Firearms possession and Med Pot

Status
Not open for further replies.
but if something's illegal under federal law, how can it be legal under state laws? That makes little/no sense to me. If it's illegal nationwide, how can it be exempt in certain jurisdictions? It sounds EXACTLY like the 2nd amendment to me, only opposite. How can handguns and firearms be illegal and banned in certain jurisdiction, but it's unconstitutional to do so? This whole discussion makes me glad I'm not pre-law.

edit: or does it have to do with possession and usage across state lines? Isn't it a state legal issue when it's in a single state, but once the MM has crossed state lines, then it's an issue of federal possession?
 
I am a chronic pain patient, with severe back and leg pain from injuries sustained in a serious car accident (multiple rollover and crash into a tree at highway (70+ mph) speeds). I am legally prescribed, and take daily, opioid painkillers to properly manage and control my pain. They are only one aspect of a multifaceted pain management regimen but are the only thing relevant to the topic.

Some people are astonished that I am legally able to drive, let alone own and use firearms, because of ignorance or misconceptions about pain management and the appropriate use of opioids.

I have been prescribed and taken opioids daily for several years, and have developed tolerance from the side effects. My reaction time, level of consciousness, mental 'clarityi', etc. is in no way negatively affected by the medications I am prescribed. While it is not required, I have paid for reaction time tests that show that I am not impaired by my medication. My lawyer also has depositions on record from both my primary care physician and my pain management specialist that state that they have examined me, have agreed on the treatment plan (including the opioid medication), and that I am tolerant to the side effects of my medications and that no restrictions on driving or operating machinery are necessary. When I started getting into shooting, I consulted my lawyer, who obtained updated depositions from my doctors to specifically add that no restrictions on owning or using firearms are necessary.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer and am in no way authorized to give legal advice.

While my situation is a bit different because opioids can be legally prescribed by a doctor in any state and they are not 'Schedule I' (illegal to use or possess) controlled substances under federal law, I would suggest that anyone who owns firearms and uses medical marijuana in a state where it is legalized to consult with an attorney and obtain similar declarations from your doctor(s) as to whether your level of consciousness, reaction time, mental 'clarity', etc. is or is not affected.
 
Thomme said:
...but if something's illegal under federal law, how can it be legal under state laws?...
Click to expand...
It's an interesting artifact of our federal system and the constant tension between state rights and federal power.

There is nothing in general preventing a state from making something legal which is illegal under federal law. The net effect is that you won't get arrested by the city police or county sheriff, and you won't be tried in a state court and you won't go to state prison. Instead, you'll be arrested by the FBI or DEA, tried in federal court and sent to a federal prison.

Thomme said:
...It sounds EXACTLY like the 2nd amendment to me, only opposite. How can handguns and firearms be illegal and banned in certain jurisdiction, but it's unconstitutional to do so?...
Click to expand...
Well, the devil is in the details. There's been a lot of discussion on those issues, here and on other board; and you may find it interesting and useful to study the matter more closely. And of course, dealing with these sorts of conundrums is what we have courts for.
 
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.
 
Thomme said:
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.
Click to expand...
If it's a federal crime, it's in the FBI's jurisdiction.
 
Thomme said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Thomme said:
...that's legal in the state...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
§ 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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
A person who possesses a prescription drug may legally possess a firearm provided federal law recognizes the drug as having a medicinal purpose.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's all that is required...

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
Click to expand...

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:rolleyes:).

At what point should we talk about the merits of that law, or the constitutional authority it is founded upon?
 
vranasaurus: A person who possesses a prescription drug may legally possess a firearm...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
So, the state laws are useless in this case, essentially,
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...)
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top