Firearms possession and Med Pot

[dogtown tom]

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.

 

[jgcoastie]

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.

 

[amd6547]

"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.

 

[HiBC]

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.

 

[Frank Ettin]

..."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.

....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.

 

[MLeake]

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?

 

[amd6547]

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?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...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.

...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.

 

[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).
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"

 

[Frank Ettin]

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.

...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.

 

[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]

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]

...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/nationw...ana-ama11-2009nov11,0,3003312.story?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]

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.

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.