Medical Marijuana Legal.

[steve4102]

According to this article in the LA Times there is a provision in the New spending bill that would make Medical Marijuana "Legal". Federal Agents would be prohibited from "raiding" retail outlets.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...216-story.html

How will this affect the Firearms controversy and the ATF's interpretation on the use of Medical Marijuana, Form 4473-11(e), and Firearms possession?

[silvermane_1]

well it does state on 4473-11e "Unlawful", now if some thing becomes "Legal", it's no longer "Unlawful", but one of the "legal eagles" on TFL could explain it better.

[Salmoneye]

It's my understanding that the Federal government can not 'legalize' Marijuana due to international treaties that we are signatory to...

Not sure how that will affect the ATF interpretation of this new wrinkle of 'medical Marijuana'...

[silvermane_1]

well IIRC Salmoneye, those treaties state that we won't export MJ, but that's IIRC.

[NJgunowner]

While it might no longer be a state crime, it is still a FEDERAL crime and therefor unlawful.

[2damnold4this]

The OP's question is about changes to federal law.


I haven't read the text in the spending bill, so I don't know if it actually decriminalizes medical marijuana or just stops funding of enforcement of federal laws against it.

[carguychris]

As long as it is a DEA Schedule I controlled substance, it remains a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(3) for a person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to" marijuana to possess a firearm.

According to the news reports I've read, this law does NOT reclassify marijuana. All it does is prohibit federal agencies from raiding state-licensed medical marijuana dispensaries. AFAIK it remains a violation of federal law for someone who uses the substance to possess a firearm, whether the use is for medicinal or recreational purposes. (The use of pot. Not the gun. )

[Bella]

In Nevada alcohol is not only legal, due to the casinos, there is no drinking curfew. But it is a crime to be carrying while intoxicated. I assume, when and if marijuana becomes legal here, it will be treated similarly.

[2damnold4this]

Congress didn't make medical marijuana legal. Congress stopped funding enforcement. From the bill:

538.None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by steve4102

According to this article in the LA Times there is a provision in the New spending bill that would make Medical Marijuana "Legal"....

Apparently not. See below.

Originally Posted by 2damnold4this

Congress didn't make medical marijuana legal. Congress stopped funding enforcement. From the bill:...

This is not the same as making marijuana legal.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law because it is a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC 801, et seq). That means that under federal law it may not be prescribed, used or possessed. It also means that under federal law any user of marijuana is a an unlawful user of a controlled substance, even if legal under state law, and is therefore an unlawful user of a controlled substance prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition under 18 USC 922(g)(3).

So while Congress may withhold funds for routine enforcement of federal marijuana laws in some States, marijuana possession and use remains illegal under federal law. Furthermore, there's apparent nothing in the bill that would foreclose enforcement of federal guns laws, including investigation, arrest, and prosecution of gun possession by prohibited persons.

So carguychris is right on the money:

Originally Posted by carguychris

As long as it is a DEA Schedule I controlled substance, it remains a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 922(d)(3) for a person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to" marijuana to possess a firearm....

Originally Posted by Bella

In Nevada alcohol is not only legal, due to the casinos, there is no drinking curfew. But it is a crime to be carrying while intoxicated. I assume, when and if marijuana becomes legal here, it will be treated similarly.

As discussed above, there's no reason to assume that. And as a matter of federal law, at least, legalization of marijuana by a State doesn't change the fact that marijuana is illegal under federal law.

Originally Posted by silvermane_1

well it does state on 4473-11e "Unlawful", now if some thing becomes "Legal", it's no longer "Unlawful", but one of the "legal eagles" on TFL could explain it better.

And as explained above, marijuana remains illegal under federal law, so nothing has changed.

[Sharkbite]

In Nevada alcohol is not only legal, due to the casinos, there is no drinking curfew. But it is a crime to be carrying while intoxicated. I assume, when and if marijuana becomes legal here, it will be treated similarly.

Nevada has a restriction against carrying with a BAC over .10 which is a higher level then you can drive with (.08)

Currently there is no test for level of intox with pot like there is with booze. Colorado is struggling with this issue now.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by 2damnold4this

Congress didn't make medical marijuana legal. Congress stopped funding enforcement. From the bill:

538.None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Thanks

[skizzums]

why only those states?

[Salmoneye]

why only those states?

I assume they were the only states that had Medical marijuana laws in effect at the time of the writing of the spending bill...

[dakota.potts]

If that's the case, the prohibition on marijuana is about to become one of the most useless of all types of laws: the ones only enforced when the use suits somebody.

For instance, I've been told that there has never been a conviction made for violation of the Gun Free School Zone Act, except for one attached to another crime - sometimes actually threatening someone with a gun in a school zone, but also things like being pulled over in a school zone with drugs in the car and the charge added in to trump it up.

Seems like the same thing's going to happen here. Sally, a woman who "legally" partakes in her state's medical marijuana program, fills out a Form 4473 and affirms she is not addicted to or a user of an illegal drug. Why would she even think twice about it? It's legal in that state.

Except in that case, would she not also risk being charged for answering untruthfully on a federal form?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by dakota.potts

If that's the case, the prohibition on marijuana is about to become one of the most useless of all types of laws: the ones only enforced when the use suits somebody....

Well, that is the case.

There's a difference between enforcing federal marijuana laws and enforcing federal gun laws. A federal agent might not bust you for lighting up that doobie on the street corner, but if you're also openly packing a roscoe he just might for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun.

Originally Posted by dakota.potts

...Seems like the same thing's going to happen here. Sally, a woman who "legally" partakes in her state's medical marijuana program, fills out a Form 4473 and affirms she is not addicted to or a user of an illegal drug. Why would she even think twice about it? It's legal in that state.

Except in that case, would she not also risk being charged for answering untruthfully on a federal form?

Yes, she would. That means she should have made a greater effort to educate herself about the law. The correct information is out there and available.

[Tom Servo]

A federal agent might not bust you for lighting up that doobie on the street corner, but if you're also openly packing a roscoe he just might

Don't confuse me with all that technical legal jargon!

("Roscoe?")

Dakota, a selectively-enforced law is anything but useless. It's a dangerous tool to be used capriciously and unfairly.

[dakota.potts]

Tom, maybe I should be more clear. I believe a law is useless when it serves no interest UV providing for the general welfare of society. A law kept on the books indefinitely, well past its regular and accepted enforcement, but still used perniciously when it suits an agenda is useless to society and very harmful to liberty in my opinion.

What do you think the chances are of getting the controlled substance abuse act amended to protect our constitutional rights since the law will apparently no longer be enforced federally if the state has laws about it? Or of a federal court ruling that barring one for firearms use for such a program is against our rights?

[Tom Servo]

What do you think the chances are of getting the controlled substance abuse act amended to protect our constitutional rights

The Act doesn't need to be amended. They just need to move marijuana from Schedule I. This can be done via federal registration, or it can be done directly by the DEA.

since the law will apparently no longer be enforced federally if the state has laws about it?

This is what worries me. At the moment, we have a situation in which a state says their agents aren't going to prosecute certain behaviors within their borders. It's a dangerous illusion, however. What happens if someone purchases something "legal" under Colorado law, but makes the mistake of taking it into Nebraska? Nebraska can prosecute. Furthermore, federal trafficking charges can be brought.

(And just wait until some unfortunate soul gets caught trying to board a plane with it.)

At the moment, federal law enforcement have been directed to ease up on enforcement, but that's subject to the current whim of the current administration.

My issue is with the illusion of safety these state-level "legalization" laws present.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

My issue is with the illusion of safety these state-level "legalization" laws present.

What's illusory about them? The guarantees they provide are as real as the laws of other jurisdictions which prosecute them. Crossing into another state's (or the Fed's) jurisdiction is out of the hands of the state, and surely you don't expect the state to babysit residents each time they consider traveling outside the state?

"Hi, we're pulling you over before you can leave Colorado as a courtesy. You have CO plates so we're assuming you're a resident, and wish to remind you to consider the laws on the other side of the border before you cross. Free legal advice is available next to the bathrooms at the rest stop, as well as rental lockers and a post office should you wish to mail certain items back home."

or at the airport, a big computer screen:

"If you're traveling to:

California: Leave your carry gun here, and all magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds, marijuana with a doctor's prescription OK.
Copenhagen: All marijuana OK for any reason, but all firearms must remain here.
Dallas: All firearms OK, no marijuana
Denpasar: Only pistols without suppressors. no marijuana.
Dubai: No marijuana, guns or bibles. Women must be covered from head to toe.

etc"

[Tom Servo]

Crossing into another state's (or the Fed's) jurisdiction is out of the hands of the state, and surely you don't expect the state to babysit residents each time they consider traveling outside the state?

No, but they should have anticipated the potential consequences of that when they passed the law. Will Colorado appoint an attorney to protect citizens who make that mistake? I doubt it.

Copenhagen: All marijuana OK for any reason, but all firearms must remain here.

Actually, that's wrong. Marijuana is illegal in Denmark, and customs has been known to prosecute travelers who bring it in. Despite the weirdness that is Christiania, you don't want to get caught with it in Copenhagen.

[speedrrracer]

As for "should have anticipated the potential consequences", how could they not have anticipated them? America was founded with the understanding that states had a hefty degree of autonomy, so centuries later, it's well understood, is it not? Any state law might not be valid across the border, this has been true since America came into existence, so why should these be any different?

As for the airport legal computer screen, I don't know if any of it is right or wrong, legally speaking, I was just trying to paint a picture of the absurdity of trying to protect locals from all possible different legal situations in all possible destinations.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo
My issue is with the illusion of safety these state-level "legalization" laws present.

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

What's illusory about them?

Well for one, how about the illusion that Marijuana is legal and the illusion that it is legal to possess a firearm if one is a user or in possession of Marijuana.

Or the Illusion that a grower/distributor can legally carry and defend himself with a firearm.

Speaking Friday, Loken’s defense attorney Keith Hall said it appears federal prosecutors have drawn a line and will prosecute marijuana growers who use guns to protect themselves.

“People just don’t know this,” said Hall of Newton & Hall Attorneys at Law. “If you are going to have a marijuana grow and you’re going to have guns around, you’re going to get in trouble. …

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/artic...in-4965683.php