PDA

View Full Version : Medical Marijuana and guns?


nrakid88
04-28-2009, 11:42 PM
First off, I don't smoke the stuff, I would never risk my rights for something dumb like this... but I have wondered the legality of it before. On the form to buy a gun you have to mark if you use any drugs, it specifically says marijuana as one of them. Say your a california resident and have a medicinal marijuana license or card or whatever... does this make you exempt from the question on the form I mentioned above? By getting that Medical marijuana card are you giving away your 2nd ammenment? I've just wondered this and want to see what someone else thinks on the subject. I know the federal laws trump the state laws... so I really dont know how this goes. Have fun debating this one guys.

gcvt
04-28-2009, 11:56 PM
Wait...does the form ask if you "use" or does it ask if you're "addicted". I forget.

CnCFunFactory
04-28-2009, 11:59 PM
I believe it says addicted.

fairfaxjim
04-29-2009, 12:00 AM
As far as the feds go, there is no "medical marijuana", that is purely a state thing. The Feds have been busting "medical marijuana" dispensaries. I guess Obama has sent down the word to stop that, I guess maybe he DID inhale or something. I've always wondered who was going to investigate you on those forms. I know that some stuff will be in some database somewhere, but those questions seem like asking inmates "are you guilty?"

nrakid88
04-29-2009, 12:01 AM
Hmm... I have no idea what the actual language is...

nrakid88
04-29-2009, 12:02 AM
I guess an underlying question is that I am pretty sure cali keeps a data base of the medical marijuana users, I wonder if they hand that over to the feds? i am guessing not or else the feds wouuld be knocking down users front doors. But if they do I wonder if that would come up on the background check?

Model X
04-29-2009, 12:06 AM
How exactly does the Federal government have the power to stop people from smoking medical marijuana that was grown in a state and never left the state?

The interstate commerce clause certainly does not provide for it...

Josh3239
04-29-2009, 12:06 AM
I would guess the 4473 asks the same question as the Type 03 FFL form. I just received my Type 03 form and it asks in the box-type questions just like on a 4473, "An unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

fairfaxjim
04-29-2009, 12:08 AM
Hmm... I have no idea what the actual language is...

The acutal language of the form 4473 (question 11 e) are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug or any other controlled substance.

nrakid88
04-29-2009, 12:12 AM
Interesting. I love calguns. One more useless gun fact I now know. Haha. Thanks guys.

Knight
04-29-2009, 12:13 AM
How exactly does the Federal government have the power to stop people from smoking medical marijuana that was grown in a state and never left the state?

The interstate commerce clause certainly does not provide for it...

Actually, it does, at least according to the Supreme Court.

You could write a book on how the interstate commerce clause is abused by the courts and the federal government . . .

fairfaxjim
04-29-2009, 12:14 AM
How exactly does the Federal government have the power to stop people from smoking medical marijuana that was grown in a state and never left the state?

The interstate commerce clause certainly does not provide for it...

They bring guns, badges & handcuffs. Roach clips are no match for those!:) I believe it is one of our many "wars", the "war on drugs" to be specific. The feds not only trash our constitution and rights to fight this war, we send armed men to foreign countries to trash theirs too. I guess when you think you are right and have the might, you answer to a different authority. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not at all for drugs, but I'm not for thuggery. whether state sponsored or not, either.

In reality, the federal govt. does quite a few things that are, at the bare minimum, of a questionable nature authority wise.

nrakid88
04-29-2009, 12:15 AM
How exactly does the Federal government have the power to stop people from smoking medical marijuana that was grown in a state and never left the state?

The interstate commerce clause certainly does not provide for it...

I think the court said its impossible to distinguish between CA pot and NV pot, so legalizing in cali would leed to it getting taken to NV. Something like that.

KWA-S
04-29-2009, 12:17 AM
are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug or any other controlled substance.
Hmm....looks like my caffeine addiction just screwed me over. :)

nrakid88
04-29-2009, 12:19 AM
Haha, nice interpretation. Haha, jesus, I think an Appeal could tear that wording apart if it was handled correctly. Although I am sure they would reword it to mean only illegal stimulants.

gcvt
04-29-2009, 12:22 AM
I guess an underlying question is that I am pretty sure cali keeps a data base of the medical marijuana users, I wonder if they hand that over to the feds? i am guessing not or else the feds wouuld be knocking down users front doors. But if they do I wonder if that would come up on the background check?

I wonder how long that would take and how much it would cost. This is California after all.

Jpach
04-29-2009, 12:25 AM
Good thing you dont smoke pot ever, otherwise THEYD get you...:hide: And I dont think the record holders of the whole marijuana carded pplz will give that info to the feds, it would be kind of like if I tapped a cop on the shoulder then immediately commenced raping him. Unless of course if they are for whatever reason required by law to just hand over the info of their illegal business to the feds.

Sinixstar
04-29-2009, 12:27 AM
I guess an underlying question is that I am pretty sure cali keeps a data base of the medical marijuana users, I wonder if they hand that over to the feds? i am guessing not or else the feds wouuld be knocking down users front doors. But if they do I wonder if that would come up on the background check?

I'm not sure how it works in CA - but in NV, the NICS doesn't go through the Feds directly. NICS goes through the point of contact for the state, which is the state police. State police have access to all the stuff that NV has, but the fed's don't. For the most part it's not a problem, because it's NV - but it could be possible that CA imposes their own restrictions on top of what the fed's do.

That's why in some states they look even at Juvenile records, where as the feds do not.

As far as the form it's self, it asks if you're addicted (just filled one out the other day). If you volunteered the information that you smoke pot on the yellow paper, the feds would fail you - medical card or not. They do not view marijuana as being legal. The federal prohibitions still stand, even if they are not enforced on the state level.

JDay
04-29-2009, 12:38 AM
The Feds have been busting "medical marijuana" dispensaries. I guess Obama has sent down the word to stop that, I guess maybe he DID inhale or something.

The funny thing about that is that they raided at least one of the dispensaries a week later.

JDay
04-29-2009, 12:43 AM
Good thing you dont smoke pot ever, otherwise THEYD get you...:hide: And I dont think the record holders of the whole marijuana carded pplz will give that info to the feds, it would be kind of like if I tapped a cop on the shoulder then immediately commenced raping him. Unless of course if they are for whatever reason required by law to just hand over the info of their illegal business to the feds.

The lawmakers in Sacramento actually created a state medical marijuana card, the thing is that many counties, including Sacramento refuse to issue the cards. So almost all the medical marijuana users simply carry a copy of their recommendation with them. Ironic though that the county where this law was made refuse to follow it.

CnCFunFactory
04-29-2009, 1:09 AM
Good thing you dont smoke pot ever, otherwise THEYD get you...:hide: And I dont think the record holders of the whole marijuana carded pplz will give that info to the feds, it would be kind of like if I tapped a cop on the shoulder then immediately commenced raping him. Unless of course if they are for whatever reason required by law to just hand over the info of their illegal business to the feds.

Yeah a friend of mine was working security for a dispensary when the DEA showed up. It had nothing to do with what the dispensary wanted to give them. They seized everything including but not limited to the informational database that the purchasers were in. That is how the FEDS would most likely begin compiling names if they wanted to for that purpose.

nicki
04-29-2009, 4:05 AM
I will probably set up a meeting with the NORML(National Organization for the Reform of Marijaunia laws) regarding this and other issues where pot and guns overlap.

The reality is even "Sarah Palin" has smoked "Pot". I got that info from "her website" and she even "inhaled".:eek:

The reality is alot of members of Congress have admitted to smoking "Pot" and probably at least 25 percent or more of the "Adult population" has smoked pot at one time in their lives.

At this point, I would say, always follow the law. Laws are made for our safety, government knows best. I mean we all drive at posted hwy speeds, right:rolleyes:

Nicki

cousinkix1953
04-29-2009, 4:45 AM
I guess an underlying question is that I am pretty sure cali keeps a data base of the medical marijuana users, I wonder if they hand that over to the feds? i am guessing not or else the feds wouuld be knocking down users front doors. But if they do I wonder if that would come up on the background check?
They don't even have to provide the list of medical marijuana patients to the feds. Our Peoples Democratic Republik of Kommiefornia runs it's own gun background checks independent of their NICS system. You'd be f------ if AG Moonbean Brown had the list of licensed pot heads...

halifax
04-29-2009, 4:57 AM
If one has a prescription or a card for marijuana in CA, I guess one could answer the question NO because they believe they aren't an UNLAWFUL user of marijuana.

11e) Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana...

cousinkix1953
04-29-2009, 6:57 AM
Of course the only problem with that idea, is that he's filling out form required by the US Government, which does not recognize Proposition 215.

We still have counties that refuse to issue the medical marijuana cards as required by the state law. Others won't issue any permits for a legitimate distributor either; so you might have to drive as much as 100 miles to get a bag of weed legally.

San Diego county has spent thousands of tax $$$ trying to get a judge to invalidate that initiative too.

Medical marijuana has become much like a "may issue" CCW permit despite those cards being legal state-wide. It's easier to get that pot head's card, if you live in a liberal "blue" county which won't issue gun permits...

SubstanceP
04-29-2009, 7:05 AM
The acutal language of the form 4473 (question 11 e)

are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug or any other controlled substance.

Not between 8am and 5pm. If I didn't have my coffee in the morning and my beer at night, I'd have to check yes in the "are you psychotic" box. :eek:

dustoff31
04-29-2009, 7:12 AM
If one has a prescription or a card for marijuana in CA, I guess one could answer the question NO because they believe they aren't an UNLAWFUL user of marijuana.

Do those people believe in the Santa Claus and the Easter bunny too?

halifax
04-29-2009, 7:17 AM
Do those people believe in the Santa Claus and the Easter bunny too?

Well I do live in Mendocino Couty, so yes they probably do. :)

garandguy10
04-29-2009, 10:03 AM
There are millions of gun owners in this state that have used or are currently using Marijuana. If they have a Medical Marijuana prescription [not a dope club card], That is confidential doctor /patient information. and should not be in any database.

ParallaxTactical.com
04-29-2009, 10:31 AM
are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug or any other controlled substance.Federally, yes.
State level with "card;" maybe.

Bottom line: Don't do it. It's too risky to lose your gun rights over.

bwiese
04-29-2009, 10:38 AM
If one has a prescription or a card for marijuana in CA, I guess one could answer the question NO because they believe they aren't an UNLAWFUL user of marijuana.

No, because it's also illegal Federally. Calif's Prop15 drama has no effect on Fed law.

If one is a pothead, one must answer that truthfully on 4473.

glockman19
04-29-2009, 11:00 AM
IMHO, It should be treated like any other perscription medication or alcohol.

Guns and drugs or alochol whether legal or illegal just don't mix well together.

Wompinblazer
04-29-2009, 11:11 AM
I was just thinking about this yesterday. I, personally, wouldnt want my name in a database as a registered "pot head" especially because my collection isnt complete, and I wouldnt want to jeopardize my ability to purchase more weapons.

brokestudent12
04-29-2009, 11:18 AM
If I'm addicted to alcohol, it's illegal for me to buy guns isn't it?

dfletcher
04-29-2009, 11:21 AM
If one has a prescription or a card for marijuana in CA, I guess one could answer the question NO because they believe they aren't an UNLAWFUL user of marijuana.


The 4473 is a federal form, I would say the answer must be given in that context and the federal government would consider a person in CA to be an unlawful user based on federal law? That would be my take, but I suppose an individual could indicate "no" and later assert he was answering the question honestly based on his "CA says OK" belief. I think the legal value of the 4473 is very much after the fact - as in, you're caught in a lie AFTER you get the gun and something goes wrong.

dfletcher
04-29-2009, 11:29 AM
If I'm addicted to alcohol, it's illegal for me to buy guns isn't it?

Well so long as booze is legal I'd imagine they're never going to add that to the list. I don't think alcohol falls into any of the specific categories listed - maybe, maybe not? Not controlled, not stimulent - maybe a depressant?

I think it's worthwhile to note the "illegal user of, or addicted to" reference to MJ. According to the 4473, if you are a legal user but still addicted, that prohibits a person from buying a gun. So even if MJ were legalized by the feds, if you're addicted to that legal substance you're out. Interesting.

gose
04-29-2009, 11:41 AM
First off, I don't smoke the stuff, I would never risk my rights for something dumb like this... but I have wondered the legality of it before. On the form to buy a gun you have to mark if you use any drugs, it specifically says marijuana as one of them. Say your a california resident and have a medicinal marijuana license or card or whatever... does this make you exempt from the question on the form I mentioned above? By getting that Medical marijuana card are you giving away your 2nd ammenment? I've just wondered this and want to see what someone else thinks on the subject. I know the federal laws trump the state laws... so I really dont know how this goes. Have fun debating this one guys.

There's a former member you can ask, or if you can't get hold of him, maybe his mom can help.

Wcoldnav
04-29-2009, 11:54 AM
I was just thinking about this yesterday. I, personally, wouldnt want my name in a database as a registered "pot head" especially because my collection isnt complete, and I wouldnt want to jeopardize my ability to purchase more weapons.

According to the state, the government does NOT keep a list or database of medical mj users, they are issued a number only and do not know names, addresses, etc.

professorhard
04-29-2009, 12:07 PM
I would consider sum1 addicted to alcohol as more high risk for violence than sum1 smokin pot everyday

DDT
04-29-2009, 12:17 PM
medical marijuana is just stupid. It's like medical alcohol during prohibition.

Either make it legal and tax it or don't. This whole "medical" crap is ridiculous.

nicki
04-29-2009, 12:26 PM
Medical marijuana has become much like a "may issue" CCW permit despite those cards being legal state-wide. It's easier to get that pot head's card, if you live in a liberal "blue" county which won't issue gun permits...


That may be true, but at least you have the option of going to another "Shall issue" county.

Still, a good point though. Especially if you are incapable to inter county travel due to being disabled or something like that.

Nicki

Humboldt
04-29-2009, 12:29 PM
In humboldt county the sheriff respects both 215 and A2 rights. Recently a home invasion involving a 215 garden ended in gun fire sending the robber to the hospital, as far as I know the home owner had 23 long guns and some pistols. The sheriff did not take his guns or charge him for shooting the home invader who was fleeing in his car when he was shot.

ViPER395
04-29-2009, 12:36 PM
Wait, smoking pot is illegal? :sleeping:

Deadred7o7
04-29-2009, 12:38 PM
In humboldt county the sheriff respects both 215 and A2 rights. Recently a home invasion involving a 215 garden ended in gun fire sending the robber to the hospital, as far as I know the home owner had 23 long guns and some pistols. The sheriff did not take his guns or charge him for shooting the home invader who was fleeing in his car when he was shot.


You mean the DA did not charge him because he is a paper doll for the 215 So-Hum boys. :thumbsup:
Nice to see a nother real Nor-Cal post.

bwiese
04-29-2009, 12:45 PM
In humboldt county the sheriff respects both 215 and A2 rights. Recently a home invasion involving a 215 garden ended in gun fire sending the robber to the hospital, as far as I know the home owner had 23 long guns and some pistols. The sheriff did not take his guns or charge him for shooting the home invader who was fleeing in his car when he was shot.

So how does that have anything to do with Federal law or prohbitions?

Growing pot = crime.
Possessing guns in a pot house = possession of gun during course of crime.

Walking, talking felon...

Humboldt
04-29-2009, 12:52 PM
This is a real example of the origional posters question. Also the sheriff follows ca law where pot is legal if you have a prescription

nicki
04-29-2009, 12:57 PM
Prosecutions of any crime depend on the local climate.

The DAs in both Humbodt and Mendocino counties are not going to prosecute anyone who has a 215 script and legitimately protects their home with guns.

Former sheriff of Mendocino county Tony Craver had high approval ratings from both gun owners and pot smokers. Gee, I wonder if we could clone him and replace the drones we have in other parts of the state.

Nicki

Humboldt
04-29-2009, 1:07 PM
So if you REALLY live in nor cal med pot and guns are ok.

CCWFacts
04-29-2009, 1:14 PM
As far as the feds go, there is no "medical marijuana", that is purely a state thing. The Feds have been busting "medical marijuana" dispensaries. I guess Obama has sent down the word to stop that,

Right, he has said that they would stop pursuing them, but that doesn't mean it's federally legal. There is no medical cannabis, federally, and the 4473 is a federal form.

I've always wondered who was going to investigate you on those forms.

No one. The purpose is to be able to add additional felony charges for when they go after someone. Let's say they find someone selling drugs, but (for some reason) their drug charges fall apart. Maybe they can still get him on a firearms charge. That's what those questions are for.

those questions seem like asking inmates "are you guilty?"

That's exactly right, and if an inmate says "no I'm not guilty", on a government form, then they get to tack on a perjury charge. That's why 4473 asks those things, that's why your customs form asks "are you bringing anything illegal into the country" and so on.

dfletcher
04-29-2009, 2:10 PM
As far as the feds go, there is no "medical marijuana", that is purely a state thing. The Feds have been busting "medical marijuana" dispensaries. I guess Obama has sent down the word to stop that, I guess maybe he DID inhale or something. I've always wondered who was going to investigate you on those forms. I know that some stuff will be in some database somewhere, but those questions seem like asking inmates "are you guilty?"

I worked in a "Big 5" type sporting goods store in the '70s and we got routine visits by the ATF after someone did something dastardly and indicated or was discovered to be a gun owner. I was told by ATF agents that they review the 4473 for false answers that can be documented - such as less than honorable discharge, misrepresenting residence, criminal record, etc. Their view was not so much the 4473 prevented a "bad" purchase, but that it was useful to document & prosecute an individual after the purchase.

professorhard
04-29-2009, 2:14 PM
I worked in a "Big 5" type sporting goods store in the '70s and we got routine visits by the ATF after someone did something dastardly and indicated or was discovered to be a gun owner. I was told by ATF agents that they review the 4473 for false answers that can be documented - such as less than honorable discharge, misrepresenting residence, criminal record, etc. Their view was not so much the 4473 prevented a "bad" purchase, but that it was useful to document & prosecute an individual after the purchase.

how would they still have that info? I thought it was destroyed in 24hours

Tillers_Rule
04-29-2009, 2:17 PM
Interesting, looks like a "no" answer would be valid on the questioner since it states "illegal" and medical marijuana is not illegal.

I've always wondered about this as well.

Publius
04-29-2009, 2:20 PM
So if you REALLY live in nor cal med pot and guns are ok.

Unless and until the DEA changes its policy. :)

CCWFacts
04-29-2009, 2:21 PM
Interesting, looks like a "no" answer would be valid on the questioner since it states "illegal" and medical marijuana is not illegal.

I've always wondered about this as well.

Wonder no more! "Medical" marijuana is just as illegal today as it was before 215. Drugs are Federally regulated. See the Gonzales v. Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich) case for the full sickening details on how the 10th Amendment is no longer part of our constitution, and note that that same case has major implications for us as gun owners as well.

Publius
04-29-2009, 2:22 PM
Interesting, looks like a "no" answer would be valid on the questioner since it states "illegal" and medical marijuana is not illegal.


It IS illegal under federal law, and the form is from the feds. So answer "no" at your own risk, with the understanding that if the feds ever have need to bust you for something, they can and will use that answer against you.

cousinkix1953
04-29-2009, 4:42 PM
According to the state, the government does NOT keep a list or database of medical mj users, they are issued a number only and do not know names, addresses, etc.
Medical marijuana cards are issued by the counties and few won't even do it. However the county does share information with the state, when running background checks for gun sales. It might slip through the cracks that way. Local 9-1-1 dispatchers also have access to various databases. They can cross reference criminal records, CCW permits and even pot cards...

cousinkix1953
04-29-2009, 4:48 PM
That may be true, but at least you have the option of going to another "Shall issue" county.

Still, a good point though. Especially if you are incapable to inter county travel due to being disabled or something like that.

Nicki
Not unless you move there permanently! Permits can be issued only by the law enforcement agency that patrols your neighborhood. There is no more applying at the sheriffs office or going to the next nearby city, if your police chief is anti-gun. The law was changed because the Brady Bunch hated the idea that Isleton police chief, Gene Byrd issued permits, to ppeople who did not reside in that city.

They call "may issue" the new form of seperate but equal for a good reason...

cousinkix1953
04-29-2009, 4:58 PM
So how does that have anything to do with Federal law or prohbitions?

Growing pot = crime.
Possessing guns in a pot house = possession of gun during course of crime.

Walking, talking felon...
The sheriff may not care, but these incidents get on the TV news and in the morning papers. Nothing stops a federal agent, from hearing about this and then confiscating those guns under a federal law.

A San Diego ham radio operator used a sheriff's frequency to report an accident in a remote area in the 90s. The sheriff and the board of supervisors rewarded him with a ceremony and a plaque. This wound up on the TV newscasts; so the FCC beauracrats fined him on a technicality violastion of their own laws. You'd think it might require a complaint about illegal radio interference. No...

halifax
04-29-2009, 4:58 PM
Not unless you move there permanently! Permits can be issued only by the law enforcement agency that patrols your neighborhood. There is no more applying at the sheriffs office or going to the next nearby city, if your police chief is anti-gun. The law was changed because the Brady Bunch hated the idea that Isleton police chief, Gene Byrd issued permits, to ppeople who did not reside in that city.

They call "may issue" the new form of seperate but equal for a good reason...

Any chance you can post that new law? I hadn't heard that one before.

DDT
04-29-2009, 5:01 PM
Nicki was referring to 215 which allows venue shopping. Unlike PC 12050 which doesn't.

DDT
04-29-2009, 5:03 PM
Any chance you can post that new law? I hadn't heard that one before.

It's the same old law California Penal Code 12050

(a)(1)(A) The sheriff of a county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying satisfies any one of the conditions specified in subparagraph (D) and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in either one of the following formats:

[mass deletia]


(D) For the purpose of subparagraph (A), the applicant shall satisfy any one of the following:
(i) Is a resident of the county or a city within the county.
(ii) Spends a substantial period of time in the applicant's principal place of employment or business in the county or a city within the county.

cousinkix1953
04-29-2009, 5:37 PM
I found this in another thread...

12050. (a)(1)
(B) The chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a resident of that city, and has completed a course of training as described in subparagraph (E), may issue to that person a license to carry.

Nikki is right about shopping for medical marijuana. There are no cannabis clubs in Monterey, San Benito or Santa Clara counties; so people drive to Santa Cruz and get their weed. All of the licensed distributors are located within the city limits. There are none in the unincorporated areas or in other nearby cities.

I've heard stories about underground home deliveries in Santa Clara county if you have the card, but there are no store fronts to be raided by the DEA agents like San Francisco...

JDay
04-29-2009, 6:02 PM
A San Diego ham radio operator used a sheriff's frequency to report an accident in a remote area in the 90s. The sheriff and the board of supervisors rewarded him with a ceremony and a plaque. This wound up on the TV newscasts; so the FCC beauracrats fined him on a technicality violastion of their own laws. You'd think it might require a complaint about illegal radio interference. No...

WTF? AFAIK you are allowed to do that in an emergency.

halifax
04-29-2009, 6:11 PM
Not unless you move there permanently! Permits can be issued only by the law enforcement agency that patrols your neighborhood. There is no more applying at the sheriffs office or going to the next nearby city, if your police chief is anti-gun. The law was changed because the Brady Bunch hated the idea that Isleton police chief, Gene Byrd issued permits, to ppeople who did not reside in that city.

They call "may issue" the new form of seperate but equal for a good reason...

Sorry. I guess this part confused me. The SO does not patrol my neighborhood (PD does), but they did issue the CCW.

Any chance you can post that new law? I hadn't heard that one before.

cousinkix1953
04-29-2009, 6:22 PM
WTF? AFAIK you are allowed to do that in an emergency.
Not according to a FCC beauracrat who wrote him up for operating on the sheriff's tactical frequency. Never mind that he avoided using the regular dispatch channel and causing a pile up. The whole thing was ridiculous, since is was based upon a news item instead of a complaint from the licensed user of said frequency...

CA_Libertarian
04-29-2009, 8:53 PM
As far as the feds go, there is no "medical marijuana", that is purely a state thing.

Not entirely accurate... IIRC, the federal marijuana prescription program was down to 8 living participants last I heard. Most of them have terminal illnesses, so I wouldn't be surprised if that number is lower now.

One of them was interviewed on Penn & Teller's Bull**** (Showtime series). They took the guy to DC and got some footage of him lighting up on Capitol Hill.

CA_Libertarian
04-29-2009, 9:01 PM
I guess an underlying question is that I am pretty sure cali keeps a data base of the medical marijuana users, I wonder if they hand that over to the feds? i am guessing not or else the feds wouuld be knocking down users front doors. But if they do I wonder if that would come up on the background check?

The state does not keep a database, to my knowledge. However, the issuing clinics usually do so LE can verify a user's doctor recommendation. I imagine the feds could obtain the identities of all the users by raiding the doctor's office. However, they realize that it's bad PR to put a seriously ill person in federal prison on mere possession.

They "have bigger fish to fry," and probably think they can get away with raiding growers/distributors without doing severe damage to the image of the "War on Drugs." (They're still depriving sick people of their medicine, so I think their raiding of state-licensed growers/distributors hurts their cause much more than they think.)

dfletcher
04-29-2009, 10:20 PM
how would they still have that info? I thought it was destroyed in 24hours


I doubt they still have it - this was in the early '70s after all. But with respect to the 4473s and all those "yes or no" answers they are kept, I believe, until the FFL goes out of business and are then forwarded to ATF.

cousinkix1953
04-29-2009, 10:53 PM
I doubt they still have it - this was in the early '70s after all. But with respect to the 4473s and all those "yes or no" answers they are kept, I believe, until the FFL goes out of business and are then forwarded to ATF.
LEAs may not keep their copies of thousands of #4473s forever. I heard something about former AG Lockyer wanting to shred old records about ten years ago. Gun dealers are required to keep them, as long as they are in business. Then these files are forwarded to the BATFE. So much for that baloney about "we don't keep that NICS data". They get them another way...

CHS
04-29-2009, 11:47 PM
4473's, by federal law, are kept for 20 years by the FFL. If the FFL is still in business 20 years later, then he may destroy those records. If the FFL goes out of business in those 20 years, then the 4473 records are turned over to the BATFE, by federal law.

The 4473 is a FEDERAL form, and even if you hold a CA medical marijuana card, if you answer "no" on the FEDERAL form 4473 to question 11.e, you are lying. If you use marijuana in CA with a card, it might not be against CA law, but it is against federal law, so yes, you would be an unlawful user of marijuana.

There is no such equivalent question for purposes of the CA DROS system.

cousinkix1953
04-30-2009, 2:15 AM
The 4473 is a FEDERAL form, and even if you hold a CA medical marijuana card, if you answer "no" on the FEDERAL form 4473 to question 11.e, you are lying. If you use marijuana in CA with a card, it might not be against CA law, but it is against federal law, so yes, you would be an unlawful user of marijuana.

There is no such equivalent question for purposes of the CA DROS system.
It's a classic CATCH 22 scenario...

DDT
04-30-2009, 1:03 PM
Is there a federal statute of limitations on perjury?

Publius
04-30-2009, 1:09 PM
Is there a federal statute of limitations on perjury?

I believe perjury would fall within the default 5-year limitation period in 18 USC 3282.

sfwdiy
04-30-2009, 1:29 PM
How exactly does the Federal government have the power to stop people from smoking medical marijuana that was grown in a state and never left the state?

The interstate commerce clause certainly does not provide for it...

The interstate commerce clause has a long history of abuse by the courts, including dealing with agricultural products that never cross state boarders.

In 1942 in Wickard v. Filburn the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer who grew wheat on his own land for private use was still subject to federal production limits, regardless of the fact that he was shipping none of his wheat out of state.

The court's explanation of the ruling was that by not selling any of his wheat, he was affecting interstate commerce, even though there was no commerce of any kind, let alone interstate commerce.

This means that private economic activity within the boarders of a state is subject to federal regulatory authority.

Chew on that for a while.

--B

Justintoxicated
04-30-2009, 3:25 PM
I'd be way more worried about people getting drunk and owning guns, than people smoking marijuana and owning guns. These laws are crazy ridiculous, but made clear in the book I'm reading ("How to Own a Gun and Stay out of Jail"). In the state of California it is illegal to use any drug and own a gun, with the exception of Marijuana, but federally Marijuana is not legal.

sfwdiy
04-30-2009, 5:12 PM
Wow, upon further reading I found there was a Supreme Court case in 2005, Gonzales v. Raich, which specifically dealt with the issue of home-grown marijuana for medicinal purposes. The court ruled that the federal government can drop the hammer on growers for personal medical use, and relied on the Wickard v. Filburn case for the opinion.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. :eek:

--B

nicki
05-01-2009, 3:17 AM
Wow, upon further reading I found there was a Supreme Court case in 2005, Gonzales v. Raich, which specifically dealt with the issue of home-grown marijuana for medicinal purposes. The court ruled that the federal government can drop the hammer on growers for personal medical use, and relied on the Wickard v. Filburn case for the opinion.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.



The "Commerce Clause" is the source of Fed gun control. What is interesting is that we have attacks developing on the "Commerce Clause" both from gun rights and marijuania rights.

Both the NFA1934 and the Marijuania tax act 1937 originally relied on abusing the tax system, but now rely on the "Commerce Clause" for their authority.

That "Raich case" is why we can't have "homemade machine guns btw".

Nicki

garandguy10
05-01-2009, 8:52 AM
Since when did the 5th amendment get revoked, who says that you have to admit to any possibly illegal behavior on any government document?

professorhard
05-01-2009, 9:08 AM
Since when did the 5th amendment get revoked, who says that you have to admit to any possibly illegal behavior on any government document?

My thought exactly. Since when are u required to incriminate yourself

dustoff31
05-01-2009, 9:09 AM
Since when did the 5th amendment get revoked, who says that you have to admit to any possibly illegal behavior on any government document?

You don't have to. You can refuse to answer the question on the 4473. You just can't lie on the 4473.

The fact that you won't get a gun if you don't answer all the questions is another matter.

Decoligny
05-01-2009, 10:16 AM
Actually, it does, at least according to the Supreme Court.

You could write a book on how the interstate commerce clause is abused by the courts and the federal government . . .


I guess the Feds could argue that the money used to buy the medical marijuana was printed by the Feds and has traveled across state lines, so it must be covered under the interstate commerce clause.

Publius
05-01-2009, 10:18 AM
Wow, upon further reading I found there was a Supreme Court case in 2005, Gonzales v. Raich, which specifically dealt with the issue of home-grown marijuana for medicinal purposes. The court ruled that the federal government can drop the hammer on growers for personal medical use, and relied on the Wickard v. Filburn case for the opinion.


Perversely, Wickard basically said that the feds could regulate home-grown wheat because the farmer who grew wheat for his own use wasn't buying from elsewhere and therefore had the effect of depressing demand for wheat in the interstate market. But presumably, the feds WANT interstate demand for marijuana to decrease. That's the point of the War on Drugs, right? Right?

sfwdiy
05-01-2009, 1:16 PM
Perversely, Wickard basically said that the feds could regulate home-grown wheat because the farmer who grew wheat for his own use wasn't buying from elsewhere and therefore had the effect of depressing demand for wheat in the interstate market. But presumably, the feds WANT interstate demand for marijuana to decrease. That's the point of the War on Drugs, right? Right?

You realize that by injecting logic into this you're just muddying the debate, right? Remember, never confuse the issue with facts. :)

--B