Firearms possession and Med Pot

[dogtown tom]

I hope none of the potheads has trouble answering question 14 on the 4473.

[publius42]

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).

Hmmm... Some pigs are more equal than others.

If the 2nd protects a fundamental right, that means strict scrutiny. That means there must be a compelling reason for the law. There can't be a compelling reason, except in these 7 cases. It's compelling in all cases or it's not compelling.

[paull]

Not having recently used any schedule I substances, I have no problem answering questions on the 4473...

I can say that when I am retired from my current profession, I will make some small lifestyle changes that may preclude an accurate 4473...

I will decide at that time whether to limit my firearm purchases to FTF, to avoid potential DOCUMENTED federal law problems.


p

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by publius42

Hmmm... Some pigs are more equal than others.

If the 2nd protects a fundamental right, that means strict scrutiny. That means there must be a compelling reason for the law. There can't be a compelling reason, except in these 7 cases. It's compelling in all cases or it's not compelling.

And that's life. If you think it ought to be different, you'll need to get the Supreme Court to fix it.

[publius42]

If you think it ought to be different, you'll need to get the Supreme Court to fix it.

Nah, Gura has his job and I have mine.

Besides, one possible fix for an unconstitutional law is repeal of the stupid law. We don't HAVE to wait for the SC to find the obvious truth of my statement above.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by publius42

...Besides, one possible fix for an unconstitutional law is repeal of the stupid law. We don't HAVE to wait for the SC to find the obvious truth of my statement above....

Then take care of it if you have a problem with it. And the truth of your prior statement isn't obvious to me.

Allowing limited, lawful prescribing of drugs that can't otherwise be lawfully prescribed, under a research protocol and subject to oversight by an Institutional Review Board, is part of the clinical trial and investigation of new and novel drugs and therapies. That what was done with marijuana in this case, and it's done all the time with other drugs. Are you suggesting that the government doesn't have a sufficient interest in the testing of new drugs to provide for a legal means for such drugs, which could not otherwise be lawfully distributed, to be used for investigational purposes?

Of are you suggesting that 18 USC 922(g) is unconstitutional? If so, your opinion doesn't count. It's the opinion of the Court that matters, so unless and until they say it's unconstitutional, it's going to be enforced. And if you think there's enough political support for repeal, have at it and good luck.

In any case, things are as they are until they change.

[orangello]

Partly off-topic, but didn't the law prevent black people from owning guns at one point in history? I would not consider a gun-owning black person, during that prohibitive time, to be a true criminal. Similarly, if guns became illegal for any non-military or non-LEO citizen to own next week, i wouldn't consider those in violation of that prohibition to be true criminals.

In my opinion, an unjust law makes criminals only of those who enacted it. Call me an idealist if you wish. {kicks soap box over}

Oh, i recently was forwarded an article about potential re-scheduling (downward from schedule 1) of marijuana and support for such action by the American Medical Association http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss . They seem to think the issue of whether or not there is a legitimate medicinal use for pot should be revisited. If the link doesn't work, the article is from the L.A. Times dated 11/11/09.

[amd6547]

It is a well respected truth in American constituitional law that "it is no crime to disobey an unconstitutional law".
The Supreme Court is not the final arbitor of what is constitutional...We The People are.
I am tired of those who would surrender their rights to the appointed justices of the Supreme Court...that is not how the system was supposed to work.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by amd6547

It is a well respected truth in American constituitional law that "it is no crime to disobey an unconstitutional law"....

Really? And what's your authority for that? It may not be a crime if the court decides the law is unconstitutional, but unless a court does, you will be paying the penalty.

Enjoy your alternate universe.

Originally Posted by amd6547

The Supreme Court is not the final arbitor of what is constitutional...We The People are.
I am tired of those who would surrender their rights to the appointed justices of the Supreme Court...that is not how the system was supposed to work.

And how do you figure that?

Article III of the Constitution indeed provides (in Sections 1 and 2) --

"Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, ..."

Of course, the Constitution provides a mechanism for its amendment.

[Master Blaster]

Allowing limited, lawful prescribing of drugs that can't otherwise be lawfully prescribed, under a research protocol and subject to oversight by an Institutional Review Board, is part of the clinical trial and investigation of new and novel drugs and therapies. That what was done with marijuana in this case, and it's done all the time with other drugs. Are you suggesting that the government doesn't have a sufficient interest in the testing of new drugs to provide for a legal means for such drugs, which could not otherwise be lawfully distributed, to be used for investigational purposes?

Reality is that the guys who have the most Guns and The most money get to decide what the law is.

Is there a legitimate medical Use for Ethanol as a consumable product ingested by human beings??? Did the FDA bless Alcohol as a medically necessay drug fit for human use to treat a variety of aliments, supported by clinical testing as to its safety and effectiveness?????

Then why the heck is a harmful substance like alcohol legally sold for human consumption in the USA???

HMMMM?????

Clinically speaking Alcohol is much more dangerous and harmful to human beings ingesting it than marijuana. Marijuana is only illegal because it was used by Minorities right before they went out to rape white women.......:barf: In other words the guys with the most Guns and the most money decided that the drug they use to get wasted and that they sell; Alcohol, would be the legal drug and Marijuana which is used by the OTHER lesser human beings would be the illegal drug.

Searching for sense and logic in our current drug laws is an excersize in futility.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is a well respected truth in American constituitional law that "it is no crime to disobey an unconstitutional law".
The Supreme Court is not the final arbitor of what is constitutional...We The People are.
I am tired of those who would surrender their rights to the appointed justices of the Supreme Court...that is not how the system was supposed to work.

OK, you've got me curious now. How was it supposed to work in your view? Every individual citizen would just interpret the Constitution themselves and obey only those laws they found constitutional?

Or maybe jury nullification? Instead of just you, you now have to get 7 of 12 people to agree with you and then we ignore the law?

It seems to me that would be chaotic, to put it mildly.

[HiBC]

The point of this post was to discuss,verify,and inform of the pickle one could get in over a medpot card and a firearms purchase.

It was not to argue whether or not folks should be able to smoke pot.

It was not to argue whether folks "Should"be able to own guns and smoke .

Those discussions are off topic.TFL is probably not the right forum to argue drugs.

[amd6547]

Fiddletown, please read the link to a well respected law book.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9vA...law%22&f=false
It is obviously the duty of a free citizen to make up their own minds whether a law is to be obeyed. Should the Americans of revolutionary times have meekly submitted to King George, and hoped for court to grant them their rights?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Should the Americans of revolutionary times have meekly submitted to King George, and hoped for court to grant them their rights?

The Americans of revolutionary times did not have elected representatives in Parliament - and despite being denied this access they still attempted to resolve their differences within the established system for almost a decade. It was only when the King attempted to take their arms and their ability to speak out, as well as deny them representation that they were compelled to fight.

I don't think you can make much of an analog between the Revolutionary War and medical marijuana.

Of course, all of this and your link to fiddletown ignore the interesting question - by what process should a law be declared unconstitutional and remove the duty of a citizen to obey it? You stated it isn't supposed to work the way it does; but how do you think it should work?

[5whiskey]

Partly off-topic, but didn't the law prevent black people from owning guns at one point in history? I would not consider a gun-owning black person, during that prohibitive time, to be a true criminal. Similarly, if guns became illegal for any non-military or non-LEO citizen to own next week, i wouldn't consider those in violation of that prohibition to be true criminals.

There are quiet a few people that violate various federal, state, and local laws, statutes, and ordinances that I wouldn't consider a criminal. There are thousands of unconstitutional laws out there folks. The supreme court hasn't even scratched the tip of the iceberg in purging unconstitutional laws. Unfortunately, to challange something all the way to the SCOTUS takes a whole lot of money, time, and legal eagles. Most of the petty laws that are unconstitutional will never be tested, because they aren't worth the time, money, and effort. It IS a shame though. Thousands of honest, hard-working Americans are probably jailed and or adjucated daily for some of these unconstitutional laws, or an arbitrary application of otherwise constitutional laws. Since they don't have the money to challenge things, they will likely spend the rest of their lives with a bogus criminal record.

Medical Marijuana is no different. It is a primary example of why I don't agree with the broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, but that's for another debate. I think there should be no federal law against it. I have never been a user, and I never will be (even if legalized). I still think it should be taxed because I don't like big brother being too restrictive and my personal opinoin is that marijuana is no more harmful than other legal drugs. That is my opinion, worth what you paid for it.

Now if states wanted to ban it... that would suit me either way. That's the beauty of limited federal powers. Let the states determine the laws, after all they are perfectly capable. If you don't agree with your state, vote with your feet. That's a lot easier to do across state lines than it is across international lines.



As for someone who could benefit medically from marijuana, but you still wish to keep your 2nd amendment rights... well they make a product called marinol (FDA approved) that offers the same benefits as smoking to help with conditions that could benefit from marijuana use. There's your answer. Use marinol for the same benefits as smoking and still legally keep your guns. Or continue to argue for medical marijuana smoking even though a viable alternative exists that is still within the confines of what is "legal" federally.

[amd6547]

Getting way OT, but marinol has been proven to be not nearly as effective, and to have nasty side effects. It is an attempt by drug companies to cash in on medical pot, when a simple herb you could grow yourself is a better option for the patient.
As for unconstitutional laws, how far are you willing to allow the Supreme Court to determine your rights? The recent Heller decision, for example. What if it had gone the other way? What if follow-up cases narrow the right affirmed to the point of meaninglessness? Will you line up and turn in your firearms?

[publius42]

Are you suggesting that the government doesn't have a sufficient interest in the testing of new drugs to provide for a legal means for such drugs, which could not otherwise be lawfully distributed, to be used for investigational purposes?

Of are you suggesting that 18 USC 922(g) is unconstitutional? If so, your opinion doesn't count.

To the second question, no, I don't believe in the notion that possessing something affects interstate commerce and is therefore a federal matter, but I know the opposite view from the left wing of the Supreme Court currently prevails.

The second question gets back to the first, as far as the topic of this thread is concerned. If someone has medical marijuana in compliance w/state and local laws, that is a federal crime. That's the same usurpation of power in my view, calling the possession of something legal in a state "interstate commerce" in order to gain federal regulatory power. By asking that question on the firearms transfer form, it is presumed that the feds have the power to say you can't have something that your state and your doctor say you can. That would not be the case with any other "investigational" drug I can name, since the state laws tend to indicate that the citizens have decided the investigation is over.

[5whiskey]

As for unconstitutional laws, how far are you willing to allow the Supreme Court to determine your rights? The recent Heller decision, for example. What if it had gone the other way? What if follow-up cases narrow the right affirmed to the point of meaninglessness? Will you line up and turn in your firearms?

Unfortunately, SCOTUS is what we've got. It's what is defined by the constitution. It's not always had a perfect track record, but I'd say better than letting the executive and legislative branch run rampant without it. What suggestion do you have that would be easier to enact than the judicial branch? Also, bear in mind that the history of the US has usually yielded a pretty close match of democratic vs. republican presidential years (who appoint the members of scotus), and the average member of the scotus tends to serve at least 10 years. This means, through history, the SCOTUS has generally been fairly moderate and balanced. I know it has been in my life time. Someone correct me if it has been horribly out of whack before 1990 rolled around (when I started to become aware of such things at the ripe old age of 10).

Getting way OT, but marinol has been proven to be not nearly as effective, and to have nasty side effects. It is an attempt by drug companies to cash in on medical pot, when a simple herb you could grow yourself is a better option for the patient.

Actually it is kinda off topic, but not substantially. The OP referred to medical marijuana use in states that allow it, but that it is still illegal federally and thus bars you from owning firearms. Discussing the topic of marinol circumvents the federal illegality of it. Do I think that marinol is better or safer than toking? Naw, not really. One is natural and one is synthetic. God usually makes things better than man (let's not debate this and close this topic, this is personal belief/opinion). I simply offered an alternative to toking which will still not be illegal (even if I believe marijuana should NOT be illegal), and give some of the same medical benefits as toking. Could you site references confirming these "nasty side effects" as I just spent a solid half hour looking and couldn't find any? I've seen some forums centered around marijuana use that states the "feeling isn't the same" from marinol. It usually centers on the marinol high "hitting them like a brick" much later after taking the pill, as opposed to marijuana coming much sooner. I was under the impression that the "high" wasn't the purpose of medical marijuana, but the actual alleviation of pain and/or symptoms of a medical condition. I saw no scientific reports of side effects from marinol that varied dramatically from side effects of marijuana.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by amd6547

As for unconstitutional laws, how far are you willing to allow the Supreme Court to determine your rights? The recent Heller decision, for example. What if it had gone the other way? What if follow-up cases narrow the right affirmed to the point of meaninglessness? Will you line up and turn in your firearms?

I don't see how that answers or even relates to my question. You stated "that is not how the system was supposed to work" and "it is obviously the duty of a free citizen to make up their own minds whether a law is to be obeyed."

Suppose as a free citizen, I decide that the law protecting your property rights is an archaic leftover of our Lockean past and decide to take anything of yours that interests me at gunpoint. Do I get a free pass on that since it was my duty as a free citizen to decide whether or not to obey that law?

If I can't make that decision, then why not? Why is someone else's interpretation of what is constitutional any more valid than mine? How is the system supposed to work in your view?

And as to your question, the Supreme Court ignored the Second Amendment right from the NFA of 1934 until the Heller decision, and it seems to have done so without much of an uprising. Of course, part of that is because the Supreme Court is only PART of the system of checks and balances. Had Heller gone the other way, laws would still have to be passed in Congress by our elected representatives and in the meantime, Justices could be replaced by those same elected representatives or even impeached if necessary. Not to mention, the Executive would have the power to decide how to enforce (or not) any decision the Court made.

The difference is those groups (Congress and the President) are given powers in our Constitution to check the power of the Supreme Court if necessary. Individual citizens are not. Why do you think the Founders delegated the responsibility for checking the Supreme Court like that?

[amd6547]

What you are describing, Bartholomew, is the difference between victemless crimes, and crimes of violence.
If an individual, an honorably discharged war veteran, good family man, guy with a very good job of some importance which he performs admirably, and who makes enough to have to pay a good amount of taxes into the public coffers, decides he wants an occaisional puff of weed, how does that hurt society? He does not sell pot, nor does he try to get others to use it. He has made the choice himself, to disobey what he considers an unconstitutional law...
...Just as most of the adult population of this country did during alcohol prohibition. Like my Grandfather who brewed his own beer, or my Father, who worked at soda counter where the local booze pushers sometimes hid out from police raids, or where they met and made deals.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by amd6547

Fiddletown, please read the link to a well respected law book.http://books.google.com/books?id=9vA...law%22&f=false

First, it's not a well respected law book. It's a series of historical accounts of a number of famous trials.

Second, the statement you contend is "...a well respected truth in American constituitional law..." is merely a line in a lengthy argument by the defense lawyer addressed to the jury to help convince the jury to let his client off. It is not an authoritative statement of what the law is. Furthermore, later on in the account, the trial judge specifically states that determination of the applicable law is the province of the court, not the jury.

Originally Posted by amd6547

...It is obviously the duty of a free citizen to make up their own minds whether a law is to be obeyed....

Obviously since we have free will, we decide what laws we obey. But that's hardly the same as calling it a duty to make such decisions. And having the power of decision doesn't negate the law nor excuse us from the punishment when we are caught.

Originally Posted by amd6547

...Should the Americans of revolutionary times have meekly submitted to King George, and hoped for court to grant them their rights?

So are you now suggesting that we should revolt so that dope heads can have guns?

Originally Posted by amd6547

...how far are you willing to allow the Supreme Court to determine your rights?...

Well insofar as the determination of our rights falls within the scope of the exercise of federal judicial power, the Supreme Court has authority under the Constitution to do so. Or are you also proposing to reject the Constitution?

Originally Posted by HiBC

The point of this post was to discuss,verify,and inform of the pickle one could get in over a medpot card and a firearms purchase....

You're absolutely correct. And you're also correct, as has been explained at length, that a user of medical marijuana is in jeopardy under federal law if he also possesses a gun.

We have gotten far off track, but the answer to your original point is quite clear under current law.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What you are describing, Bartholomew, is the difference between victemless crimes, and crimes of violence.

No, what I am suggesting is that your version of how things are supposed to work isn't the version the Founding Fathers had in mind at all and further that your version simply does not work on any remotely large scale.

You keep bringing up points related to drug use; but I don't care about that subject at all. I don't use drugs and I don't care whether you do or not. The part that got me interested in this debate was you seemed to suggest that the system isn't working as it should be; but when I ask you how it is supposed to work, you keep changing the subject to something else.

There is an entire political system in place to implement massive changes to our way of life if you can get enough people to agree with you. It actually does work pretty well when people get involved; but like a lot of things, it requires a lot of work and effort to get the reward.

[MLeake]

... You are suggesting work and effort? This is America. I know my rights.

Next, you'll be telling me that I should lose weight via a reasonable diet and exercise.

Does your blasphemy know no bounds?

Seriously, though, an awful lot of people want to change the system, rebel against the system, etc through dramatic, now now now means, but very few people want to commit time and sweat to doing things the way the system was set up to be worked.

[Tom Servo]

Of course, all of this and your link to fiddletown ignore the interesting question - by what process should a law be declared unconstitutional and remove the duty of a citizen to obey it? You stated it isn't supposed to work the way it does; but how do you think it should work?

The first option is lawsuits. The bigger the better. Sooner or later, he'll get his say before the Supreme Court. Perhaps, if the case is built and argued well enough, he'll prevail.

The second would be through legislation. That involves networking the relevant congresspeople, building an organization and doing lots of research.

I know, I know, both approaches require work, which can really harsh the buzz.

I do see an unjust situation, but pitching a fit from the couch doesn't help. Suggest a plan of action around which people can organize and effect change, and we're talking.

[blume357]

so whether you answer the questions honestly or not is a mute point.

how can the government forbid you from buying a gun because you belong to a 'group that might want to over throw it'.

Isn't that exactly how this dern country was formed in the first place?


My personal belief is that it doesn't matter what drugs you do legal or not... you have the right to do them. Now whether you should own or carry a gun while under those drugs is your personal choice and if you use the gun while on those drugs then that is what courts and laws are really for... personal responsibility.