Legalized Marijuana and Firearms.

[Hmac]

And as far as the rest of your personal attacks, my words are here for everyone to read. Each person is free to draw his own conclusions.

Frank, I found your arguments well-reasoned and your posts well-written. Thanks for posting. Valuable information without the desperate clinging to some kind of political position. Refreshing on this website.

[Frank Ettin]

And as far as the rest of your personal attacks, my words are here for everyone to read. Each person is free to draw his own conclusions.

Frank, I found your arguments well-reasoned and your posts well-written. Thanks for posting. Valuable information without the desperate clinging to some kind of political position. Refreshing on this website.

Thank you.

[ericinmn1970]

I know I'm a newb to these forums, but I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread! I've learned much and am still processing it all.

I do wonder though, if all states were to eventually move toward either legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, if that wouldn't prompt our U.S. Congress and Senate to follow suit at the federal level, and if so, what impact that might have on this hypothetical scenario of legalized marijuana and firearms ownership.

[steve4102]

Thanks Frank, I really appreciate you stopping by to help educate us on this issue. Sorry for the rude behavior of my fellow Minnesotans.

With all you efforts and facts it is clear than some just still do not "get-it".

Should MN law change in some way that effects firearms, attorneys who specialize in firearms law in MN would review the appropriate statutes, case law, etc. that had changed, and the information would be disseminated to the community through BCA instructors, updated firearms guides, etc. Your attempt to predict how a change in MN law would effect firearms owners is interesting.

They still have this misguided notion that the State of MN can pass legislation that will override Federal Laws.

No hope Frank, no hope.

[Frank Ettin]

...I do wonder though, if all states were to eventually move toward either legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, if that wouldn't prompt our U.S. Congress and Senate to follow suit at the federal level, and if so, what impact that might have on this hypothetical scenario of legalized marijuana and firearms ownership.

It is clear that States legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana is putting real pressure on the federal government to make adjustments -- to policy at least, even if not to federal law.

Holder has effectively lowered the priority of federal marijuana enforcement in Washington State and Colorado. He has also come out in favor of easing banking regulation to allow state legal marijuana businesses access to banking services.

On the other hand, marijuana reform is broadly supported by the administration's core constituency. But an easing of gun restrictions is not.

And while policy changes might be comforting to some, a policy is not a law. Policy can be tightened down again with the stroke of a pen.

Thanks Frank, I really appreciate you stopping by ....

You're welcome. Some will get it, and others will not. That's par for the course. The important thing for me is that I've gotten the information on the table.

[IDPA Shooter]

In states where legal, physicians don't actually "prescribe" marijuana. IF the doctor is "certified" by the state to do so, he/she can issue a "certificate of eligibility" to the patient. Specific state laws then exempt that patient with that doctor-issued certificate from possession laws. The physician is doing nothing illegal because he/she isn't prescribing under their DEA license. The Controlled Substances Act proscribes manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of Schedule I drugs, so the patient is violating Federal law, but not the doctor.

And as far as the rest of your personal attacks, my words are here for everyone to read. Each person is free to draw his own conclusions.

Frank, I found your arguments well-reasoned and your posts well-written. Thanks for posting. Valuable information without the desperate clinging to some kind of political position. Refreshing on this website.[/quote

Agree completely, thanks again Frank


Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

[Frank Ettin]

... thanks again Frank...

You're welcome.

[ericinmn1970]

It is clear that States legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana is putting real pressure on the federal government to make adjustments -- to policy at least, even if not to federal law....And while policy changes might be comforting to some, a policy is not a law. Policy can be tightened down again with the stroke of a pen.

Indeed!

Also, I feel I should give a nod jshuberg's way for his contribution (and yes, I think he contributed) to this thread. I'm not knocking you. In fact, I have similar feelings to those which you expressed with regards to our rights. But as I've constantly been learning over the years, and it's even been pointed out on these forums, is that we don't have a "justice system" we have a "legal system" in place in this country and our state. I take Frank Ettin's legal summation as a indication of the work and challenges that lie ahead.

[XDM45]

Be that as it may, I entered this thread to provide some solid information on federal law relating to marijuana and guns.
Yes, you ENTERED it that way, but now it's turned into one giant p-ing contest between you and jshuberg, thus losing any value from that point forward, as I noted in my pervious posting on this thread.

jshuberg has provided some serious misinformation which, if paid attention to, could get someone into a lot of trouble, for example (note, times of posts are PST)

Well, anyone that looks to the Internet for legal advice takes a chance if they follow it without checking with a local lawyer first -- regardless of who that source is --- even if it's another lawyer. Even if you are 100% right, I wouldn't follow it without a face-to-face with a local lawyer. There are some differences between CA and MN laws.

To be sure, the way he, and others, think things should be, is very interested; and many of us wish things were different. But our wishes do not affect current reality, nor will they keep people from getting into serious trouble for not understanding the way the law actually is.

See what I wrote above, but yes, what you're talking about is the old "Is-Ought" problem. "This is how it IS, but this is how it OUGHT to be."

So the fact that I might not pass jshuberg's litmus test as a champion of the Second Amendment is irrelevant to my purposes and my interests.

This goes back to what I said in my previous post as well as my first reply in this one. Thank you for proving my point for me, although I don't need the proof or validation since it's quite obvious, like any smoking gun is.

IANAL and all of this is just my opinion. Everyone else's will vary. All opinions are valid and do not validate or negate another's opinion.

[steve4102]

Well, anyone that looks to the Internet for legal advice takes a chance if they follow it without checking with a local lawyer first -- regardless of who that source is --- even if it's another lawyer. Even if you are 100% right, I wouldn't follow it without a face-to-face with a local lawyer. There are some differences between CA and MN laws.

You obviously missed the entire point of this thread. The difference between CA and MN is irrelevant as far as Marijuana and Firearms is concerned. State Laws cannot over-ride Federal Laws. Federal Law says pot is Illegal in all 50 States and users even Medical users cannot own firearms , no state can make legal what the Federal Government deems Illegal. Got it, good, thanks.

[gdubya]

Well, anyone that looks to the Internet for legal advice takes a chance if they follow it without checking with a local lawyer first -- regardless of who that source is --- even if it's another lawyer. Even if you are 100% right, I wouldn't follow it without a face-to-face with a local lawyer. There are some differences between CA and MN laws.

You obviously missed the entire point of this thread. The difference between CA and MN is irrelevant as far as Marijuana and Firearms is concerned. State Laws cannot over-ride Federal Laws. Federal Law says pot is Illegal in all 50 States and users even Medical users cannot own firearms , no state can make legal what the Federal Government deems Illegal. Got it, good, thanks.

This hypothetical discussion is one of the more interesting I have read. I wonder what the implications would be if the MMJ activists are successful in petitioning to remove Marijuana from Schedule 1 status (no known medical use / high potential for abuse) to a lower schedule like most pain meds where you are an Unlawful User per form 4473 if you have no prescription and that also makes them illegal to possess. Seems like then a MMJ user with a prescription in a legal MMJ state would no longer be an Unlawful User per form 4473. IANAL either.

[Frank Ettin]

...anyone that looks to the Internet for legal advice takes a chance if they follow it without checking with a local lawyer first -- regardless of who that source is --- even if it's another lawyer. Even if you are 100% right, I wouldn't follow it without a face-to-face with a local lawyer...

Except nothing here is legal advice. I'm not advising anyone regarding his real life, specific legal matter. I'm commenting in a general manner on a legal topic.

...There are some differences between CA and MN laws...

But as has been said multiple times, on this issue state law is irrelevant. Ultimately the legal issues faced by a user of marijuana who possesses a gun or ammunition will be a matter of federal law -- even if marijuana is somehow legal under state law. So differences among California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado or any other State's laws making marijuana in some way, under some conditions legal under state law, don't matter. What matters will be federal law.

People seem to have a lot of trouble understanding this state-federal dichotomy. It starts with Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

In connection with the marijuana and guns issue, this principle is nicely illustrated by the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court in Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011). That case has been mentioned here before, but it seems to be the sort of thing that tends to slip folks' minds. So to recap, the Oregon Supreme Court, in Willis ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. The Court concluded that Ms. Willis had satisfied the statutory requirements under Oregon's "shall issue" conceal handgun license (CHL) law, notwithstanding that the use of marijuana violated federal law. So the Oregon sheriff was obliged under the applicable Oregon statute to issue a CHL to Ms. Willis.

This decision has been widely applauded by marijuana and RKBA advocates, but many apparently either have not read the decision, misunderstood it or glossed over an important point. So let's look at one thing the Oregon Supreme Court said in its decision (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):

...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...

...All opinions are valid and do not validate or negate another's opinion.

And that is a silly and clearly untrue statement. Were it true, one would ask his mechanic, rather than his doctor, for medical opinions or his gardener, instead of his accountant, for tax advice. But doing so is unlikely to be the best way to promote one's physical or financial well being.

An opinion by someone qualified in the area and with the education, experience and facts to back it up, deserves more attention than someone's opinion plucked out the air. Anyone can, and should, be expected to be able to support his opinion; and anyone's support for his opinion should be subject to critical examination. Or is Josh Sugarmann's opinion on gun control as valid as yours?

...This hypothetical discussion is one of the more interesting I have read. I wonder what the implications would be if the MMJ activists are successful in petitioning to remove Marijuana from Schedule 1 status (no known medical use / high potential for abuse) to a lower schedule like most pain meds where you are an Unlawful User per form 4473 if you have no prescription and that also makes them illegal to possess. Seems like then a MMJ user with a prescription in a legal MMJ state would no longer be an Unlawful User per form 4473. IANAL either.

I think that's pretty much correct -- at least unless there was some federal law defect in the prescribing standards (e. g., a prescription by a provider without a DEA number).

[XDM45]

People seem to have a lot of trouble understanding this state-federal dichotomy. It starts with Clause 2 of Article VI of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

No, I completely understand the differences between State and Federal law. I also get that Federal overrides State; however, States do seem to be challenging Federal law. The Feds are watching CO closely, and their CO laws definitely are challenging Federal laws. It'll be interesting to see what transpires and becomes case law. I should have clarified my position on that since it seems to cause some people to erroneous believe that I didn't know the difference between State and Federal laws. Hopefully I have no cleared that up by stating the above.

In connection with the marijuana and guns issue, this principle is nicely illustrated by the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court in Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011). That case has been mentioned here before, but it seems to be the sort of thing that tends to slip folks' minds. So to recap, the Oregon Supreme Court, in Willis ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. The Court concluded that Ms. Willis had satisfied the statutory requirements under Oregon's "shall issue" conceal handgun license (CHL) law, notwithstanding that the use of marijuana violated federal law. So the Oregon sheriff was obliged under the applicable Oregon statute to issue a CHL to Ms. Willis

Good point with that case, and yes, I remember it being mentioned before. I need to look it up and learn more about that case, which is where State Laws challenged Federal laws; how it ends up, I must read about first.

This decision has been widely applauded by marijuana and RKBA advocates, but many apparently either have not read the decision, misunderstood it or glossed over an important point. So let's look at one thing the Oregon Supreme Court said in its decision (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):

...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...

...All opinions are valid and do not validate or negate another's opinion.

that is a silly and clearly untrue statement. Were it true, one would ask his mechanic, rather than his doctor, for medical opinions or his gardener, instead of his accountant, for tax advice. But doing so is unlikely to be the best way to promote one's physical or financial well being.

An opinion by someone qualified in the area and with the education, experience and facts to back it up, deserves more attention than someone's opinion plucked out the air. Anyone can, and should, be expected to be able to support his opinion; and anyone's support for his opinion should be subject to critical examination. Or is Josh Sugarmann's opinion on gun control as valid as yours?

I don't want to derail the thread and go off-topic with this, so I'll keep it short as I can and my opinion will have to suffice. Whether people agree with another's opinion or not doesn't really matter to me because my opinion doesn't threaten theirs unless they choose it to. My opinion doesn't validate or invalidate itself or their opinion. Arguing about opinions is stupid. Everyone believes in their own logical and perceptive truth based on these things as well as their own perceptions, their own beliefs. All of those are in constant flux and change. That's my opinion.

So to answer your question.... "Josh Sugarmann's opinion on gun control as valid as yours?" Yes. It is. I'm against Gun Control. Some are for it. To each their own.

[steve4102]

Good point with that case, and yes, I remember it being mentioned before. I need to look it up and learn more about that case, which is where State Laws challenged Federal laws; how it ends up, I must read about first.

I don't believe the State of Oregon challenged any Federal Laws. The State Supreme Court ordered the Sheriff to issue Ms Willis a carry permit as she met "State" requirements. The State did not argue against or challenge Federal Firearms possession laws. In fact they made it clear that Ms Willis can still be prosecuted under Federal Laws.

I wonder what the ATF is going to do to the FFL in Oregon that violated Federal Law and sold her a handgun. I sure wouldn't want to be the FFL that sold her a carry gun in clear violation of Federal Laws, especially as she has drawn Nation attention to herself. He might soon be out of business and behind bars.

[Frank Ettin]

...The State Supreme Court ordered the Sheriff to issue Ms Willis a carry permit as she met "State" requirements. The State did not argue against or challenge Federal Firearms possession laws. In fact they made it clear that Ms Willis can still be prosecuted under Federal Laws.

I wonder what the ATF is going to do to the FFL in Oregon that violated Federal Law and sold her a handgun. I sure wouldn't want to be the FFL that sold her a carry gun in clear violation of Federal Laws, especially as she has drawn Nation attention to herself. He might soon be out of business and behind bars.

I really don't know whether there's any potential issue with Ms. Willis' acquisition of the gun. For all I know, she might have had the gun for many years and bought the gun from an FFL long before she began using medical marijuana. She might have acquired the gun in a private transaction (generally legal in Oregon without FFL intervention, except, under a unique provision of Oregon law, at a gun show).

So while as a user of marijuana, her possession of a gun or ammunition would violate federal law, her acquisition of the gun might not necessarily have put an FFL in legal jeopardy.

Does anyone know as a fact that Ms. Willis acquired her gun from an FFL after beginning to use marijuana?