Ban on Marijuana Users Owning Guns is Unconstitutional

[lazarus]

Many of the drugs currently prohibited are there for no real reason other than politics.

But should they be de-scheduled, what will we do with all our drug cops? Why, just like we did when Prohibition went away - find them some other shiny object to chase!

Maybe all those pesky gun owners? Certainly ATF can dream up some more items to Felonize (Fellate?). Ammunition hoarding will have to go. Nobody needs more than X number of guns.

Never let a good Federal police force go to waste!

Community policing? Investigating broken windows and car break-ins?

 

[LGood48]

Nope. You are asserting that you have not been convicted of a crime. I can commit all of the crimes and that doesn't make me prohibited. I have to be convicted, or at least indicted on crimes (the last only makes me prohibited from purchasing, not possessing).

So it being a federal crime doesn't matter. You'd have to be convicted of it, and the conviction would have to carry a sentence of more than 2 years as a misdemeanor or more than a year as a felony.

Actually, the question on drugs does not require conviction. It merely asks about use.

e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside

 

[lazarus]

Actually, the question on drugs does not require conviction. It merely asks about use.

e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside

I just edited my response. Yes, I am aware. The judge just ruled that doesn't prohibit you. So that question must be changed on the 4473. Possession or use of marijuana is not prohibitive according to the judge's ruling.

US could try to go after you if the penalty for a conviction was of sufficient length to prohibit you, and you had previously been convicted. I could see that being an interesting case.

 

[LGood48]

I just edited my response. Yes, I am aware. The judge just ruled that doesn't prohibit you. So that question must be changed on the 4473. Possession or use of marijuana is not prohibitive according to the judge's ruling.

US could try to go after you if the penalty for a conviction was of sufficient length to prohibit you, and you had previously been convicted. I could see that being an interesting case.

My gut tells me that the Circuit Court or even SCOTUS will overturn the district court ruling before they uphold it. Don't think this is over yet. Quite sure the OK Attny General will request a TRO.

 

[lazarus]

My gut tells me that the Circuit Court or even SCOTUS will overturn the district court ruling before they uphold it. Don't think this is over yet. Quite sure the OK Attny General will request a TRO.

Probably won't would be my guess. First, there is a general push across most levels of government to legalize weed. Next, under the reading or Bruen, the judge is right. It shouldn't be prohibitive simply to have or use cannabis. There is no tradition of banning people from owning firearms simply for using weed. Or any other substance for that matter.

 

[sbmike]

Nope. You are asserting that you have not been convicted of a crime. I can commit all of the crimes and that doesn't make me prohibited. I have to be convicted, or at least indicted on crimes (the last only makes me prohibited from purchasing, not possessing).

So it being a federal crime doesn't matter. You'd have to be convicted of it, and the conviction would have to carry a sentence of more than 2 years as a misdemeanor or more than a year as a felony.

The question on the form is this "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" The court just said that the part asking about marijuana is not constitutional. If you are then arrested, charged, and convicted of having that substance, then you'd be a criminal and possibly have to answer yes to having been convicted of a felony/misdemeanor. But for simple possession, few people get charged under federal law with that unless they happen to be smoking it up on federal property. Most under federal law are for trafficking.

If convicted under state law, very few states hand out 2+ year sentences for simple possession and almost all have decriminalized possession of small amounts. Even if convicted of that at the state level, you'd no longer have to answer yes to that 4473 question (really, ATF will need to change the 4473 to comply with the court order. At least in the district this court order covers).

I'm thinking what happens if just the opposite occurs? If you have a legal (for your state) medical marijuana license and you get arrested for something non-drug related (and no weed is found in your possession), I'm guessing the federal book could be thrown at you as an add-on to whatever else you did, even for just a traffice ticket. I could be wrong and the chances of the vast majority of us ever being in a position to be arrested are slim and none, but it still seems to be a pretty large anvil that hangs over our heads if we decide to use cannabis products and own guns at the same time.

 

[lazarus]

I'm thinking what happens if just the opposite occurs? If you have a legal (for your state) medical marijuana license and you get arrested for something non-drug related (and no weed is found in your possession), I'm guessing the federal book could be thrown at you as an add-on to whatever else you did, even for just a traffice ticket. I could be wrong and the chances of the vast majority of us ever being in a position to be arrested are slim and none, but it still seems to be a pretty large anvil that hangs over our heads if we decide to use cannabis products and own guns at the same time.

Nope. If you don’t have the weed on you, how can they convict you? I can go get a weed card and never buy or possess cannabis ever. The Feds would have to prove that you have.

Unless the next administration changes their mind, the current one has no interest in going after simple users or licensed businesses in states where it is legal.

The Feds generally cannot go after you anyway. you must be on federal property or engage in interstate transport of it. Otherwise federal law can’t touch you. They aren’t raising houses with a few plants. DEA can go after bigger operations because they can tie a nexus to interstate trafficking. The guy with half an ounce or three plants in their basement they’d be hard pressed to get a conviction under federal law.

 

[alucard0822]

Probably won't would be my guess. First, there is a general push across most levels of government to legalize weed. Next, under the reading or Bruen, the judge is right. It shouldn't be prohibitive simply to have or use cannabis. There is no tradition of banning people from owning firearms simply for using weed. Or any other substance for that matter.

This. This ruling IMO is low hanging fruit, and will be upheld IMO. It should be treated like every other crime that does not meet the threshold of 2A prohibition, as most every other category of prohibition is AFTER a person is subject to a conviction, court ruling or order. The question itself and singling out Marijuana(lawful at the state level and EO to not prosecute at the federal level) as a reason to strip 2A rights is just one small part of the puritan crusade against it that is unraveling. The question itself is so vague and archaic that it would allow for most any patient prescribed schedule 4 painkillers long term to have their homes raided and rights stripped. Technically you "could" be in violation of federal gun laws for sharing pics of that "coffee addiction" mug. Thing is under Bruin there is no historical parallel to the 68 GCA which established the FFL system and "prohibited persons", so every ruling should chip away at it.

 

[lazarus]

This. This ruling IMO is low hanging fruit, and will be upheld IMO. It should be treated like every other crime that does not meet the threshold of 2A prohibition, as most every other category of prohibition is AFTER a person is subject to a conviction, court ruling or order. The question itself and singling out Marijuana(lawful at the state level and EO to not prosecute at the federal level) as a reason to strip 2A rights is just one small part of the puritan crusade against it that is unraveling. The question itself is so vague and archaic that it would allow for most any patient prescribed schedule 4 painkillers long term to have their homes raided and rights stripped. Technically you "could" be in violation of federal gun laws for sharing pics of that "coffee addiction" mug. Thing is under Bruin there is no historical parallel to the 68 GCA which established the FFL system and "prohibited persons", so every ruling should chip away at it.

Leave it with people convicted of actual violent crimes or threatening violent crimes. Or those with real and serious mental health problems. I’d be okay with that.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

Nope. If you don’t have the weed on you, how can they convict you? I can go get a weed card and never buy or possess cannabis ever. The Feds would have to prove that you have.

Unless the next administration changes their mind, the current one has no interest in going after simple users or licensed businesses in states where it is legal.

The Feds generally cannot go after you anyway. you must be on federal property or engage in interstate transport of it. Otherwise federal law can’t touch you. They aren’t raising houses with a few plants. DEA can go after bigger operations because they can tie a nexus to interstate trafficking. The guy with half an ounce or three plants in their basement they’d be hard pressed to get a conviction under federal law.

Under the commerce law and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111
I think the feds can do pretty much whatever they want.

 

[alucard0822]

Leave it with people convicted of actual violent crimes or threatening violent crimes. Or those with real and serious mental health problems. I’d be okay with that.

I would agree, but the GCA has done little to nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, and has done a lot to make it difficult for millions to exercise their rights. The devil is in the details, "convicted of violent crimes, or even "adjudicated mentally defective" prohibition can be a condition of parole and probation, enforceable by POs. The current system of requiring the innocent to prove it is BS. While I wouldn't want those "threatening violent crimes" or with "serious mental health problems" to be armed, those categories have been abused by the ATF in the way of red flag laws and subjective determinations by unqualified LEOs. Of course those that are institutionalized are subject to the laws and rules of those institutions. Those threatening violence can be arrested, charged and have their day in court before they should be stripped of rights. The current standard of adjudication mentally defective means that those with debilitating mental conditions also have their day in court, and in both cases their prohibition could easily be due to a court order and enforceable by the courts. In the same way traffic court may require a breathalyzer to be installed as a condition of probation after a DUI conviction, but it is not forced on the general public to merely exercise their right to travel.

 

[Bob A]

Community policing? Investigating broken windows and car break-ins?

Refereeing midnight basketball?

 

[Bob A]

Nope. You are asserting that you have not been convicted of a crime. I can commit all of the crimes and that doesn't make me prohibited. I have to be convicted, or at least indicted on crimes (the last only makes me prohibited from purchasing, not possessing).

So it being a federal crime doesn't matter. You'd have to be convicted of it, and the conviction would have to carry a sentence of more than 2 years as a misdemeanor or more than a year as a felony.

The question on the form is this "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" The court just said that the part asking about marijuana is not constitutional. If you are then arrested, charged, and convicted of having that substance, then you'd be a criminal and possibly have to answer yes to having been convicted of a felony/misdemeanor. But for simple possession, few people get charged under federal law with that unless they happen to be smoking it up on federal property. Most under federal law are for trafficking.

If convicted under state law, very few states hand out 2+ year sentences for simple possession and almost all have decriminalized possession of small amounts. Even if convicted of that at the state level, you'd no longer have to answer yes to that 4473 question (really, ATF will need to change the 4473 to comply with the court order. At least in the district this court order covers).

Isn't it a federal crime to lie on the form you have to sign to purchase a firearm?

What's the penalty for that? I seem to recall some of these crimes supposedly run to $250k fines and 10 years in jail. It's not the state law you have to worry about.

 

[lazarus]

Isn't it a federal crime to lie on the form you have to sign to purchase a firearm?

What's the penalty for that? I seem to recall some of these crimes supposedly run to $250k fines and 10 years in jail. It's not the state law you have to worry about.

Yup. But it isn’t a lie if you haven’t been convicted. It doesn’t ask if you’ve committed a crime. Just convicted.

For the user or addicted to question, the judge effectively ruled that this is not prohibitive. Thus the question will need to go or be changed.

I would not lie on the form if I was a cannabis user to that question. I’d wait for the form to change. I’d imagine this is going to take a while before legal rulings at a sufficient level force change.

 

[lazarus]

Refereeing midnight basketball?

I was actually being a bit serious. A lot of evidence that police investigating minor crimes reduces major crimes. But when they are all so busy with major crimes they can’t investigate the more minor stuff.

Pouring the resources from the war on drugs in to more community policing and investigation of minor crimes probably would have an overall big impact.

But it isn’t as sexy to form a task force on vandalism and shoplifting as drug interdiction

 

[King Chicken]

I'll just leave this here.
I do not intend to pull anyone's leg too hard .

Credits and Oscar nominees:
@SkiPatrolDude @Doctor_M @RoadDawg @gungate

 

[gungate]

I'll just leave this here.
I do not intend to pull anyone's leg too hard .

Credits and Oscar nominees:
@SkiPatrolDude @Doctor_M @RoadDawg @gungate

 

[SkiPatrolDude]

I'll just leave this here.
I do not intend to pull anyone's leg too hard .

Credits and Oscar nominees:
@SkiPatrolDude @Doctor_M @RoadDawg @gungate

hahahahaa. Well done

 

[Bob A]

I was actually being a bit serious. A lot of evidence that police investigating minor crimes reduces major crimes. But when they are all so busy with major crimes they can’t investigate the more minor stuff.

Pouring the resources from the war on drugs in to more community policing and investigation of minor crimes probably would have an overall big impact.

But it isn’t as sexy to form a task force on vandalism and shoplifting as drug interdiction

My understanding is that most minor crimes go unprosecuted, which disincentiveses police from getting involved in the arrest process in the first place.

It's pointless to go through the process, time-consuming and filled with paperwork, when nothing is going to be done except for dropping charges.

Then there;s the risk of inciting a violent response from one of the offending entitled classes, escalating a pointless arrest into a spot on the evening news. It will be the officer's fault, of course, for deigning to interfere with the now-normal course of events.

 

[lazarus]

My understanding is that most minor crimes go unprosecuted, which disincentiveses police from getting involved in the arrest process in the first place.

It's pointless to go through the process, time-consuming and filled with paperwork, when nothing is going to be done except for dropping charges.

Then there;s the risk of inciting a violent response from one of the offending entitled classes, escalating a pointless arrest into a spot on the evening news. It will be the officer's fault, of course, for deigning to interfere with the now-normal course of events.

Oh, I hear you as to why.

Broken windows theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Just pointing out, the broken window theory on enforcing minor crimes and community policing is still "controversial", but more because of some of the methods some police departments went to enforcing that. But the results on the other hand, aren't nearly as much in doubt. So change some of the methods, but the principle is the same.