Carrying and Marijuana?

[Metal_Monkey]

This goes for legal people, but I would like to hear both sides anyways. Some people can have legal marijuana(even though I believe it still is federally illegal) and I was told that if you have ANY marijuana while carrying it is a felony? If anyone really wants to know why I am so curious, I will explain myself. I have a serious injury to my lower back and do NOT want to take pain killers and need something a little less "dangerous", but I don't want to put myself in a bad spot. Obviously being on ANY drug or medication while carrying a pistol(or any firearm for that matter) is bad, so I guess my question refers to more so "transportation".

Note: With how debatable "marijuana" is, please stay on topic.

 

[Hammer]

How is the question worded on form 4473? I found it...

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled
substance?"

So, with respect to Federal laws, it would seem you need to be an "unlawful" user to purchase using Form 4473. If you have medical reason and prescription, it would seem you are OK.
I don't know of any WA state reference to the subject.
I do think if you associate marijuana and guns, a LEO will look you over very carefully for any violation. I would not want to attract that kind of scrutiny, but that's as far as I will take my personal opinion on the subject.

 

[XDUser]

Might be legal in the state but to be honest its pretty stupid to carry a weapon and drugs of any sort.
Plenty of law enforcement work in a department where meeting the unspoken quota could lead to that next promotion.
Unless you want to be some test court case for the issue I would leave either the weed or the weapon at home.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[amlevin]

How is the question worded on form 4473? I found it...

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled
substance?"

So, with respect to Federal laws, it would seem you need to be an "unlawful" user to purchase using Form 4473. If you have medical reason and prescription, it would seem you are OK.
I don't know of any WA state reference to the subject.
I do think if you associate marijuana and guns, a LEO will look you over very carefully for any violation. I would not want to attract that kind of scrutiny, but that's as far as I will take my personal opinion on the subject.

Since Marijuana is still illegal under Federal Law, all use of marijuana will be considered "Unlawfull". Even thought some States have medical marijuana laws on the books it doesn't stop the fed's from arresting and prosecuting those who possess and use it. When fed's raid "Pot Co-op's" they could then pursue those who obtained pot from them (they will get any records that might be kept). If arrested by the Fed's for possession, two potential issues. One is of course the possession of the pot. If the quantity is sufficient the charge could be "intent to distribute". If also in possession of a firearm that constitutes an "enhancement" when it comes to sentencing. Usually means time added which is served AFTER the time served for the initial charge.

All in all it is not a question of "pot good, pot bad", it is an issue of what is legal and what's not. Being in possession of a firearm while using or possessing an illegal substance is going to bring problems on the person doing so. Until the laws change it will always depend on what a prosecutor decides to do.

 

[Metal_Monkey]

Might be legal in the state but to be honest its pretty stupid to carry a weapon and drugs of any sort.
Plenty of law enforcement work in a department where meeting the unspoken quota could lead to that next promotion.
Unless you want to be some test court case for the issue I would leave either the weed or the weapon at home.

Just my opinion of course.

Like I said, mainly for transportation issues. On the way to/from. Leaving the gun at home and/or not in the car is not an option.

 

[daddy4count]

This is one of those fun gray areas that will not be quickly cleared up for us...

Bottom line, keep the two separate. If you get busted with MJ on your person the drug charge will be amplified by possessing a firearm at the same time. That is before they even get into whether or not your possession of the firearm itself is amplified by the drugs.

I used to work in health insurance and I have met and am still friends with many medicinal users. Most of them do not leave the house with pot. Though they tend to stay home, suffering from debilitating disease makes it harder to go out at all... but they typically do not go around with drugs on their person.

If you want to follow the advice of a former DEA agent... take it with you in joint form. If you get stopped, eat it. No possession, no foul.

But here's the rub... you may not qualify for medicinal pot in WA state.

So far, "back pain" is not recognized... the strict definition includes "intractable pain" but you will have to show repeated and failed attempts to manage the pain with conventional means before a Dr. is going to steer you towards marijuana... at least a reputable doctor.

So far OR state courts have upheld a medicinal users right to a concealed carry permit... so we're already in the midst of this here in the PNW

 

[Metal_Monkey]

But here's the rub... you may not qualify for medicinal pot in WA state.

So far, "back pain" is not recognized... the strict definition includes "intractable pain" but you will have to show repeated and failed attempts to manage the pain with conventional means before a Dr. is going to steer you towards marijuana... at least a reputable doctor.

No worries. I qualify. Was advised to do so by another doctor too.

 

[daddy4count]

This is way OT for this forum... but if you have a copy of the Doctors notes where he indicates you could benefit from medicinal use then you are technically authorized under the WA law as it is worded.

IANAL but the law is simple and clear... no card, no permit, no fee... just doctors adviso

Back on topic... sort of...

The idea of legalization for medicinal or any use is opening up new territory for legal precedent. I find it interesting that our forefathers (some speculate that there were those among them who smoked canabis) saw no need to prequalify the second amendment with a sobriety statute. Most of them were drinkers, even brewers, some outright drunkards depending on which historian you read.

While common sense dictates that weapons and inebriation do not mix the term "shall not be infringed" would seem to include the times you have one too many beers or indulge in any number of taboo vices.

The laws regarding alcohol, bars and firearms as we see them today are there to protect society from the few who might not manage clear thought processes late on a Friday night...

I find it amusing that these laws garner no debate. We accept them, even though they do infringe on our right to bear arms say, in a bar... drinking or not. While I appreciate these laws, knowing there is no intelligence test or anger management requirements to bear arms, I am still curious why we are content with these but fight like mad when other places or facility types are mentioned in the same context.

Is it okay, is it Constitutional, to tell someone they cannot own, carry or display a firearm because they smoke pot, drink beer, take pain meds, etc..? Does a prescription vs. black market make a difference? I mean, other than breaking the law... does it make a difference on the effect a drug has on the person taking it?

Not sure if this is a proper debate for this forum, but this thread did set my brain to pondering...

 

[TWG2A]

Amlevin is spot on

Pot is still illegal as far as the Feds are concerned, even though B.O. has instructed his clan in the DOJ not to pursue it for now. And don't forget that the BATF is Federal.

Also, don't forget that if you are collecting federal funds (ie, Social Security, etc.) you can be discontinued for having pot.

AND you can have you right to keep and bear arms revoked by getting a "marijuana card".

Even though they say they won't, the laws ARE still on the books and it IS a Federal crime, no matter what the states have to say about it.

Is smoking a joint because your state says it's ok and because B.O. says they won't pursue it for now, worth relinquishing your right to keep and bear arms? I hope not.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

How is the question worded on form 4473? I found it...

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled
substance?"

I was actually going to say that you can not purchase firearms. But then I read the above, and if it is worded the way that it is worded, you could legally answer NO, when purchasing a firearm, even though you are using marijuana.

It states that if you are an "unlawful user," not sure if they mean Federally, state law or both. If you have a Px you are a lawful user. "Addicted" is so broad--what exactly is addicted...requiring recovery program?

In reading the form, I would say that if it is worded the way it is worded above, than you are not breaking any laws if you have a Px for medical marijuana and are purchasing a firearm and answering NO on the form. A situation like this would come down to you having the ability to articulate why it is lawful for you to have medical marijuana and firearms IMO.

Washington State Constitution:

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

SECTION 2 SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

I wonder why it is that the acknowledgment of the Constitution Of The United States being supreme law of the land is in section 2, not section 1? Is this saying that if "the people" of Washington state determine the legality of any particular law and it conflicts with Federal law, and when that determination is made by the majority, and made into law, that is preempts Federal law? Just an observation.

Let me put it another way, because the consent of the individual appears to preempt the US Constitution, does that mean that if the people of Washington state vote to legalize MM, then it is legal, and the Federal government has no jurisdiction over exercising a Federal law concerning MM within the state of Washington?

 

[BigDave]

Since Marijuana is still illegal under Federal Law, all use of marijuana will be considered "Unlawfull". Even thought some States have medical marijuana laws on the books it doesn't stop the fed's from arresting and prosecuting those who possess and use it. When fed's raid "Pot Co-op's" they could then pursue those who obtained pot from them (they will get any records that might be kept). If arrested by the Fed's for possession, two potential issues. One is of course the possession of the pot. If the quantity is sufficient the charge could be "intent to distribute". If also in possession of a firearm that constitutes an "enhancement" when it comes to sentencing. Usually means time added which is served AFTER the time served for the initial charge.

All in all it is not a question of "pot good, pot bad", it is an issue of what is legal and what's not. Being in possession of a firearm while using or possessing an illegal substance is going to bring problems on the person doing so. Until the laws change it will always depend on what a prosecutor decides to do.

Ditto

 

[Lammo]

I was actually going to say that you can not purchase firearms. But then I read the above, and if it is worded the way that it is worded, you could legally answer NO, when purchasing a firearm, even though you are using marijuana.

It states that if you are an "unlawful user," not sure if they mean Federally, state law or both. If you have a Px you are a lawful user. "Addicted" is so broad--what exactly is addicted...requiring recovery program?

In reading the form, I would say that if it is worded the way it is worded above, than you are not breaking any laws if you have a Px for medical marijuana and are purchasing a firearm and answering NO on the form. A situation like this would come down to you having the ability to articulate why it is lawful for you to have medical marijuana and firearms IMO.

SNIP [CLOSE QUOTE]

For the purposes of the Federal Form 4473 I don't think you would be able to answer NO. Possession of marijuana is always unlawful under Federal law. I can't think of any way you can use it without possessing it (and I'm on my third trip, er, tour through our drug unit). Unlawful possession leads to unlawful use therefore I think you can't "just say no".

 

[Lammo]

The real problem with this question/situation

as I see it from 23+ years in a prosecutor's chair will arise when/if you ever have to use your firearm in self-defense. You will have to establish that your judgment was not "clouded" by the smoke, and that your fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury was legitimate (the same would be true if you were a lawfully prescribed user of oxycontin, ritalin, or any other controlled substance). Just want to make sure you think about the forest and don't just worry about the weed.

 

[devildoc5]

I was actually going to say that you can not purchase firearms. But then I read the above, and if it is worded the way that it is worded, you could legally answer NO, when purchasing a firearm, even though you are using marijuana.

It states that if you are an "unlawful user," not sure if they mean Federally, state law or both. If you have a Px you are a lawful user. "Addicted" is so broad--what exactly is addicted...requiring recovery program?

In reading the form, I would say that if it is worded the way it is worded above, than you are not breaking any laws if you have a Px for medical marijuana and are purchasing a firearm and answering NO on the form. A situation like this would come down to you having the ability to articulate why it is lawful for you to have medical marijuana and firearms IMO.

Washington State Constitution:

SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

SECTION 2 SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

I wonder why it is that the acknowledgment of the Constitution Of The United States being supreme law of the land is in section 2, not section 1? Is this saying that if "the people" of Washington state determine the legality of any particular law and it conflicts with Federal law, and when that determination is made by the majority, and made into law, that is preempts Federal law? Just an observation.

Let me put it another way, because the consent of the individual appears to preempt the US Constitution, does that mean that if the people of Washington state vote to legalize MM, then it is legal, and the Federal government has no jurisdiction over exercising a Federal law concerning MM within the state of Washington?

and to throw another poker in the fire:

Whenever any state ATTEMPTS to get accepted by Congress as a new state they must agree to abide by the federal constitution (law of the land as noted above) and federally accepted laws adopted by Congress (commonly regarded as laws that occurred after the state was accepted in to the union)

This would seem to include such acts as the Fair Housing Act, Civil Rights Act(s), and the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act /Controlled Substances Act (amongst others)

That would seem that states HAVE to follow federal law with regards to many things, including medical marijuana.

As a matter of fact in 2005 the Supremer Court even ruled that:

I

California has been a pioneer in the regulation of marijuana. In 1913, California was one of the first States to prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana,2 and at the end of the century, California became the first State to authorize limited use of the drug for medicinal purposes. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, now codified as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996...

The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase the supply of marijuana in the California market.41 The likelihood that all such production will promptly terminate when patients recover or will precisely match the patients’ medical needs during their convalescence seems remote; whereas the danger that excesses will satisfy some of the admittedly enormous demand for recreational use seems obvious.42 Moreover, that the national and international narcotics trade has thrived in the face of vigorous criminal enforcement efforts suggests that no small number of unscrupulous people will make use of the California exemptions to serve their commercial ends whenever it is feasible to do so.43 Taking into account the fact that California is only one of at least nine States to have authorized the medical use of marijuana, a fact Justice O’Connor’s dissent conveniently disregards in arguing that the demonstrated effect on commerce while admittedly “plausible” is ultimately “unsubstantiated,” post, at 14, 16, Congress could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial.

Anyone unfamiliar with the case may find the opinions and everything else at cornells law library site as it is too old for the SCOTUS to have on its website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html

Basically in dummy terms it is stating that Congress has the power to prevent things that might possibly have an effect on interstate commerce (homegrown wheat is used as a previous example of something Congress illegalized due to interstate commerce concerns)

Also while not directly stating it, the SCOTUS is upholding the CSA via it's reasoning of interstate commerce possibly being effected.

SCOTUS also states, rather shockingly IMO, that

As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress. Under the present state of the law, however, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

I guess what I am saying is that marijuana is still federally illegal, and also (in a way) preempted from being legal in the states according to Gonzales v. Raich. So the basic answer to the question on 4473 would be "all forms of cannabis use are illegal"

Whether I agree with this "situation" or not is irrelevant in this topic, the relevant information has been passed along for all to extrapolate (yeah I used a BIG WORD!!!!!!) their own hypothesis (and another one, man am I on a roll or what???)

 

[Metal_Monkey]

Not being a smoker not doing this doesn't bother me, but I still am pondering what laws you would be violating assuming we are driving on the way home. I do not want to discuss whats morally good or bad, if I should or should not do this, or how come or why not. So please give RCWs and/or any laws that pertain to this. Thank you.

Someone said you could loose your right to possess firearms if you have/get a medical card? List what laws please.

@daddy4count
This is not off topic. This topic/question is regarding laws concerning a prescribed controlled substance(not federally legal so I believe)while CARRYING a firearm.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I tried to find the section it is in and everything, but could not. Marijuana is considered a narcotic.

The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:

* Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
* Fugitives from justice.
***** Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.***
* Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
* Illegal aliens.
* Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
* Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
* Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
* Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
* Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Marijuana is a Sec. I controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act. Marijuana is actually controlled more than cocaine, which is a Sec. II controlled substance because of its "medicinal use."

 

[daddy4count]

States have begun to pass "Firearm Freedom" legislation whereby they circumvent the Federal regulations pertaining to interstate trade by stating any firearm manufactured and sold within the state is exempt...

Could not the same apply to a plant like pot?

Could WA pass a law that stated ANY product produced and sold for use within the state of WA is no business of the Feds unless the Constitution explicitly says it is?

@ Metal_Monkey - cool, I appreciate that. Personally I am enjoying this discussion. This is the kind of topic that normally isn't covered until after-the-fact

@ Sylvia - I think that is EXACTLY what the state Constitution means... yes the power is in the people and if they decide a law is unjust then it is unjust. Same goes for the US Constitution. We the people have the power to change it and have done so on numerous occasions.

The basis for this country is that government should serve the people, not rule them. If we as a state decide to legalize marijuana for medical, personal or recreational use then we should have the right to do so... and tax it.

Can anybody point me to where in the US Constitution it gives regulatory power over domestic products to any Federal branch? As far as I know the Interstate Commerce act is the only one... but I am often mistaken...

 

[amlevin]

For those that might like a legal alternative to "pot" there is Marinol. Available by prescription and it is available at pharmacy's. No jail time for possession either.

 

[TWG2A]

Marinol.... Yep.

Here in Montana it's easier to get a bag of weed than it is to buy a six-pack. They actually have "dispensary caravans" that drive around and park in different areas to pass it out to people with "medical marijuana cards" (which are also very, VERY easy to procure).

As a Crohn's patient with severe arthritis and other maladies, I will say that since posession of marijuana is still against the law as far as the Feds are concerned, the idea of "legally" smoking pot is nowhere near as important to me as the idea of legally owning and carrying a firearm. Sure, I'd Love to go get a card and medicate myself until I'm numb. I'd much rather be oblivious to the mess that's going on in this world right now. But I won't. The trade-offs are not at all worth it.

Even though the current regime says they're not going to pursue prosecution of marijuana users, the law is still on the books so it can be used whenever they deem necessary. While B.O. claims he won't pursue it, who's to say the next administration won't adhere to federal laws? And as someone noted in this thread, if you are ever in a position to have to use your firearm to defend yourself, you can bet the issue of you being stoned(on marijuana, percocet, antidepressants, valium, etc) will come into play.

It's just not worth it. "Legally" smoking pot is not worth losing the right to legally carry (and use) a firearm.

 

[devildoc5]

I am sure they COULD state it does not violate interstate commerce, as a matter of fact that was CA arguement in the case I previously linked, however as can be seen the SCOTUS decidded that due to the proliferation of illegal drug trafficking it present a WAY to POSSIBLY used in illegal interstate commerce.

That was th4e main logic behind the ruling as far as I understood it.