The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old October 26, 2009, 08:17 PM   #26
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomme
but how could the DEA or FBI arrest someone for having something federally illegal that's legal in the state, it's not their jurisdiction until it crosses state lines, I thought.
If it's a federal crime, it's in the FBI's jurisdiction.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 26, 2009, 08:18 PM   #27
jersey_emt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomme
but how could the DEA or FBI arrest someone for having something federally illegal that's legal in the state, it's not their jurisdiction until it crosses state lines, I thought.
The DEA and FBI have federal jurisdiction. You do not have to cross state lines in order for them to have any jurisdiction over any federal laws that you have broken.

Edit: beaten to it!
jersey_emt is offline  
Old October 26, 2009, 08:22 PM   #28
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomme
...that's legal in the state...
Words matter and need to be used and understood precisely. Medical marijuana can not be said to be "legal in the state."

Medical marijuana in the state may be legal under the laws of that state. But medical marijuana in that state is also illegal under federal law.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 26, 2009, 08:44 PM   #29
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,322
Thomme, in case you missed the post by publius42, followed immediately by my post, this is an issue of Interstate Commerce.

In passing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, the Congress declared its interest in controlling the interstate trafficking of certain substances.
Quote:
§ 801. Congressional findings and declarations: controlled substances

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

(1) Many of the drugs included within this subchapter have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.

(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.

(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because—
(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,

(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and

(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.
(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.

(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.

(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.

(7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.
If you read the above carefully, you will see that the Congress is claiming complete jurisdiction and control over both interstate and intrastate traffic in controlled substances.

This was upheld in 2005 in a California medical marijuana case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). That case was Gonzales v. Raich. You can read it here.

Until such a time as this line of cases are overturned, lobby the Congress to move medical marijuana out of Schedule I classification onto Schedule II, III, IV or Schedule V.

Currently all Schedule I drugs are deemed by the Congress to have no medical purpose and are highly addicting.

Whether any of this makes sense to you or not, it is the law.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 26, 2009, 11:35 PM   #30
SigP6Carry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2009
Posts: 1,086
So, the state laws are useless in this case, essentially, but the current administration is choosing to ignore those laws for the time being? That's essentially what it boils down to. And since FFL forms are federal, by checking no on that box if you are a medical marijuana user, you're essentially committing falsification of documents? That's REALLY confusing and weird... that's what I didn't understand. According to one or the other, the other is null and void and that made no sense to me, even with those readings. Thanks for the clarification.
__________________
-liberal gun nut = exception to the rule-
-1.24274238 miles, because Russians don't need scopes-
-Gun control was the Klan's favorite law, how can you advocate a set of laws designed to allow the denigration of a people?-
SigP6Carry is offline  
Old October 27, 2009, 04:59 AM   #31
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,830
One of my epiphanies: No matter what I whirl around in my mind and think "Should be!",It doesn't matter to anyone but me.Its just in my head.

Now,realize,there is not a Fed law against murder(exception,violating civil rights by killing)Its a state law,and the state will prosecute.

Pot is illegal as a Fed law.A state can say"We don't care" but,you still violate a Fed law.Now,current admin says"We won't prosecute if you are not violating any other laws".The feds will still bust in a no pot state,and the Attyy General hates guns.

But,picture if you will,you are armed in your Chevy toking and you get pulled over.LEO smells pot and sees a gun.OK,you have your medcard.

But there is still Fed issues about guns and drugs and mandatory sentences,etc.And,you signed a Fed form that says "I don't use"

Fair,unfair,should be,agree,don't agree, philosophies and arguements don't matter.You are at the mercy.

Wow,dude,bummer,escaping reality is like way cool but reality shows up and applies a local area of low pressure.Well,it could maybe,like,you know?

Its cool Ask Dave.Man,Dave's not here.Lets go chase cars
HiBC is offline  
Old October 27, 2009, 12:44 PM   #32
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
A person who possesses a prescription drug may legally possess a firearm provided federal law recognizes the drug as having a medicinal purpose.

Marijuana is a schedule I drug. Therefore the feds don't recognize the legitamacy of any prescription for marijuana.

I don't want to argue the merits of the law. You don't have to agree with the law to recognize it's effect.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old October 27, 2009, 01:10 PM   #33
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
A person who possesses a prescription drug may legally possess a firearm provided federal law recognizes the drug as having a medicinal purpose.
I don't think that's all that is required...

Quote:
18 USC 922

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce
Using a drug outside of the instructions on the prescription is unlawful, as is "doctor shopping" to get multiple pain prescriptions, for example. Rush Limbaugh was addicted to a controlled substance with a recognized medical purpose, making it unlawful for him to possess guns (that affect interstate commerce, of course).

At what point should we talk about the merits of that law, or the constitutional authority it is founded upon?
publius42 is offline  
Old October 27, 2009, 03:34 PM   #34
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 1,559
Quote:
vranasaurus: A person who possesses a prescription drug may legally possess a firearm...
Not if the prescription is not for him. Police officers arrest folks every day for possession of "prescription drugs" when they are not the person for whom the prescription was written.
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me.

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old October 28, 2009, 03:21 PM   #35
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Since we were talking about someone possessing their own prescription pot and a friearm I didn't think I needed to specify. The whole conversation has been in regards to someones own prescription.

So yes it has to be your own prescription.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old November 9, 2009, 06:04 PM   #36
Kmar40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 668
Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug under federal law. It is always illegal and there is no such thing as a legal "prescription" for it under federal law with a few exceptions (research etc), regardless of whether or not you saw Dr. Jerry Garcia Jr. and have a "prescription" for it.

BTW, no prescription for a controlled substance is legal under federal law unless the doctor has a DEA # and follows federal law.

Obama's policy merely says that the DEA and other feds won't generally won't prosecute "medical" marijuana users as they have "bigger fish to fry". You won't get that in writing and the policy can change at any day.
Kmar40 is offline  
Old November 9, 2009, 11:06 PM   #37
Buzzcook
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 5,651
There is a federal medical marijuana law. It was enacted in the 70's, though very few people got the opportunity to apply for it.
Perhaps if Obama is going to relax enforcement in states with legalized medical marijuana, the fed will relax restrictions on applications for federal medical pot permits.
Buzzcook is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 12:13 AM   #38
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,568
Quote:
So, the state laws are useless in this case, essentially,
Yup, here's another example.

Under TX law ""Machine gun" means any firearm that is capable of shooting more than two shots automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

It would be legal under TX state law for me to build myself a firearm that fired only two shots each time I pulled the trigger. But I would still be liable to prosecution under federal law because they also have jurisdiction and the applicable federal law is more restrictive.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 01:26 AM   #39
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
Illegal or not, it's still a bad combination...

I don't see how anyone with a shred of morals could place their own life and he lives of others in danger by combining firearms (or any deadly weapon) and any substance that impairs any function of the mind...

I just don't get it...

Maybe it's because I've seen first-hand what drugs and/or abuse of alcohol can do to a family. Or, in some cases, an entire community.

Maybe it's because I have fought (and will again once I'm done dealing with Alaska fishermen and intrusive Russian fishermen) the good fight against drugs and its trafficking.

Maybe it's because I grew up in a faith-based era in the Bible Belt and the things I learned then still guide me now.

Maybe it's the fact that I absolutely despise the use of any controlled substance, whether some government official tells me it's okay or not. I also despise the abuse of alcohol and those who would use either as an excuse for their actions.

Maybe I'm just a prick...

Probably a combination of all of the above...

Nevertheless, drugs are no good and never lead to anything good.

Drugs mixed with guns is a tragedy waiting to happen, and those who mix them should be pistol-whipped to the extent that they will never forget how bad they screwed up... (I also think we should have drunk drivers lay down in front of a speeding truck, but that's another thing entirely...)
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 02:13 AM   #40
SigP6Carry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2009
Posts: 1,086
this isn't a question about mixing drugs with guns or your own personal convictions, but rather: if you're a user of medicinal marijuana can you legally fill out an FFL's form to purchase a firearm?
__________________
-liberal gun nut = exception to the rule-
-1.24274238 miles, because Russians don't need scopes-
-Gun control was the Klan's favorite law, how can you advocate a set of laws designed to allow the denigration of a people?-
SigP6Carry is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 08:18 AM   #41
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 1,559
Quote:
Thomme: this isn't a question about mixing drugs with guns or your own personal convictions, but rather: if you're a user of medicinal marijuana can you legally fill out an FFL's form to purchase a firearm?
Sorry, that "question" was answered years ago. It shouldn't even be considered a question, given that the law is so clear.

Federal law says that marijuana use or possession is NOT legal. Any user of medical marijuana that answers "no" on question 11. c. of a Form 4473 would be lying and subject to prosecution.
__________________
Need a FFL in north Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me.

$20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers)
dogtown tom is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 10:51 AM   #42
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
this isn't a question about mixing drugs with guns or your own personal convictions, but rather: if you're a user of medicinal marijuana can you legally fill out an FFL's form to purchase a firearm?
Maybe if you had read my post in its entirety, you would know that I despise those who would even attempt to do so.
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 12:28 PM   #43
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 1,477
"Unlawful user or addicted to" opens up a fairly gray area...plenty of people are lawful users of controlled substances...some for years at a time...are they "addicted"? Should their second amendment rights be taken away?
I graduated high school in '74...virtually everyone I knew from cheerleader, to jock, to nerd used pot regularly...Even those who were shooters, some whom I went shooting with. They were good shots, and very safe to be around, safer than some of the "straight" people I read about at ranges on this very forum.
I do not use pot, and am, in fact a DOT regulated truck driver subject to random testing. I believe pot should be legalized and taxed, let free adults make up their own minds without the nanny state enforcing laws based on decades of misinformation and prejudice.
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen.
Be Here Now.
amd6547 is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 02:23 PM   #44
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,830
I'm the OP
In my little world,I am running across folks who get a gleam in their eye at the thought of being able to get a medpot card.

I graduated high school in 1970.Enough said.

What can happen along the way,prioritizing the price of baby shoes,keeping a job to make the house payment,etc can cause an adult to make adult choices.Priorities,and choices.

Reality: Regardless of opinions on the use of pot(irrelevent), hope some folks will find this post a public service announcement.

If you do not care about your second ammendment rights,ignore it.

If you do cherish your 2nd ammendment right,if you are considering a medpot card,make the informed choice.Its up to you.

If this healthcare stuff passes,the feds will have a database about everything medical that applies to you.

Do whatever makes you happy.
HiBC is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 03:01 PM   #45
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by amd6547
..."Unlawful user or addicted to" opens up a fairly gray area...
Not really all that gray, at least as far as marijuana is concerned. It's a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law (21 USC 812), and can not be prescribed lawfully under federal law. So anyone using marijuana is an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amd6547
....I believe pot should be legalized and taxed, let free adults make up their own minds without the nanny state enforcing laws based on decades of misinformation and prejudice.
What perhaps should be is another question. But as it is, someone who uses marijuana, even under a state medical marijuana law, and who has possession of a gun, is arguable subject to prosecution under federal law as a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(g) in possession of a gun.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 04:12 PM   #46
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
theoretical question for fiddletown...

... and no, this isn't referring to me; I'm in a job that requires testing, thanks.

But what if somebody were to go on a trip to someplace like Amsterdam, where marijuana is not only legal but is sold at sidewalk cafes, but then returns to the US and is tested, for whatever reason?

Technically, he hasn't used marijuana in US territory, and hasn't broken any state or federal laws. However, three weeks later... how might this work?
MLeake is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 04:15 PM   #47
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 1,477
Precisely...yet the text says "unlawful user of, or addicted to". I have known, for example, an honorably discharged veteran, wounded in Vietnam, who basically had a lifetime prescription for opiate pain killers...He enjoyed using them, and maintained a successful career and family life. Was he "addicted to a controlled substance"? Should he lose his second amendment rights?
Who decides?
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen.
Be Here Now.
amd6547 is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 08:26 PM   #48
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by amd6547
...yet the text says "unlawful user of, or addicted to"...
Yes, that can be confusing with respect to Schedule II, III, IV and V drugs that can lawfully be prescribed and some of which can be addicting. I don't know what the answer is, and it may be something the courts will need to sort out in the future.

But the topic of the thread is marijuana. And since marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, it may not be prescribed lawfully under federal law. And therefore anyone using marijuana, even under state medical marijuana laws, is, under federal law, an unlawfully user of a controlled substance.

Other drugs present other issues. But the answer is clear for marijuana.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
...what if somebody were to go on a trip to someplace ...where marijuana is not only legal but is sold at sidewalk cafes, but then returns to the US and is tested, for whatever reason?...
Testing can also be a problem for someone who has recently eaten a poppy seed bagel. I guess he'll have some explaining to do, and maybe they will buy it.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 08:33 PM   #49
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 1,477
I am not so sure the situation regarding pot is so clear cut. The US Gov't has produced pot itself, and handed it out for legally sanctioned experiments. It has also provided pot for the treatment of glaucoma (ended by Bush in 1992).
Note,in the wikipedia article below, seven patients are still recieving pot from a federal pharmacy. Are those seven people banned from owning firearms?
Origin

"Medicinal Cannabis farmed by the University of Mississippi for the governmentThe Compassionate Investigational New Drug Study program began in 1978 after a lawsuit was brought against the Food and Drug Administration, Drug Enforcement Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Justice, and the Department of Health, Education & Welfare by Robert Randall (Randall v. U.S). In 1976, Randall, afflicted with glaucoma, had successfully used the Common Law doctrine of necessity to argue against charges of marijuana cultivation because it was deemed a medical necessity (U.S. v. Randall). On November 24, 1976, federal Judge James Washington ruled:

While blindness was shown by competent medical testimony to be the otherwise inevitable result of the defendant's disease, no adverse effects from the smoking of marijuana have been demonstrated. Medical evidence suggests that the medical prohibition is not well-founded.
The criminal charges against Randall were dropped, and following a petition (May 1976) filed by Randall, federal agencies began providing him with FDA-approved access to government supplies of medical marijuana, becoming the first American to receive marijuana for the treatment of a medical disorder. Randall went public with his victory and shortly after the government tried to prevent his legal access to marijuana. This led to the aforementioned 1978 lawsuit where Randall was represented pro bono publico by law firm Steptoe & Johnson. Twenty-four hours after filing the suit, the federal agencies requested an out-of-court settlement which resulted in Randall gaining prescriptive access to marijuana through a federal pharmacy near his home.

The settlement in Randall v. U.S. became the legal basis for the FDA's Compassionate IND program. Initially only available to patients afflicted by marijuana-responsive disorders and orphan drugs, the concept was expanded to include HIV-positive patients in the mid-1980s. Due to the growing number of AIDS patients throughout the late 1980s and the resulting numbers of patients who joined the Compassionate IND program, the George H. W. Bush administration closed the program down in 1992. At its peak, the program had thirty active patients.

[edit] Compassionate IND today
The remaining patients in the Compassionate IND program were grandfathered in. There are only seven surviving patients in the program today (two remain anonymous). What follows is a table with details of the five surviving patients who are not anonymous, and details of the case as known relating to each patient"
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen.
Be Here Now.

Last edited by amd6547; November 10, 2009 at 08:42 PM.
amd6547 is offline  
Old November 10, 2009, 08:57 PM   #50
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by amd6547
I am not so sure the situation regarding pot is so clear cut. The US Gov't has produced pot itself, and handed it out for legally sanctioned experiments. It has also provided pot for the treatment of glaucoma (ended by Bush in 1992).....
Yes, it is clear that marijuana is illegal under federal law.

Marijuana was made available legally for a limited period of time to a limited number of people as part of a clinical investigation. That investigation is over.

Seven people who participated in the program are still receiving marijuana, but no one else will legally, under federal law, unless the program is re-opened, a new program started or the law changed. So anyone other than one of those seven can forget about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by =amd6547
...Are those seven people banned from owning firearms?...
Probably not. Those seven people are probably the only marijuana users in the United States who would not be prohibited persons under 18 USC 922(g)(3) by reason of marijuana use (I don't know if any of them might be prohibited persons for other reasons).

And those seven people are the only marijuana users who could ever lawfully own a gun under federal law (if not otherwise disqualified). No other marijuana user will ever fall into that category unless the program is re-opened, a new program is started or the law is changed.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14709 seconds with 7 queries