, if you don't like the topic, you don't have to respond. That being said, this is the last time that I will respond to you if you keep insulting me. The next time, I'll just ignore your post. We can either have a civilized conversation with differing opinions and without insults or not.

If one is using a drug pursuant to a physician's lawful prescription, he is not an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Of course if he is addicted to, say Prozac, and feeds his addiction by going around to multiple physicians and getting multiple prescriptions for Prozac far beyond a therapeutically appropriate quantity, he could now be a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(g)(3).

As someone who has studied nursing and worked in hospitals, I can tell you that one can be addicted to many different medications without multiple physicians or multiple prescriptions.

You may not be aware, but a full 25% of nurses in California have or have had a drug addiction - and very few have a written record of that addiction. Almost all have a clean record and can CCW.

And therein lies yet another issue. Again, lets exclude marijuana.

I refer back to your post:

"And in U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009) the Sixth Circuit found that (at 355):

Quote:
...the regular use of a controlled substance either close in time to or contemporaneous with the period of time he possessed the firearm...

would support conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3)."

The portion of the quote captured is clearly incomplete and in effect, misleads.

Millions of Americans REGULARLY USE CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (PHYSICIAN PRESCRIPTIONS) contemporaneously with the period of time he possessed the firearm.

In fact, the list below is a list of Schedule II drugs (pain killers). In addition to the numerous mental health prescriptions, these too are CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_II_drugs_(US)

I happen to know (because of my prior work in hospitals), LEOs that CONTEMPORANEOUSLY USE Schedule II and Schedule III CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES, contemporaneously with the period of time he is possession of a firearm (both ON duty and OFF duty).

So, either your previous statement is incomplete and intended to mislead, or there are many LEO and civilians in violation of currently law - at least as you stated the law in your previous post.


But again, in the case of marijuana there is no such thing as a lawful prescription. Thus any user of marijuana is an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

Your last statement as written is blatantly false. The State of California and 22 other States have medicinal marijuana laws on the books - ALL PRESCRIBED BY DOCTORS - YOU MUST STATE "UNDER FEDERAL LAW" TO PREVENT MISINFORMATION OR MISLEADING READERS.

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

Your last statement as written is blatantly false. The State of California and 22 other States have medicinal marijuana laws on the books - ALL PRESCRIBED BY DOCTORS - YOU MUST STATE "UNDER FEDERAL LAW" TO PREVENT MISINFORMATION OR MISLEADING READERS.

Very well. There is no such thing under federal law as a lawful prescription for marijuana. And that is really the end of it.

Everything else in your post, from a legal perspective, is pure twaddle. None of it means anything as far as the Gun Control Act of 1968 goes. Any user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is an unlawful user of a controlled substance under federal law and may not under federal law legally possess a gun or ammunition.

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

...this is the last time that I will respond to you if you keep insulting me. The next time, I'll just ignore your post. We can either have a civilized conversation with differing opinions and without insults or not....

And I have no real interest in having a civilized conversation with you. I'm not posting to change your mind or influence your thinking.

I'm posting to respond to the bad legal information being posted here, primarily by you. We see a lot of this sort of nonsense posted whenever the subject of marijuana and the gun laws come up.

And the problem with the posting of such bad information is that folks who might want to help change things won't understand what needs to be done.

The real issue is that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. There may well be good reasons why that scheduling of marijuana is inappropriate.

And there may be other potentially useful approaches. But your disjointed ramblings aren't useful.

Have fun.

[FireCloud9]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

All of that is irrelevant. Whatever Sacramento County law enforcement agencies might choose to do as a matter of policy, any marijuana user in possession of a gun is subject to arrest and prosecution by federal authorities.

Sorry to keep pointing out all these gaps, it just comes naturally to me.

Here's the problem that I see with that. Sac County LEO "policy" does not trump State of CA law.

Lets say you're smoking your medically prescribed doobie and an overzealous Sacramento County LEO (that has not been deputized by Feds) decides to arrest you under Federal Law and then the Feds come pick you up at a Sac jail and prosecute you under Federal marijuana laws.

A few different things can happen. Technically, the doobie smoker can sue Sacramento County LEO and its Agency as Sac County LEO or Agency does not have Federal scope. Additionally, what is often termed "cooperation" can also be seen as a RICO violation.

(Currently, I'm in the process of exploring a RICO suit against Sacramento County Family court so I'm a little familiar with RICO, though it is quite complex and difficult, so unlike other areas, it helps to have a RICO attorney because the suit itself will be in Federal Court which has different complex procedural steps).

Technically, without that Sac County LEO being deputized by the Feds, that LEO has no authority to violate what is CA State Law (legal medical marijuana) and detain and arrest you. So any "punishment" by Feds can result in punitive damages against the State agency. Theoretically, Sac County can be held to millions of dollars in damages depending on the extent of punishment by the Feds.

Generally, States can only create laws where the Federal government has not and if there are overlapping laws between State and Fed, the Fed laws trump the state - as in the case you're making against the use of marijuana.

The Supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution, so I often wonder how California gets away with their "roster", but as many of us are aware, there is a case under Appeal in O.C. SoCal.

Quite frankly, I think California gets away with a lot simply because people don't take the State to task on the matter as I have successfully done previously.

Most people seem closer to automatons that just do as they're told by those in "authority" - they're not aware of Jury Nullification, RICO, the fact that you can have a judge recused or report a judge to the FBI and the Feds will open a case.

People complain that they have no recourse against divorce attorneys because they are immune from prosecution, so they take no action. They don't realize that attorneys have an ethical code issued by the ABA and State of California Bar that they have to adhere to and if in violation of such, they can lose their license to practice - even be imprisoned as a result of felonious behavior.

I know this first hand because I've dealt with runaway opposing counsel before and when I said I'd sue them, they laughed and said they were immune. So I checked it out and it's true, they are immune. So I did further research and discovered that there is a code of conduct for attorneys and judges - that they have to adhere to. It is quite extensive. So while I cannot sue directly, I can file the complaint with the ABA and State Bar and if those organizations take no action, I can sue them, not only for not taking action, but for racketeering under RICO.

I'd like to point out that even in cases where there is a long trail of physical evidence, testimony, admissions, etc. U.S. laws are so complex that it is not uncommon to see appeals and circuit courts engaged and even the circuit courts disagree which moves the cases to the Supreme Court and even there, most of the rulings you see are 5-4 or 6-3. So the law isn't as "clear" and "obvious" as you're stating.

[FireCloud9]

Originally Posted by tleeocinca

Getting a card does not make you a user. Some get the card to be a grower, but never actually use. Others get the card as a novelty, but again never use.

That is an excellent point. Specially the novelty aspect.

The way things are going (not only in the U.S., but in many other countries where the tide is turning) it's just a matter of time before the Federal government will be left with little choice but to comply with the will of the people.

I've been called for jury duty quite a few times. One thing you will never hear a judge or the lawyers tell the jury is their right to use Jury Nullification.

In fact, they get quite upset about that little aspect of the law. So much so that recently, someone was arrested for distributing pamphlets letting jurors know about jury nullification (a lawsuit is pending for violation of 1st amendment rights).

It's interesting that a judge is more interested in imposing their authority than he/she is in the law of the land. I find it quite ironic considering that they are there to ensure a just application of the law. Yet they hide the law (via omission) and they are visibly displeased when a jury acquits based on jury nullification, but I digress.

I'm wondering if those marijuana cards will become collectors items for those that collect prohibition era items.

I may just get one since it seems to upset some people so much

[FireCloud9]

Originally Posted by anbu_yoshi

Pretty sure it can be cause for termination of the LTC as well; akin to Sac County's "Void while consuming alcohol" stipulation.

That is interesting.

Since virtually every LEO carries while off-duty...

1. Does this mean they can never go have a drink at a bar?

2. Does it mean they have to leave their weapon at home to get a drink? (wouldn't that expose them to danger?)

3. Does it mean they are exempt from the law? -

Certain legal exemptions are clear and understandable like the LEO exemption for firearm purchases. They should be able to carry whatever they deem necessary to get their jobs done or to protect themselves while off duty.

But would they have a greater right to protect their own lives than a civilian that gets a CCW for self-defense when both go have a drink at a bar?

Some jurisdictions have the following language:

"Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not."

Which is quite interesting because that covers every medication even non-prescription OTC, so if you have a CCW and have headache while carrying and take an aspirin or tylenol - you're screwed.

If you have a CCW and have angina pain and take your prescribed nitro to keep from dying - you're screwed.

If you have a CCW and take some cough syrup - you're screwed.

If you smoke a tobacco cigarette (or have smoked one) - you're screwed as nicotine is a drug.

If you have a CCW and take Methylphenidate (Ritalin) which is similar to Nicotine in it's safety profile - you're screwed.

If you're trying to quit smoking and have a nicotine patch - you're screwed.

If you drink a cup of coffee, a red bull, a coke - you're screwed - as caffeine is a drug.

I would bet that just about any CCW in Mendocino can be tested and they would be in violation of their CCW.

People don't realize that drugs stay in your system for quite some time. Coffee half-life is 12 hours, aspirin is effective in your body for 7 days hence why 81mg aspirin is given as preventive measure for heart attacks.

Who makes these laws? Oh right, legislators who are largely lawyers and don't know anything about medicine or common sense.

Having worked in the government (and will probably be back soon), I can tell you that very little to absolutely no thinking goes into virtually everything the government does. But I'm sure I don't have to tell any American that!

There's a DA that had a drink in a bar while CCW and then there was a shooting outside the bar - it was a good shoot - except that now he's in trouble b/c he violated the Mendocino county CCW language above.

He could have argued that the alcohol was medicinal - ETOH Rx for DTs (also useful in methanol poisoning, propylene glycol) - but it wouldn't make a difference since it covers everything.

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

Sorry to keep pointing out all these gaps, it just comes naturally to me.

Here's the problem that I see with that. Sac County LEO "policy" does not trump State of CA law....

Nope, that's not the issue.

The legitimate question would be whether or to what extent local law enforcement agencies will cooperate, assist and/or participate with federal authorities in the enforcement of federal marijuana and/or gun laws. Local law enforcement agencies actually have fairly broad latitude to set policy in that regard.

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

..any "punishment" by Feds can result in punitive damages against the State agency. Theoretically, Sac County can be held to millions of dollars in damages depending on the extent of punishment by the Feds....

Balderdash. Cite a case. In general punitive damages are not available against governmental agencies.

[FireCloud9]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

Very well. There is no such thing under federal law as a lawful prescription for marijuana. And that is really the end of it.

Everything else in your post, from a legal perspective, is pure twaddle. None of it means anything as far as the Gun Control Act of 1968 goes. Any user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is an unlawful user of a controlled substance under federal law and may not under federal law legally possess a gun or ammunition.

And I have no real interest in having a civilized conversation with you. I'm not posting to change your mind or influence your thinking.

I'm posting to respond to the bad legal information being posted here, primarily by you. We see a lot of this sort of nonsense posted whenever the subject of marijuana and the gun laws come up.

And the problem with the posting of such bad information is that folks who might want to help change things won't understand what needs to be done.

The real issue is that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance. There may well be good reasons why that scheduling of marijuana is inappropriate.

And there may be other potentially useful approaches. But your disjointed ramblings aren't useful.

Have fun.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter. But I don't see my QUESTIONS as "bad information".

Not to worry though, those that want to change things are already doing it - that is why 12 more states will vote on marijuana (medical and recreational) in 2016.

But the issue is not simply limited to marijuana.

But "unlawful use of controlled substances".

If I was a marijuana smoker in California (I don't smoke anything period, just not my thing, but if I was...), I'd get 2 prescriptions - a medical marijuana card and a Marinol or Nabinol prescription.

Then it would be up to the Federal prosecutors to prove that the Cannabinoid came from the Schedule I cannabis vs. the Schedule II cannabis.

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter. But I don't see my QUESTIONS as "bad information"....

Of course you don't. That doesn't make you correct.

[code_blue]

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

That is interesting.

Since virtually every LEO carries while off-duty...

1. Does this mean they can never go have a drink at a bar?

Not while carrying

2. Does it mean they have to leave their weapon at home to get a drink? (wouldn't that expose them to danger?)

Yup

3. Does it mean they are exempt from the law? -

Nope

Certain legal exemptions are clear and understandable like the LEO exemption for firearm purchases. They should be able to carry whatever they deem necessary to get their jobs done or to protect themselves while off duty.

But would they have a greater right to protect their own lives than a civilian that gets a CCW for self-defense when both go have a drink at a bar?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about especially when you're attempting to speak for LEO's, which clearly you are not one and are not in the field in any way. You have NO idea of the consequences LEO's and un-sworn professionals face when doing stupid acts. Granted there are those who do dumb things and they deserve what's coming to them, but you will never hear of the ones that follow the rules and do what their integrity tells them to do.

Some jurisdictions have the following language:

"Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not."

Which is quite interesting because that covers every medication even non-prescription OTC, so if you have a CCW and have headache while carrying and take an aspirin or tylenol - you're screwed.

If you have a CCW and have angina pain and take your prescribed nitro to keep from dying - you're screwed.

If you have a CCW and take some cough syrup - you're screwed.

If you smoke a tobacco cigarette (or have smoked one) - you're screwed as nicotine is a drug.

If you have a CCW and take Methylphenidate (Ritalin) which is similar to Nicotine in it's safety profile - you're screwed.

If you're trying to quit smoking and have a nicotine patch - you're screwed.

If you drink a cup of coffee, a red bull, a coke - you're screwed - as caffeine is a drug.

I would bet that just about any CCW in Mendocino can be tested and they would be in violation of their CCW.

People don't realize that drugs stay in your system for quite some time. Coffee half-life is 12 hours, aspirin is effective in your body for 7 days hence why 81mg aspirin is given as preventive measure for heart attacks.

Who makes these laws? Oh right, legislators who are largely lawyers and don't know anything about medicine or common sense.

Having worked in the government (and will probably be back soon), I can tell you that very little to absolutely no thinking goes into virtually everything the government does. But I'm sure I don't have to tell any American that!

There's a DA that had a drink in a bar while CCW and then there was a shooting outside the bar - it was a good shoot - except that now he's in trouble b/c he violated the Mendocino county CCW language above.

He could have argued that the alcohol was medicinal - ETOH Rx for DTs (also useful in methanol poisoning, propylene glycol) - but it wouldn't make a difference since it covers everything.

You clearly have made this more difficult than what it is in reality. It's as if you are attempting to find a loophole to smoke the "herb" and carry a firearm. I really hope you don't end up being the ****ing dumbass that makes the rest of us look bad.

Either that or you're some trolling anti that created a false account. You joined in June 2015 and have 1 trader rating which could mean you bought some random item in a cheap attempt to gain credibility, and you have a low post count which may or may not be contributing to the knowledge-base or education of this forum.

So WTF was the point of this thread? Let's be intellectually honest and get to the root of your intent.

[FireCloud9]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

Nope, that's not the issue.

The legitimate question would be whether or to what extent local law enforcement agencies will cooperate, assist and/or participate with federal authorities in the enforcement of federal marijuana and/or gun laws. Local law enforcement agencies actually have fairly broad latitude to set policy in that regard.

Balderdash. Cite a case. In general punitive damages are not available against governmental agencies.

Perhaps you are correct and I'm using the incorrect language - in cases of wrongful imprisonment - ie. DNA exonerates innocent prisoners or wrongful death civil suits where a cop kills unarmed person and is found at fault, etc.

The government does pay damages, I'm just not sure what the exact term is.

[FireCloud9]

Originally Posted by anbu_yoshi

You clearly have made this more difficult than what it is in reality. It's as if you are attempting to find a loophole to smoke the "herb" and carry a firearm. I really hope you don't end up being the ****ing dumbass that makes the rest of us look bad.

Either that or you're some trolling anti that created a false account. You joined in June 2015 and have 1 trader rating which could mean you bought some random item in a cheap attempt to gain credibility, and you have a low post count which may or may not be contributing to the knowledge-base or education of this forum.

So WTF was the point of this thread? Let's be intellectually honest and get to the root of your intent.

Eh, no... today I met with not one, but two Calgunners - one of them being LEO. If you're admin, you can just look at my "private" messages (I have 2 tech degrees and worked for top 5 tech company, so I know what's possible).

I'm not an anti-2A far from it. I'm a military veteran and have been a gun owner for over 30 years. In fact, I just got another one today.

The point of the thread is intellectual and legal curiosity.

[fiddletown]

Originally Posted by FireCloud9

Perhaps you are correct and I'm using the incorrect language - in cases of wrongful imprisonment - ie. DNA exonerates innocent prisoners or wrongful death civil suits where a cop kills unarmed person and is found at fault, etc.

The government does pay damages, I'm just not sure what the exact term is.

And yet you claim knowledge of the law and success as a pro se litigant. So just for the record, I'm not buying any of it.

[code_blue]

Your degrees are pieces of paper to show evidence that you sat through a series of courses and successfully passed the required exams; no different than the CCW process or any other credential.

Being a veteran doesn't grant you anything from me other than my thanks for choosing to spend a portion of your life serving. There are plenty of dumbarses from the service as with any other profession. You have to prove that you aren't one.

I am more concerned about you as an individual, your character, and what you hope to accomplish from this thread. What is your ultimate goal? Why do you seek the "legal curiosity?"

Who am I? No one, but you chose to retort with a flawed mindset so welcome to Calguns; we'll set you right.

[FireCloud9]

Originally Posted by anbu_yoshi

You clearly have made this more difficult than what it is in reality. It's as if you are attempting to find a loophole to smoke the "herb" and carry a firearm. I really hope you don't end up being the ****ing dumbass that makes the rest of us look bad.

Either that or you're some trolling anti that created a false account. You joined in June 2015 and have 1 trader rating which could mean you bought some random item in a cheap attempt to gain credibility, and you have a low post count which may or may not be contributing to the knowledge-base or education of this forum.

So WTF was the point of this thread? Let's be intellectually honest and get to the root of your intent.

As for your comment,

"You clearly have no idea what you're talking about especially when you're attempting to speak for LEO's, which clearly you are not one and are not in the field in any way. You have NO idea of the consequences LEO's and un-sworn professionals face when doing stupid acts. Granted there are those who do dumb things and they deserve what's coming to them, but you will never hear of the ones that follow the rules and do what their integrity tells them to do."


My brother in law is LEO in SoCal as is his brother. My neighbor is LEO and another neighbor is retired LEO.

You don't have to be LEO to go to a bar, club, etc. (also not my thing, but once in a very blue moon I bother going out) and notice them packing while drinking.

I also have seen attorneys drinking while CCW. And before you start telling me that it's my imagination, feel free to do a little Googling. Here's a quick one.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...le2592153.html

I was born and raised in NYC. I find it fascinating how little people in NorCal notice relative to people from NYC.

If you go downtown, by the courthouse, there are some nice restaurants that are commonly frequented by judges, attorneys, politicians, and even some LEOs.

One doesn't need x-ray vision to note others carrying while drinking. I must say, LEO in NYC was much much better at being difficult to identify and experienced LEO packing was quite difficult to detect.

[FireCloud9]

Originally Posted by fiddletown

And yet you claim knowledge of the law and success as a pro se litigant. So just for the record, I'm not buying any of it.

I've yet to have a case that involves punitive damages against a State agency. You know, the law is quite broad, even attorneys specialize, so you'll have to excuse my not knowing ALL of the law.

I don't think that's possible for anyone, even judges as the U.S. have over one million laws. In fact, it has so many laws, that noone can tell you exactly how many laws there are in the U.S. - If you don't believe me, you can google it.