Legal Opinion On Gun Ownership and Marijuana

[MeatMissile]

So that I can be certain that we are on the same sheet of music, can you copy and paste the applicable part of the law?

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts

www.law.cornell.edu

This section applies to making a false statement on a 4473:


(6)
for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunitionfrom a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive suchimporter, manufacturer,dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm orammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

 

[MeatMissile]

Then:

(3)
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));


BTW: Hingle McCringleberry and Tyrone “Smoochie” Wallace are my favorite players.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Then:

(3)
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));


BTW: Hingle McCringleberry and Tyrone “Smoochie” Wallace are my favorite players.

Love me some Smoochie!

That (3) cannot stand alone. It falls under a lower case letter in parenthesis. In this case, which letter?

 

[MeatMissile]

There would have to be some proof. Every case has it’s own facts and nuance.

Say a woman shows ring cam footage of an ex accosting her while she’s holding her Dank’s Wonder Emporium box. Thinking its proof of repeated abuse, she shows it to the police willingly to prove she was in fear so she bought a gun. She tests positive after she shoots her abuser.

The what-if’s could go on forever.

 

[MeatMissile]

Looks like a little (g)

18 USC 922 (g)(3)

What has happened in WA, is the local LE doesn’t charge but the feds do. I know my RCWs, but have never really immersed myself in the USC.

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

It can get complicated following the sequence of the letters and numbers, but here is what we are dealing with.

(g)It shall be unlawful for any person—
(3)
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

Unlawful for a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to an controlled substance to do what? When you continue to read down through section (g) the act is never defined as far as I can tell. It's the same way in the actual code https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...f/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap44-sec922.pdf

 

[MeatMissile]

It can get complicated following the sequence of the letters and numbers, but here is what we are dealing with.

(g)It shall be unlawful for any person—
(3)
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

Unlawful for a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to an controlled substance to do what? When you continue to read down through section (g) the act is never defined as far as I can tell. It's the same way in the actual code https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...f/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap44-sec922.pdf

WA state law on possessing controlled substance was recently found unconstitutional due to a lack of language. Maybe someone could appeal based on the same problem?

 

[Fartrell Cluggins]

Took reading a few more times, but I found the act defined:

(g)It shall be unlawful for any person—
(3)
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.


possess in or affecting commerce? HMMMMMM!

 

[Newtosavage]

Assume much? I'll give you a hint. I don't need you to carry a torch for me.

Doesn't change how funny it is.

 

[roosiebull]

Im not a marijuana user but it's no different from alcohol. If people who use marijuana can't own guns drinkers shouldn't either.

it's very different to me (disclaimer, i don't drink or smoke pot) because a lot of drunk people have shot people, you don't hear of people getting stoned and killing people. alcohol is way more dangerous than weed in about every single way, the difference is, alcohol is way more socially accepted than MJ.

i know a lot of people who have alcohol problems and think stoners are dirtbags, it's completely a societal issue rather than a reasonable concept.

MJ is not associated with elevated aggression and violence, alcohol 100% is. weed and gun ownership vs alcohol and gun ownership has no relation to logic, it's completely society derived.

 

[Dos XX]

The law doesn't call out "weed". It doesn't say an illegal user of "weed". It says controlled substance. Marijuana is a controlled substance. To change this, marijuana would have to be taken off the controlled substance list. It would have to be legalized. There will not be an exception written into the law that says controlled substance, except for "weed". Not going to happen, nor should it.

Now, consider what is needed to get marijuana taken off the controlled substance list, legalized. Enough people would need to be elected to congress that want to legalize marijuana. If you are pro 2nd amendment, you would want that person to be pro 2nd amendment as well. Does either political party fit that description? Do you have any candidates in your state that fit that description?

 

[MeatMissile]

The law doesn't call out "weed". It doesn't say an illegal user of "weed". It says controlled substance. Marijuana is a controlled substance. To change this, marijuana would have to be taken off the controlled substance list. It would have to be legalized. There will not be an exception written into the law that says controlled substance, except for "weed". Not going to happen, nor should it.

Now, consider what is needed to get marijuana taken off the controlled substance list, legalized. Enough people would need to be elected to congress that want to legalize marijuana. If you are pro 2nd amendment, you would want that person to be pro 2nd amendment as well. Does either political party fit that description? Do you have any candidates in your state that fit that description?

You got some valid points there. There can’t be that many viable libertarians out there!

 

[*zap*]

lots of pot is being laced with other stuff, be careful fellas. Purchase a reputable brand...

 

[Dos XX]

You got some valid points there. There can’t be that many viable libertarians out there!

Very few viable libertarians.

Even if a third part libertarian party could start to gain traction, as they took votes away from one of the two now established parties, how would that effect the balance of power between the two current parties in the time it took for such a party to become viable, if in fact they could become viable? What would be the consequences during that period of time?

Like most things, marijuana is more complex than it appears. Things like "weed is good" or "weed is bad" or "weed is better than alcohol" aren't the argument, and they don't begin to scratch the surface of the complexity of the issue.

 

[Hoodie]

Now, consider what is needed to get marijuana taken off the controlled substance list, legalized. Enough people would need to be elected to congress that want to legalize marijuana. If you are pro 2nd amendment, you would want that person to be pro 2nd amendment as well. Does either political party fit that description? Do you have any candidates in your state that fit that description?

This is the number one problem with the status quo in a two-party system. We need rank choice voting so that candidates don't have to take on a party platform wholesale to be viable.

I don't see a fundamental reason why a conservative candidate couldn't be pro-legalization. It's a fantastic example of the federal government overstepping its bounds with zero net positive effects on society. Useless and excessive regulation at its finest.

Conservative candidates just have to be anti-legalization because it's part of the party line. Same reason Democrats have to be pro-gun control to be viable.

 

[MeatMissile]

This is the number one problem with the status quo in a two-party system. We need rank choice voting so that candidates don't have to take on a party platform wholesale to be viable. I don't see a fundamental reason why a conservative candidate couldn't be pro-legalization. It's a fantastic example of the federal government overstepping its bounds with zero net positive effects on society. Useless and excessive regulation at its finest.

Conservative candidates just have to be anti-legalization because it's part of the party line. Same reason Democrats have to be pro-gun control to be viable.

Political Litmus tests are killing this country. Look what happens when you defy the status quo, ie Tulsi Gabbard.

 

[fwafwow]

A prominent NJ 2A attorney issues a warning.

Caution: Marijuana Use Still Precludes Gun Ownership Under Federal Law - Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs

CAUTION! MARIJUANA USE STILL PRECLUDES
GUN OWNERSHIP UNDER FEDERAL LAW
DESPITE NEW JERSEY LEGALIZATION






















December 28, 2020. Despite the

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

A couple of thoughts.

1. I seem to remember - but I could be wrong or mistaken (or both) - that merely being under the influence, or to have used, certain controlled substances isn’t illegal - it’s the possession, manufacture, distribution, sale etc. of those drugs that is a crime. I mention this because if that recollection is accurate, then perhaps merely having THC in your blood would not equate to “unlawful use”. Perhaps splitting hairs, or grasping at straws, but definitely a different situation than being a grower or dealer. (Yes, it would seem that you had to have possessed the MJ by ingesting it, but I’m not sure that’s the same as being caught with MJ in your pocket.)
2. Even if #1 is way off, having THC in your blood at some point in time doesn’t prove you were lying on an ATF form that was signed prior to that blood test.
3. Not sure if analysis or thoughts on this topic mean I’m whining about the law.

 

[MeatMissile]

A couple of thoughts.

1. I seem to remember - but I could be wrong or mistaken (or both) - that merely being under the influence, or to have used, certain controlled substances isn’t illegal - it’s the possession, manufacture, distribution, sale etc. of those drugs that is a crime. I mention this because if that recollection is accurate, then perhaps merely having THC in your blood would not equate to “unlawful use”. Perhaps splitting hairs, or grasping at straws, but definitely a different situation than being a grower or dealer. (Yes, it would seem that you had to have possessed the MJ by ingesting it, but I’m not sure that’s the same as being caught with MJ in your pocket.)
2. Even if #1 is way off, having THC in your blood at some point in time doesn’t prove you were lying on an ATF form that was signed prior to that blood test.
3. Not sure if analysis or thoughts on this topic mean I’m whining about the law.

Theoretically, as soon as you use a drug or do anything that excludes you from gun ownership, you’d give em up on your own free will.......

 

[Hoodie]

Not sure if analysis or thoughts on this topic mean I’m whining about the law.

DO NOT whine about the law. Or, like, discuss it thoughtfully or anything. Or suggest that it might be better one way than another.

That is all.

 

[gabenzeke]

Bunch of white ppl complaining about the legal system is actually pretty funny.

So you're saying we should leave it as is? You liberals are really just something else.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk