U.S. v. YANCEY U.S. Appl. 7th Cir. Drug habbit and guns = bad. Affirmed.

[Window_Seat]

...

This would lead me to believe that consuming pot in CA with a doctors recommendation (medical marijuana) would NOT make someone an unlawful user, and not in fact bar them from owning, purchasing, or possessing firearms.

No matter what state, and how many states pass pro marijuana legislation, it's still illegal on the federal level, and it takes an act of Congress to change the way the federal courts rule on these kinds of issues, does it not? We might not necessarily need a constitutional amendment that legalizes Pot, but it would help.

On the moral issue, it's OK for a person in a bar full of sloppy drunks to have a firearm in some states...

Civil rights are civil rights, and the last time I checked, a person with a prescription for Vicodin wasn't deemed a prohibited person based on the fact that he had Vicodin, Soma, Methadone, Darvocet, etc... All much worse for one's body than Marijuana. Some of us need to step out of the stone age (pun not intended)...

ETA: I had ankle surgery, and I had to be knocked out for that purpose. I was "out of it" for a week after that. A few weeks later, I went to the range (in a walking boot). I had to take Vicodin a few days earlier so I could sleep. I guess I'm an unsafe person, and I'd better have mine confiscated...

Erik.

[OleCuss]

Interesting. It seems that the court used intermediate scrutiny on this issue.


As the level of scrutiny hasn't really been set in stone yet, this case might breathe life again at some point if it gets set to strict, as it should be. Not that this should be illegal anyway, as the "compelling government interest" isn't accurate. In spite of JD Allens point about gang bangers smoking pot, the overwhelming majority of pot smokers are normal, otherwise law abiding citizens, not committing violent crimes. If I read this correctly, the court is making the claim that pot smokers are, by and large, violent criminals, and by stripping their 2nd amendment rights it does...idk, something?

Thank you.

I don't know if you were trying to answer my question, but I think you did so quite admirably.

That may make this case rather dangerous since as I see it, Yancey might choose to appeal to SCOTUS. If they accepted the case we'd have a dirty client trying to make the case for strict scrutiny before SCOTUS.

If I'm off base on this, I'll welcome corrections.

[press1280]

I don't see this necessarily as bad or good. No scrutiny level was established, just another US v. Gangbanger case. Just goes to show why good 2A cases need to get into the pipeline fast, you know every convict will be invoking Heller as a defense.

[jl123]

Aaaaaannnnnndddddd the great CalGuns Neo-con/libertarian divide rears its ugly head once again.

[bwiese]

An "unlawful user" is someone, like Yancey, who regularly ingests controlled substances in a manner except as prescribed by a physician.

This would lead me to believe that consuming pot in CA with a doctors recommendation (medical marijuana) would NOT make someone an unlawful user, and not in fact bar them from owning, purchasing, or possessing firearms.

I believe the statement about 'prescribed by physician' is likely referring to drugs that have a legitimate FEDERAL prescription use.

There are, what, a half dozen or a dozen (??) Federally legal users of MJ, plus some authorized researchers with DEA waivers. Most of these folks have been around for decades and I think most have glaucoma. They get their MJ from a special farm, and the prescribing physician must've worked "witbhin the system" to have gotten to that point.

By contrast, a physician in CA has no authority under Federal law (outside the rare special permission above) to violate the law, no matter what Prop 15 says. I believe a CA Dr. prescribing under Prop 15 is probably violating Fed law too (certainly conspiring at least).

DEA/FedLaw does indeed regulate physiscian drug access per 'schedules' and it will continue.

[bwiese]

Aaaaaannnnnndddddd the great CalGuns Neo-con/libertarian divide rears its ugly head once again.

Has nothing to do with politics, but the law as it stands.

The Prop 15 people seem to have a big Failure to Read (or Failure to Comprehend).

Fine print is everything.

[timdps]

You know, that is actually a damned good point. They specifically carved out an exception for drugs prescribed by a doctor. Since medical marijuana is prescribed by a doctor, this would seem to cover it just fine.

Yeah, all those medical marijuana doctors are going to need something to do after Proposition 19 passes...

Tim

[jl123]

Has nothing to do with politics, but the law as it stands.

The Prop 15 people seem to have a big Failure to Read (or Failure to Comprehend).

Fine print is everything.

I comprehend it just fine...marijuana prohibition is statist BS. I don't smoke, so I have no legal issues either way, but the drug war is Unconstitutional to its core and I do not recognize it as legitimate.

Do you mean prop 19?

[CSACANNONEER]

I suppose they might rob a 7-11 for Twinkies or something

Now I get it. Smoking dope might lead one to murder and usin g the Twinkie Defense to try to get off.

[OleCuss]

I comprehend it just fine...marijuana prohibition is statist BS. I don't smoke, so I have no legal issues either way, but the drug war is Unconstitutional to its core and I do not recognize it as legitimate.

Do you mean prop 19?

I think Prop 15 was the designation for the Medical Marijuana garbage years ago.

General legalization this year is Prop 19.

Edit: I also agree with Bill about a lot of Medical Marijuana types not understanding the interplay between Federal and State laws and what that means and doesn't mean.

[GrizzlyGuy]

I'm not denying that certain undesirable types of people smoke pot (hippies, gang bangers), but to say that smoking pot LEADS to violent crime is absolutely ignorant and absurd.

Hmmm... you must have missed this objective and highly credible documentary. Here's a snippet:

[Connor P Price]

So smoking pot makes them violent gang bangers?

I'm not denying that certain undesirable types of people smoke pot (hippies, gang bangers), but to say that smoking pot LEADS to violent crime is absolutely ignorant and absurd. I might buy the argument if different drugs were involved, but not pot.

Well put, its not their pot smoking or drug seeking behaviors that lead them down a road of violence. Its their gang affiliations that take care of that part.

[wash]

Pick one issue.

I support gun rights and think most drugs should be legalized to end the drug war.

I own guns but I don't smoke weed.

I have no problem with someone that thinks the same way but chooses to smoke weed and not posess guns.

Mixing the two is just asking for trouble and helps neither cause.

[Connor P Price]

While federal law makes Marijuana a Schedule 1 narcotic (meaning no legitimate medical use) they have made it clear that they don't intend to hassle the CA medicinal marijuana system. I'm guessing that if CA passes general legalization they probably wont hassle the druggies out here over that either. Dispensaries and medicinal grow operations get raided all the time, but not because they're violating federal law, its because they're not being run as non-profit coops like the CA law demands of them.

Lets say that generalized legalization does end up going through. Somebody is found to have some weed and a gun, seemingly violating the federal ban on habitual drug users owning firearms. In this situation, no other laws are broken, state or federal. Do you guys think that local law enforcement would be doing anything about it? Or would they not bother since they are beholden to the state rather than the fed gov?

[GrizzlyGuy]

I believe the statement about 'prescribed by physician' is likely referring to drugs that have a legitimate FEDERAL prescription use.

There are, what, a half dozen or a dozen (??) Federally legal users of MJ, plus some authorized researchers with DEA waivers. Most of these folks have been around for decades and I think most have glaucoma. They get their MJ from a special farm, and the prescribing physician must've worked "witbhin the system" to have gotten to that point.

By contrast, a physician in CA has no authority under Federal law (outside the rare special permission above) to violate the law, no matter what Prop 15 says. I believe a CA Dr. prescribing under Prop 15 is probably violating Fed law too (certainly conspiring at least).

DEA/FedLaw does indeed regulate physiscian drug access per 'schedules' and it will continue.

I'm not sure if that is the case. 27 CFR 478.11 describes the exception as "other than as prescribed by a licensed physician" without further qualification such as needing a DEA waiver, getting it from a federally-approved farm, etc. Any prescription from any licensed physician would seem to be sufficient:

Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person
who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control
with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is
a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as
prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use
of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks
before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to
indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A
person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even
though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person
seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An
inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or
possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession
that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or
possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple
arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent
arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug
test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test
was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of
the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent
disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use,
e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an
administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation
failure.