Hawaii Disqualfies Due to Use of Medical Marijauna

[MTAire]

Yes. California has its own set of disqualifying conditions, which list is, in some ways, much broader than the federal list. For example, California law provides for a number of ten year prohibitions which would not necessarily disqualify under federal law.

But marijuana is not, AFAIK, considered a narcotic, nor are users of marijuana necessarily considered addicted, at least medically.

Perhaps, but largely irrelevant. That would only mean that California couldn't prosecute. But since it remains a violation of federal law, the federal government could.

Also irrelevant. Oregon is, for residents, shall issue. California is not.

One of the questions asks, and I'm paraphrasing, if the applicant ever used a controlled substance. THC is defined in California code as a controlled substance, the fact that its recreational use is now "legal" notwithstanding.

It may not disqualify someone from gun ownership according to state law, but state law does require its past use to be disclosed during a CCW app.

[dfletcher]

Why would California have to prosecute under Federal Law?

California law makes it a felony for any prohibited person (State or federal) to be in possession of a firearm or even ammo.

California just funded a firearm confiscation division of the DOJ with 25 Million with the sole task of confiscating firearms from prohibited persons.

California has already prosecuted people for being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm solely because they were in possession of a firearm and MJ at the same time. In a Riverside case the person had a Medical MJ card. Someone broke into his apartment while he was home and he scared them off with his registered firearm. When LEO responded they noticed a partial joint in an ashtray. Charged and convicted.

If you think California will not use MJ to confiscate firearms you may be in for a harsh surprise.

If the Riverside fellow had a joint in his ashtray that, I presume, and not the MJ card, would have been the reason LE arrested. There may be more to the event, but it would have happened prior to 1 Jan 18 and circumstances have changed.

If it can be said that CA state law does not prohibit firearm possession due to MJ use or possession then as a practical matter who is left to enforce the prohibition? The federal government.

I've no doubt CA will attempt to contrive a way to arrest gunowners. Perhaps we'll one day have the SF Sheriff's office calling ATF to take custody of a CA gunowner on federal MJ charges, while telling no one and turning loose an illegal alien. I'll give 3 will get you 2 odds on that for now.

The discussion is fun, but the reality now is no different than it was 10 or so years ago when I 1st starting poking around here - guns or pot, pick one. And from an entirely selfish point of view, I'd like our efforts to be directed at the roster, AW laws, 10 day waits, CCW rather than folks who endeavor to go swimming with an anchor around their waist. As though we don't have enough problems to deal with in CA.

[Jimi Jah]

I can't see how California or the feds can do a thing about people buying pot at legal stores that don't keep any records.

The arguements are beginning to sound like those right before the 21st amendment was passed.

[dfletcher]

I can't see how California or the feds can do a thing about people buying pot at legal stores that don't keep any records.

The arguements are beginning to sound like those right before the 21st amendment was passed.

FWIW I've read in SF papers that some stores will keep names, do some form or record keeping. Which makes sense to cover themselves I suppose, although I don't know how diligent they'll be or cooperative their customers. It's a stretch to consider what may happen to such records, but would one want to bet our friends in Sacramento might not "discover" a problem regarding MJ and guns and require record keeping and informing the state? Again, a stretch but who knows for sure.

What most folks don't consider is that the new law restricts where MJ can be injested. So in theory a person can be cited in similar fashion as drinking in public. Anyone who has walked SF, taken BART or MUNI knows SFPD isn't enforcing but I'd presume a cite and guilty/pay the fine could be matched to gunownership records if the state were inclined to consider such legislation.

Much of this is new territory, we'll probably have to wait and see what comes forth as a result. If there's any way for CA to screw gunowners and speak in glowing terms of the MJ law I suspect that'll be the outcome.