home defense in a medical marijuana grow house

[deadmeat08]

so, i have a friend of a friend (and i really do mean that, it's not me, just someone i know that i said i would research for) who grows medical marijuana. this person grows medical marijuana according to local laws and follows all the rules. unfortunately, they just had to move to a neighborhood that isn't very safe. their property has been shot up during random gang violence. they're afraid of owning a firearm in the case that it brings more charges down on them if the feds raid their house.
the question is, if they're abiding by all the local and state laws pertaining to growing medical marijuana, how does that factor in to defending their home and property from gangs and thugs? can one own a firearm for home/personal defense when one grows medical marijuana in oregon without incurring charges? if the federal government were to raid the house in violation of local laws, would criminal charges be worse?

Read More

 

[22many]

I would suggest you read the thread in the legal and political section pertaining to this subject. I'm sure you will find your answers there.

 

[deadmeat08]

yeah, i didn't really look it up, i didn't really expect this sort of situation to have come up on here before...
i'll search and see if i can find any information pertaining to this sort of thing

 

[deadmeat08]

ok, so from going through the previous topics (which from what i read, only pertain to users), the atf/whatever federal agency specifically denies abusers of federally scheduled substances the right to own firearms.
but what about oregon laws?
if someone is legally allowed to grow medical marijuana in their home for use by local, legally allowed clients, how does that affect the legal grower's right to defend themselves and their property?

 

[Abiqua]

ok, so from going through the previous topics (which from what i read, only pertain to users), the atf/whatever federal agency specifically denies abusers of federally scheduled substances the right to own firearms.
but what about oregon laws?
if someone is legally allowed to grow medical marijuana in their home for use by local, legally allowed clients, how does that affect the legal grower's right to defend themselves and their property?

Marijuana is illegal under federal law. IMO (and just my opinion, IANAL) if the feds raid you for growing pot they'll probably throw everything they can at you including weapons charges, just to see what sticks.

 

[TonsOfOregonBrass]

you might want to read this

http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ATFOpenLetter092111.pdf

 

[civilian75]

I think your friend of a friend of a friend should hire a lawyer now.

Question, do they store their medical marijuana with their medical booze?

 

[coupeowner]

The scarier the gun looks, the more likely "that person" would end up in the middle of a police PR stunt (especially multiple guns). Another worry is how close they are to a school. They always make a big deal out of that. (Seems to me that just about everybody is within a few blocks from a school)

 

[Guilty]

so, i have a friend of a friend (and i really do mean that, it's not me, just someone i know that i said i would research for) who grows medical marijuana. this person grows medical marijuana according to local laws and follows all the rules. unfortunately, they just had to move to a neighborhood that isn't very safe. their property has been shot up during random gang violence.

IMO, your friend of a friend is asking for trouble moving into a crime ridden neighborhood as you described and running a grow operation. Sometimes you can't fix stupid.

they're afraid of owning a firearm

I guess this means that they don't own firearms now and they are thinking they need a gun only because of their grow operation. This cannot end well.

the question is, if they're abiding by all the local and state laws pertaining to growing medical marijuana, how does that factor in to defending their home and property from gangs and thugs?

It will be impossible for them to protect their property from gangs and thugs. The word will get out that they have a grow operation and some lowlife will want what they have. They will not be able to provide 24 hour round-the-clock security.

if the federal government were to raid the house in violation of local laws, would criminal charges be worse?

Of course the charges will be worse. all you have to do is read the news to answer this question.

 

[deadmeat08]

thanks everyone!

 

[22many]

Also don't forget the media. "man grows a large amount of pot and has several assault rifles stockpiled" is the heading I would her on the 10 o'clock news. Even though it may be legal and you have a 22 caliber it still wouldn't look good for your friend.

 

[deadmeat08]

very true

 

[t.huynh]

Compound bow-problem solved....for now..

 

[CharonPDX]

The part to me is, the ATF is lumping "unlawful use" along with "addicted to". Marijuana is one of the least addictive drugs out there, considered by multiple medical sources as less addictive than caffeine.

While I have no doubt that there are many (quite probably even a majority of) medical marijuana users that are right-and-truly addicted, there are some that actually use it sporadically for medicinal reasons. (I have no illusions about it - I support medical marijuana, yet I also fully believe that a majority of those who get prescriptions are doing so solely to "legally" use marijuana for non-medical purposes.) Obviously, those that are truly addicted (even if they are taking it for truly medicinal purposes,) should be excluded from gun ownership. As should those addicted to other obviously-legal controlled substances.

But, for those (who are probably a minority) who actually use it sporadically for truly medicinal purposes... They are not "addicted", so there goes that part. And, by state law, they are using a controlled substance legally. As the Federal Government has stated that they will not prosecute "simple use" of marijuana by those who have state-approved prescriptions, I would argue that the Federal Government has abdicated responsibility for that "crime", and therefore defacto declared it legal. Therefore, it is not unlawful use.

Do I want the pothead down the street toting around a gun? No. Do I think the little old lady who smokes an occasional joint to counteract the effects of her cancer treatment should be allowed to own a gun? Sure, no problem.

Don't punish stereotypes or assumptions, punish actions.

 

[Scott]

Drugs, guns, and possible dead bodies????hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I see prision time coming.......... Fed law always trumps state law and when it comes to drugs and guns it is not a good combo. Legal wise.

 

[22many]

Drugs, guns, and possible dead bodies????hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I see prision time coming.......... Fed law always trumps state law and when it comes to drugs and guns it is not a good combo. Legal wise.

Funny that you should mention that. Years ago (when I was alot younger) I had 3 friends that were pot dealers. After several months of surveillance, all 3 got arrested. 2 friends got 4 years and the other got 8 years. I asked why he got 8 years and not 4 and my friends response was " cause he had guns also". I guess the DA looks at dealing AND having guns as "intent" and "conspiracy to commit".

Now, they were far from legal but it goes to show that just having a gun while doing anything illegal puts you in a whole different set of rules.

 

[8ball]

It's called a 'sentencing enhancement'. This is what happens when you elect 'get tough on crime' politicians who write laws without thinking through the consequences. Your rights get violated even though crime rates have been going down for years.

The Volokh Conspiracy - The Second Amendment and Sentence Enhancements for Firearms Use or Carrying in Connection With Crimes:

A court may add time to a sentence if a defendant was armed with a firearm while committing a crime. RCW 9.94A.533(3). A person is armed while committing a crime if he can easily access and readily use a weapon and if a nexus connects him, the weapon, and the crime. State v. Schelin, 55 P.3d 632 (2002); State v. Valdobinos, 858 P.2d 199 (1993).

This nexus requirement is critical because "[t]he right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the State, shall not be impaired ...." Wash. Const. art. I, § 24. The State may not punish a citizen merely for exercising this right. The State may punish him for using a weapon in a commission of a crime, though, because a weapon can turn a nonviolent crime into a violent one, increasing the likelihood of death or injury.

When a crime is a continuing crime — like a drug manufacturing operation — a nexus obtains if the weapon was "there to be used," which requires more than just the weapon's presence at the crime scene. This potential use may be offensive or defensive and may be to facilitate the crime's commission, to escape the scene, or to protect contraband. In every case, whether a defendant is armed is a fact specific decision.

Since the issue is fact specific, the facts and holdings of our prior cases are helpful. In State v. O'Neal (2007), officers searched the defendants' methamphetamine laboratory. Besides evidence of drug manufacturing, the officers found over 20 guns, body armor, night vision goggles, and a police scanner. A jury found the defendants guilty of manufacturing drugs and added a firearm enhancement. We affirmed the firearm enhancement. Since the weapons were easily accessible to protect the drugs, and since the defendants kept a police scanner in the laboratory, the jury could find that the defendants used the guns to protect the drugs, and so we upheld their conviction.

In State v. Eckenrode (2007), the defendant called the police, alerting them to an intruder in his house. He told the dispatcher he was armed and ready to shoot the intruder. When the police arrived, he was outside his home, sitting on his porch. Police investigated and found he was growing marijuana and had two firearms in his house. A jury convicted him of drug charges and gave a firearm enhancement. We affirmed his conviction and enhancement. The defendant told the dispatcher he was armed. Police found two weapons, one loaded, and a police scanner in the house. Under those facts, a jury was allowed to infer that the defendant armed himself to protect his criminal enterprise and so was allowed to find him armed while committing the crimes.

 

[mjbskwim]

Sorry too many responses to go through,but I just saw a letter at a gun shop from the ATF that pretty much said they aren't real interested in the local laws and that pot was still against federal laws and there for if you hold a medical MJ card you can't own a gun.

I would say you better have non firearms weapons for self defense
YMMV

 

[ShooterMcGavin34]

The bottom line is, if you are going to defend yourself from criminals with a firearm that is your choice. If your friend is legal under Washington law, the chances of a FEDERAL raid on his 15 plant grow in his spare bedroom are pretty much nill if he keeps his mouth shut. If the local police or the feds come knocking on your door, I would suggest you do not open it with a firearm in your hands. Am I a lawyer? No. Do I have a small amount of common sense? Yes. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Gunner3456]

People who wish to retain their freedoms would be wise to obey the laws. To me, retaining my freedoms includes staying out of jail and retaining my right to own and carry firearms.

I will never knowingly put myself in a position where there is any chance I'm penalized, especially by the feds, unless the SHTF throughout society and then all bets are off.