My guns or my ganja? Firearm-owning pot fans face a choice

[The Legion]

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/guns-ganja-firearm-owning-pot-fans-face-choice-52341084

By mark scolforo, associated press

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Jan 14, 2018, 4:30 PM ET

The federal government says grass and guns don't mix, and that is putting gun owners who use marijuana — and the strongly pro-gun-rights administration of President Donald Trump — in a potentially uncomfortable position.

As gun-loving Pennsylvania becomes the latest state to operate a medical marijuana program, with the first dispensary on track to begin sales next month, authorities are warning patients that federal law bars marijuana users from having guns or ammunition.

"They're going to have to make a choice," said John T. Adams, president of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. "They can have their guns or their marijuana, but not both."

That's the official line, but the reality of how the policy might be enforced in Pennsylvania and other states is a little muddier. That includes the question of whether people who already own guns might have to surrender them, instead of just being prohibited from making new purchases.

The political sensitivity was underscored Friday when Pennsylvania regulators reversed themselves and announced its registry of medical-pot patients will not be available, as was previously planned, through the state's law enforcement computer network.

Phil Gruver, a professional auto detailer from Emmaus who received a state medical marijuana card in mid-December, is weighing what to do with his .22-caliber rifle and a handgun he keeps for home defense.

"It's a violation of my Second Amendment rights," Gruver said. "I don't know of any time anyone's been using marijuana and going out and committing acts of violence with a gun. Most of the time they just sit on their couch and eat pizza."

State laws allowing medical or, more recently, recreational use of pot have long been at odds with the federal prohibition on gun ownership by those using marijuana. But the government has traditionally taken a hands-off approach. Since 2014, Congress has forbidden the Department of Justice from spending money to prosecute people who grow, sell and use medical pot.

The picture has become murkier under Trump, a Republican whose attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has long denounced the drug. Sessions recently rescinded a Barack Obama-era policy that was deferential to states' permissive marijuana laws. Now, federal prosecutors in states that allow drug sales must decide whether to crack down on the marijuana trade.

It's not clear what impact the new policy will have on gun owners who use cannabis as medicine, or even how many people fit the bill. Nor is it clear whether any people who use legally obtained medical marijuana have been prosecuted for owning a gun, although the existence of medical marijuana registries in some states, including Pennsylvania, has some patients concerned.

More than 800,000 guns are sold or transferred in Pennsylvania annually, and more than 10,000 people in the state have signed up for medical marijuana. The registry change on Friday makes it much less likely the state's medical marijuana users will be flagged when going through a federal gun sales background check.

A spokeswoman for Dave Freed, the new U.S. attorney in Harrisburg, said only that criminal investigations and prosecutions "will be based on a fair and transparent fact-intensive inquiry of individual cases." State police said it's up to prosecutors to decide when to bring a case.

The Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has left no doubt where it stands. Last year, the ATF spelled out the marijuana prohibition in boldface type on gun purchase forms.

"Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medical purposes ... is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition," ATF spokeswoman Janice L. Kemp said in an email to The Associated Press.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department referred questions about medical marijuana and guns enforcement to local federal prosecutors and a recent memo from Sessions that does not specifically address the issue.

In Ohio, which has authorized a medical marijuana program, the office of the U.S. attorney for the northern part of the state, Justin Herdman, has said Sessions' guidance won't change his case-by-case approach.

The gun-ownership ban has withstood at least one legal challenge. An appeals court in San Francisco, rejecting a challenge on Second Amendment grounds, said in 2016 that Congress reasonably concluded marijuana and other drugs raise the risk of unpredictable behavior.

Meanwhile, some state and local officials, particularly in law enforcement, have sought to crack down.

William Bryson, chairman of the Delaware Police Chiefs' Council, told state lawmakers in December that people who use marijuana for medical or recreational purposes should be required to have a designation on their driver's licenses. That would make it easier, he said, for police to enforce the ban.

And last month, a police chief in Hawaii publicized and then quickly rescinded a directive that medical marijuana patients had to give up their handguns. Two people turned in their weapons.

But marijuana activists predict a backlash should federal prosecutors begin going after gun owners who use legally obtained medical marijuana.

The issue has been largely theoretical, but there would be quick pushback if the federal government took a more aggressive stance, said Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Between 1998 and 2014, nearly 100,000 prospective gun purchasers went home empty-handed because they were flagged as using illegal drugs, according to the ATF. But the agency could not say how many of those used medical or recreational marijuana.

Dean Hazen, an Urbana, Illinois, businessman who helps broker online gun purchases, said a 75-year-old client with a medical marijuana card was turned down when his state firearm-owner identification card was run through the federal background check system.

"He's got a collection of guns at home," Hazen said, "and he's a model citizen."

Even before his administration took the medical marijuana registry off the Pennsylvania law-enforcement computer network, Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, sought to assure people the state has no plans to take their guns. And last week, state House Republican Leader Dave Reed urged residents to call their congressional representative and "urge them to make gun ownership legal for medical marijuana card holders."

Kim Stolfer, head of the Pennsylvania organization Firearms Owners Against Crime, pointed out that people who drink heavily or use potent but legal drugs such as opioids or antidepressants can still own a gun.

"You have people that are advancing up in age that need medical marijuana and might have, say, 50 firearms and just realized they sacrificed all of those," Stolfer said. "Where are they going to turn them in and how are they going to get rid of them?"

[RAEIndustries]

Sounds like a ploy to force more gun control is all

[RED333]

The same should be done with liquor!

Then you would see it hit the fan.

[Raoul]

The problem is the way marijuana is classified. And of course the whole reefer madness thing...

[n0rlf]

17 minutes ago, Raoul said:

The problem is the way marijuana is classified. And of course the whole reefer madness thing...

The problem is this is yet another area of selective law enforcement. Enforce the laws as they are, period. Choosing which laws we should enforce is stupid! Look at immigration! If people do not want a law (And yes I think this one needs to go!) then work to get it changed but just not enforcing it is dumb. It will lead to more and more selective enforcement.

No matter your thoughts on marijuana it is the same as any other law that is on the books. Right now it is illegal. follow that law. Hell, by that way of thinking we should all be able to run out and get suppressors tomorrow as that law is dumb and should not be enforced.

Let me know how that works for you. As always that is just my opinion and worth less than two cents.

[Omega]

I think the federal ban needs to be lifted, there is no reason to have it listed as a schedule I drug.

DEA Schedule I now include these drugs listed below, anyone really think marijuana belongs on this list?

Heroin (diacetylmorphine)

LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide)

Marijuana (cannabis, THC)

Mescaline (Peyote)

MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or “ecstasy”)

GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid)

Ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine)

Psilocybin

Methaqualone (Quaalude)

Khat (Cathinone)

Bath Salts (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV)

Edited January 15, 2018 by Omega
Add info

[n0rlf]

8 minutes ago, Omega said:

I think the federal ban needs to be lifted, there is no reason to have it listed as a schedule I drug.

DEA Schedule I now include these drugs listed below, anyone really think marijuana belongs on this list?

Heroin (diacetylmorphine)

LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide)

Marijuana (cannabis, THC)

Mescaline (Peyote)

MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or “ecstasy”)

GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid)

Ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine)

Psilocybin

Methaqualone (Quaalude)

Khat (Cathinone)

Bath Salts (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV)

So have you said as much to your representative?

 

[DaveTN]

This is no different than the selective enforcement of any other law. The ATF is clear and the DEA is clear. The only fix is for either the Feds to make pot legal, or change/remove the question; then you can make all the comparisons to alcohol you like. Change the laws so someone smoking pot can buy a gun legally; I don’t see that happening. I do think you may see changes that make the same thing happen with people prescribed pain killers, depression meds, or other meds that impair judgement or reaction time. That will be a long list the ATF will need new forms.

[Sunfish]

Just what exactly is the ATF and DEA responsible for? If someone committed an unlawful act and tried to blame it on them see how far they get. That's the whole problem with the Government is they are in charge but they are not responsible for anything. See how that works for you in the private sector. What a man does with money that he works for and pays taxes on is his business period.   

[Raoul]

I'm confused. We should have the right to be stoned and carry? Or drunk and carry, or opiated and carry?

[Whisper]

41 minutes ago, Raoul said:

I'm confused. We should have the right to be stoned and carry? Or drunk and carry, or opiated and carry?

Ask your avatar and see what he says.

HTH,

Whisper

[Omega]

42 minutes ago, Raoul said:

I'm confused. We should have the right to be stoned and carry? Or drunk and carry, or opiated and carry?

No, but like alcohol and legal opiates it should not be illegal to buy and own weapons if you use marijuana.  I don't use it anymore so no dog in the fight, but it should not be illegal.  Do they ask, specifically about illegal opiates, or other specific schedule I drugs?

[n0rlf]

6 minutes ago, Omega said:

No, but like alcohol and legal opiates it should not be illegal to buy and own weapons if you use marijuana.  I don't use it anymore so no dog in the fight, but it should not be illegal.  Do they ask, specifically about illegal opiates, or other specific schedule I drugs?

Yes actually

 Question 11e asks: Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

it then add the warning about medical or recreational marijuana still being illegal.  Blah blah blah. 

 

Edited January 16, 2018 by n0rlf
Added quotation

[Raoul]

 

• Shall not be an unlawful user of or addicted to alcohol or any controlled substance and the applicant has not been a patient in a rehabilitation program or hospitalized for alcohol or controlled substance abuse or addiction within ten (10) years from the date of application;

 

 

[56FordGuy]

I'm confused. We should have the right to be stoned and carry? Or drunk and carry, or opiated and carry?

Smells a lot like freedom to me. If you haven’t harmed anyone, you haven’t committed any crime.

I know a guy who carries, smokes weed and likes to go to the bar occasionally. Sometimes he does all three of those things at once. Still a good guy and I’d trust him with my life. Your mileage may vary.

[Sunfish]

Unlawful user of, is the key. The rest is subjective

Edited January 16, 2018 by Sunfish

[Raoul]

I don't make the laws, but I'm obliged to follow them. 

[Omega]

43 minutes ago, n0rlf said:

Yes actually

 Question 11e asks: Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

it then add the warning about medical or recreational marijuana still being illegal.  Blah blah blah. 

 

So no, they do not mention other drugs by name.  Just singled out the worst of the bunch? 

37 minutes ago, Raoul said:

 

• Shall not be an unlawful user of or addicted to alcohol or any controlled substance and the applicant has not been a patient in a rehabilitation program or hospitalized for alcohol or controlled substance abuse or addiction within ten (10) years from the date of application;

I guess those politicians and celebrities in for sex addiction are safe.

 

 

[n0rlf]

13 minutes ago, Omega said:

So no, they do not mention other drugs by name.  Just singled out the worst of the bunch? 

 

My bad, misunderstood you. Still a moot point though as it is the law. Follow it or take your chances. 

[DaveTN]

9 hours ago, Omega said:

So no, they do not mention other drugs by name.  Just singled out the worst of the bunch? 

 

I don’t think they are singling it out; they are making it clear that they consider it to be a drug. Because many argue it is not.

As I said above I think you will see the same happen with other drugs, and diagnosed conditions like PTSD or depression.

[Oh Shoot]

2 hours ago, DaveTN said:

I don’t think they are singling it out; they are making it clear that they consider it to be a drug. Because many argue it is not.

As I said above I think you will see the same happen with other drugs, and diagnosed conditions like PTSD or depression.

Well, they'll have to amend 18 US 922 to do it. Hasn't been touched since 1994 and even that expired reverting to what it was in 1986, so it's obviously not so easy.

Of course that could all change pert durn quick in 2021. Or not.

- OS

[Omega]

14 hours ago, n0rlf said:

My bad, misunderstood you. Still a moot point though as it is the law. Follow it or take your chances. 

No, I get it, don't agree with it, but I know it's law.

4 hours ago, DaveTN said:

I don’t think they are singling it out; they are making it clear that they consider it to be a drug. Because many argue it is not.

As I said above I think you will see the same happen with other drugs, and diagnosed conditions like PTSD or depression.

It may be just clearing it up, but they only did it with marijuana...nothing to clear up the fact that just because a Dr. prescribed an opiate, it's still illegal to buy and own guns while hooked on the stuff.  I think the Fed's are just trying to protect the $$$ being made on the "war" on drugs.

[n0rlf]

It is clearing it up as it is the only one legalized by some states. None of the other drugs have been legalized for recreational use. Feds just pointing out as it is a recent change and taking away the oh I did not know defense. 

[56FordGuy]

I don't make the laws, but I'm obliged to follow them. 

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Sources checked: Papers of Thomas Jefferson: Digital Edition. Thomas Jefferson retirement papers.”

[Chucktshoes]

16 hours ago, Raoul said:

I don't make the laws, but I'm obliged to follow them. 

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress-RAH