medical marijuana card question

[nicki]

all marijuana cases in Cali

It is common knowledge that the Feds do not get involved in MJ cases unless the amounts exceed 6 pounds.

Prop 19 when it passes is going to make Fed involvement with MJ less likely, sure there is a risk, I mean after all, some people actually win the California lottery.

Right now it is estimated that 400K people have MJ cards. After prop 19 passes, I expect that number to drop unless there are benefits to maintaining the card.

MJ will be how we bring people from the political left to our side and that is what we must do to shift popular opinion to our side in this state.

In two years we will start to see the non problems with legalization of pot. Combine this with roll backs of VD laws and shall issue CCW, we should see a significant reduction in crime.

Nicki

[OleCuss]

Personally, I think the federal guidance on MJ prosecutions is a bit misunderstood. As I recall it, the guidance was not hard and fast and was mostly a suggestion that pursuing MJ cases which are otherwise legal under state law is pretty much a waste of money.

That does not mean that MJ associated charges would not be used as an enhancement to other federal charges that might be brought or that charges wouldn't be brought for MJ possession/usage in a case where other federal charges are being brought. IOW, a federal prosecutor who has decided to nail you to the wall is not prohibited from nailing you on MJ-related charges. They just don't want to mess with the average run-of-the-mill dopehead with a little pot in his possession - there are bigger fish to fry.

[dfletcher]

This issue has already been addressed in Oregon Courts. A court of appeals ruled that Medical MJ patients could NOT be denied CCWs. My feeling is that California courts would rule the same in the event that we get Shall issue.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=315752

If Prop 19 passes, this situation becomes more likely since discrimination against MJ users would be prohibited.

I think there's more to be heard on this issue before anything is made final, I think Medford PD is going to appeal? IIRC a fellow in OR got an opposite result (possession, not CCW) after shooting an intruder and a CA kid found prohibited under similar circumstances.

[corrupt]

There have been a number of threads on guns + MJ here. Some of them have ended up locked and/or deleted if I recall correctly.

Medical MJ is still illegal under federal law. The form 4473 asks, as I recall, "Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana". Thus, a medical MJ user would be forced to lie on the 4473 in order to buy a gun, since under federal law they are an unlawful user of MJ. So, despite CA's medical MJ card and prop 19 (if it passes), MJ users still cannot legally purchase a firearm.

What about those that would say that a "state" is a sovereign country and can govern itself as it pleases, as supposedly was the idea during the times of the drafting of the constitution. Or that under the constitution, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the state in this area, and isn't explicitly allowed to pursue things that the constitution doesn't give it authority to.

Would you say that, "realistically", you are inviting trouble, but ethically and historically, if someone has a medical marijuana recommendation from a qualified doctor, and lawfully exercises the right to protect himself, one is just interpreting the constitution and sovereignty of a state as it "should be" ?

[bwiese]

Unenforced laws hold no power.

Not really true.

That's why Cal NRA/CRPA's Legal Action Project / Local Ordinance Project go around taking dead law off the books (Richmond's hicap mag ban, for example or another city's AW ban).

We don't want those local laws to be used either as grounds for arrest/seizure (and have to rectify it later) or to be used as a basis for to attack preemption by letting too much crap accrete in the books.

[dfletcher]

What about those that would say that a "state" is a sovereign country and can govern itself as it pleases, as supposedly was the idea during the times of the drafting of the constitution. Or that under the constitution, the federal government has no jurisdiction over the state in this area, and isn't explicitly allowed to pursue things that the constitution doesn't give it authority to.

Would you say that, "realistically", you are inviting trouble, but ethically and historically, if someone has a medical marijuana recommendation from a qualified doctor, and lawfully exercises the right to protect himself, one is just interpreting the constitution and sovereignty of a state as it "should be" ?

A two edged sword, yes? If the state is sovereign it can do as it pleases with guns, BOR as written applied to the federal government only. Without the 14th CA is free to do as it prefers, with the 14th (for better or worse) I don't think there's much left of a sovereign state position.

[CharlieK]

The form 4473 asks, as I recall, "Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana". Thus, a medical MJ user would be forced to lie.

I disagree it requires a "lie". If you have a card, you are not unlawful in CA and just because you have a card doesn't mean you're addicted. There you go, mark the form 'no' and you're golden.

[bruss01]

Let me shake my magic 8 ball...

Uh oh... it says "Dude, just... don't"

Well, there you have it.

[383green]

I disagree it requires a "lie". If you have a card, you are not unlawful in CA and just because you have a card doesn't mean you're addicted. There you go, mark the form 'no' and you're golden.

You would still be an unlawful user under federal law, with or without the card, and whether or not you are addicted. This is simple logic, folks, not rocket science.

[CHS]

I disagree it requires a "lie". If you have a card, you are not unlawful in CA and just because you have a card doesn't mean you're addicted. There you go, mark the form 'no' and you're golden.

It's a federal form designed to help enforce federal law.

If you have a lawful marijuana medical recommendation from a doctor in CA, you are STILL an unlawful user of marijuana as far as the feds are concerned.

[nicki]

keep low profile

Anyone who has a MJ card and has guns needs to be low profile on both.

Even Sarah Palin admits she smoked pot, in Alaska small quanties are legal under the state constitutions right to privacy.

Many elected politicians from both parties have admitted to having smoked pot and many law enforcement officers who are on the job admitted that they smoked weed prior to becoming cops.

80 percent of californians support medical marijuana. A significant portion of people who oppose prop 19 will flip once we have a few years of non problems.

The Feds will reclassify Pot from schedule 1 within next few years because if the don't, they will risk that they will have full on rebellion by the states against Fed power.

The MJ crowd is defiant. When Raich was ruled on 10 states had Medicinal MJ, today 14 states and more on the way have medicinal MJ.

Raich was a cowardly ruling, the only justice I trully respect is Justice Clarence Thomas.

In spite of my rant, I have to advise either have the MJ card or your guns, but not both.
I also advise people who don't want speeding tickets to drive posted highway speeds to avoid dealing with CHP.

Of course there is the unwritten custom, 9 you are fine, 10 you are mine.

Nicki

[Tweak338]

Anyone else find it LOLful that CA is tolerable with MJ use, but not with us having un-neutered Semiautomatic centerfire rifles?

[fiveoneoh]

Under the Bush administration, the DOJ considered it a crime. Since Obama, there has been a major policy shift, in favor of states rights (in this instance). There was an official statement made in 2009 that said if you follow the laws in your state, the federal government will not prosecute. I have a copy of the statement, but not enough time to look for it. I think you'd be able to find it by googling "obama medical marijuana firearms."