Weed and guns

[jag2]

Interesting ruling came down from fed appeals court. If you have a state issued medical marijuana card you are considered a user of an illegal drug by federal standards and therefore will fail the NICS background check. I don't think the Feds have that info in their data bank but you would have to lie when filling out the form and that is a really bad idea.

[FITASC]

Why would you think the Feds don't already have that data? Bet it gets sent to them whether you agree or not.

[Salmoneye]

Any link to this 'ruling'?

[jag2]

Its a story on Fox news, you'll find it there. I'm hoping there will be a more in depth article soon. And no, I don't think the states are sending that info to the feds. In fact I think there would be a very big court fight before any state would surrender that info. The two don't exactly get along on the point.

[HiBC]

IMO,its good that this topic is discussed here occasionally because there is a lot of wishful thinking out there.
I'm all in favor of people having good information to make good choices.

This topic has been discussed on TFL at length.
The short answer,regardless of state laws,the form 4473 is a Federal document,the BATF deals with Federal Firearms law,Marijuana is a Federal controlled substance.
Note,if you are shooting on Federal property,such as BLM land,National Forest Land,etc,the nice Ranger in the green truck may well be paid by the Feds.

BATF guidelines suggest if you have used within a year,you are a"User Of ".

A failed drug test documents you,as would aa MedPot card.
Your hair,and nail clippings carry your drug history.

In Colorado,it clearly states in the application for a Concealed Carry permit,a pot user is not eligible.

Whether or not you would be prosecuted is debatable,but remember an administration can be tolerant of recreational drug use at the same time it is hostile to firearms ownership.
Suppose you are in a car accident. (or a SD shoot). A toxicology report might be done. Trace of marijuana from two weeks ago is found.

Technically,a single round of 22 LR ammunition is a big problem.

Its a felony to lie on your 4473.

If anything proves you are a "user of" you are a"prohibited person"
and you are in possession of or transfer any firearm or ammunition,that would be felony number two.

Even in Colorado.

This will take you to one prior thread

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...marijuana+guns

And another

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...ical+marijuana

If you use the "Search" function you will find several more threads.

These are lengthy,detailed,and well supported by the legally well informed Staff.

Excerpts of applicable law are posted.

I think if you use search and read through the previous discussions,you will be very well informed.

[Frank Ettin]

The opinion in Wilson v. Lynch (9th Circuit, No. 14-15700) may be read here.

[kilimanjaro]

Right now the USFS is not generally enforcing the federal law against pot on National Forest land if a state has legalized recreational possession, but some Rangers are at some places. If your state has only decriminalized medical uses and you get caught with no medical card, you're toast. If you get caught doing something else, like unsafe shooting, and are found with pot, you're toast.

Bottom line is, on federal land, federal laws apply. Know where you are and keep it straight.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by kilimanjaro

...Bottom line is, on federal land, federal laws apply. Know where you are and keep it straight.

What kind of nonsense is that? Federal law applies everywhere in the United States -- not just on federal land.

So whether or not on federal land, a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is subject to arrest by federal agents and prosecution by the federal government if he has possession of a gun or ammunition.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by kilimanjaro

Right now the USFS is not generally enforcing the federal law against pot on National Forest land if a state has legalized recreational possession...

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The topic at hand is not your likelihood of being prosecuted by the Feds for possession of cannabis, but rather what federal law says about the lawful possession of FIREARMS.

Whether a federal agent—park ranger, FBI agent, postal inspector, whoever—chooses to arrest you for possessing marijuana in and of itself in a certain place is besides the point.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by jag2

...I think there would be a very big court fight before any state would surrender that info. The two don't exactly get along on the point.

Dunno. I'm quite confident that certain states would eagerly surrender the info if the Feds merely say the magic word.

[redrick]

I was at my local Hooter's a few weeks ago and a young man in there told me his marijuana / firearm arrest story .

He told me he was a 21 year old honor student living off campus . His apartment was busted and they found a bag of marijuana and his pistol . He was arrested by the local police went to court with a good lawyer , his parents got for him . He got out of it locally , but they told him that the Fed's had up too a year to pickup the case . He said the last month before the case expired and he had almost forgot about it , they showed up at his parents house , in force with guns drawn and arrested him . He ended up taking a plea agreement for lying on his firearms forum and severed 5 years in prison .

[Old Bill Dibble]

Hmmm... If I had a nickle for every "honor student" story I'd have a whole lot of nickles. I imagine there is more than one aspect to that story.

[shooterdownunder]

Dunno. I'm quite confident that certain states would eagerly surrender the info if the Feds merely say the magic word.

Funding?

[Tom Servo]

So whether or not on federal land, a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is subject to arrest by federal agents and prosecution by the federal government if he has possession of a gun or ammunition.

That's the problem with all these states "legalizing" it for private use. The federal government doesn't recognize those laws, and most people think it's "legal."

I worry more than a few folks will find themselves charged with felonies who think they're in compliance with the law.

[HiBC]

Tom,that has mostly been my concern with this issue.

I live in Colorado.Some localities have more pot shops than Starbucks or liquor stores. Folks will"step outside" for pot as easily as for a cigarette.

I'm talking mainstream folks,not the fringe. Some of these folks are gun owners.And some of those believe they are legal.

I'm not going to tell them how to live,but I will share the info.

If you are holding a pipe and a few grams of pot,here,in Colorado,the local LEO's re not going to pursue Fed Controlled Substance busts.They have better things to do.

If you are lawfully in possession of a firearm,,the LEO may excersize appropriate caution,but no big deal.Lawful activity.

Simply having the two together transforms to at least one felony.And the LEO may decide that IS worthwhile.

IMO,the laws weren't quite done right,and that ambiguity may ruin the lives of otherwise good ,law abiding citizens.Thats not good.

But we have to know and understand the law,and make the right choices.Even when its "not fair".

For myself,in Colorado,I can have pot,OR I can have guns. Not both. I shrug,and choose guns. No "Yeah,but...." to it.

[Tom Servo]

Simply having the two together transforms to at least one felony.And the LEO may decide that IS worthwhile.

Even if the don't, the possibility is still there.

Furthermore, consider the number of folks who keep forgetting their guns are in their carry-on luggage lately. Add a bit of marijuana, and the feds have an easy trafficking charge, which can lead up to 40 years in prison.

It was very irresponsible for states like Colorado to put their citizens in this situation.

[K_Mac]

Hmmm... If I had a nickle for every "honor student" story I'd have a whole lot of nickles. I imagine there is more than one aspect to that story.

There is always another side of the story. One thing is certain, we have spent billions of dollars trying to keep people from getting high. We've locked up hundreds of thousands. Imprisoned so many we have to release real criminals because we don't have room to put them.

Now marijuana is perfectly legal in some places, yet using it, or even having a card allowing it's purchase will cost you the right to buy a gun, or carry one. Yet I can get stoned on Jack Daniels and no one gives a rip. Carry or use a gun under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose the right. Otherwise it really isn't governments business. In my humble opinion of course.

[HiBC]

And actually,it was the citizens who put us in this position.

I suspect,(but cannot prove) a certain amount of energy went into a "get out the vote" campaign in 2012,targeting a demographic of younger,otherwise politically apathetic potential voters."Man,I don't talk politics,I just want to have fun"

Colorado was a crucial swing state in the 2012 election.

The Colorado ballot initiative rules permit petitioning an amendment to the State Constitution on the ballot.That is how the issue was voted on.
IMO,a critical mass of voters were drawn to the polls for the "honor" of being a vote in the "legalization" of marijuana.Of couse,they voted on the rest of the ballot.
There are many who disdain the Constitution who would be activists for pot.That is the extent of political awareness for many of the young folks I talk with.
The ballot initiative process has been used to make something as frivolous as spring bear hunting a Constitutional Amendment issue.

Its not perfect,but it is there.

Now marijuana is perfectly legal in some places,

That is the illusion that is fundamentally incorrect.It is NOT perfectly legal.It remains unlawful under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. That qualifies "Unlawful User" and the felonies roll from there.

IMO,the discussion of pot vs booze vs prescription drugs,the war on drugs,etc
is all a waste of keystrokes.Its all opinion.It won't take the handcuffs off.

There is a specific exemption in the firearms law for alchohol and tobacco,and a specific inclusion for pot.(Hmm Alchohol,Tobacco...and Firearms.)

[K_Mac]

HiBC you may be right that any real discussion of drugs and the Constitution here is a waste of time and energy, yet here we are. It is my opinion that smoking a little dope should not be reason for loss of gun privileges, anymore than having a few cocktails. I think it is governmental hypocrisy at its finest. This ruling is about limiting firearms. Marijuana is just an excuse.

And for the record, I got drinking and smoking weed out of my system 30+ years ago.

Edit: Yes, perfectly legal at the State level, while a felony at the Federal is imperfect.

[HiBC]

KMak

Bingo.I agree with you. I'll say I turned 18 in 1970. I lived during interesting times.
Sometime in the 90's,I came to a fork in the road.Following Yogi Berra's advice,I took it.

I chose my job,mortgage,family,etc. I'm not judgemental,and I'm certainly not an enforcer.
I think if someone wants a couple tokes catfishing and watching the sun go down,why even wonder about it?
Agreed,its like having a beer or sipping a scotch,IMO.And,IMO,it should have no effect on a persons 2nd Amendment rights.
But you and I can discuss the "Should be" for days,and it won't be any help if someone is in handcuffs dealing with what IS.
I'll agree it COULD be that an administration might be made up of people with admitted drug experience.It Could be that they would appear to liberalize drug use,at the same time retaining "controlled substance" provisions as a baited net to take away the RTKBA of those trapped.
Or it could serve to cause people to walk away from shooting 2% here,3% there....

What MAY help is good,clear information.

Too many folks think "Its Legal,so that Unlawful user stuff does not count"

Isn't it better to know and make choices?

YES!! The law is screwed up!.But it is the law that IS. I choose to deal with it,rather than deny it.

For myself,its just not hard to say "No thanks,"

[K_Mac]

HiBC I agree that my howling at the moon will not change anything, other than making me feel better and the neighbors nervous. I also agree that we have to know the law, especially if it is pernicious and oppressive. This one really gripes me. Ok, I am done now.

[Tom Servo]

IMO,the discussion of pot vs booze vs prescription drugs,the war on drugs,etc is all a waste of keystrokes.Its all opinion.It won't take the handcuffs off.

And that's the reality we have to deal with at the moment.

Is marijuana all that bad? Should it be taken off Schedule 1? Those questions are pretty much outside the scope of this forum.

However, if we want to clear up the huge potential legal liability this poses on users in states in which it's "legal," the only way to do that is to fix the situation on the federal level.

[Boogershooter]

There will always be choices in our lives that we must make. I love a cold beer with my roasted peanuts at the steakhouse. I leave my guns at home because of the ccw laws. My wife doesn't drink and she also has her license so our protection is in her hands. Maybe that is selfish of me but it's the truth.

When I was young and visited family in Colorado and Wyoming we would hike up the mountains and get our rocky Mountain high. I must admit the higher elevation had a extra effect on this flatlander. Now I have a family and those things are just memories. After a successful elk hunt I would love to sit on the side of the mountain with my peace pipe and take in the moment. I don't do it because I'm a responsible person who obeys the law and teach my kids to do the same wether I agree with it or not. With today's technology there is no excuse in not knowing the law in the area you live.

Life isn't fair and of course the powers that be will never be fair. I love my family and I love my guns so I do everything in my power to protect them.

[TomNJVA]

I am not a lawyer, but from what I have read in Federal law it appears that if a person has not used marijuana within the past year of purchasing a firearm, then he is not considered a "current user" and did not lie on Form 4473. Evidence of such use may include a conviction or drug test during the past year, that is, the year before the transfer. If a person started using a drug after the firearm transfer it does not appear to be an issue with respect to having previously signed Form 4473 before drug use.

I have not been able to find any Federal laws pertaining to simple possession of both firearms and marijuana, except in the case of drug trafficking. Does anyone know if such laws exist, assuming the firearm is legal and the drugs and firearms are not both physically on the person, or involved in a drug trafficking crime?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by b92fs

Boy, you guys worry about a lotta' CRAP! Screw the Feds/laws! People been shoot'n and partying for years, isn't gonna' stop because of some court decision!

Well, yes ... some of us seem to hold the antiquated idea that in a nation of laws a good citizen obeys the laws. The concept of a civilized society is that the body of laws is a social contract -- by living in the society, we agree to follow the laws. ALL the laws, not just the laws we are willing to agree to.

The fact that some people have been shooting and smoking for years doesn't in any way make that legal, or even a good idea.

My great grandfather was a professor of law. I was raised with the attitude that if I didn't like a law, rather than ignore it I should work to get it changed or revoked. So far I'm 2 for 3 on that approach -- I have been actively involved in getting two stupid laws repealed in my state. I'm currently working on a municipal ordinance, but it's not going well. I think it's going to drop my batting average to .667 -- which would be great for baseball, but it's not so great when dealing with dumb laws.