WA Medical Marijuana vs Concealed Carry Permit

[Redcap]

The HIPPAS were the ones that voted to legalize it in the first place!

Anyone with more than three fully-functional brain cells voted for legal marijuana.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Anyone with more than three fully-functional brain cells voted for legal marijuana.

lol.. are you a dope smoker?

 

[Redcap]

lol.. are you a dope smoker?

Heroin? Absolutely not.

 

[deen_ad]

lol.. are you a dope smoker?

Back when I was growing up "dope" was model airplane glue. I never thought of "huffing" it either.


Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
Defender of Freedom Award
NRA Recruiter
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

 

[Dave Workman]

Medical marijuana cardholders can't be denied concealed gun license solely because they use pot, Oregon Supreme Court rules | OregonLive.com

Sue them.............

Medical marijuana cardholders can't be denied concealed gun license solely because they use pot, Oregon Supreme Court rules.

This ain't Oregon, and while it's nice to live in la la land concerning pot, whether its medical or recreational it doesn't matter under federal law and that's what counts. I wrote about this a couple of years ago before the votes in Washington and Colorado. Interviewed a couple of reliable people at ATF. Like it or not, if you're a regular user of a controlled substance, scratch guns off of your "gotta have" list.

It doesn't matter what you or I think, either. It only matters how the feds look at things, and Eric Holder is not gonna be the AG forever, and BHO ain't gonna be president forever, and I wouldn't count on legalized pot lasting forever, either, and I can see a movement already forming:

Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled « CBS Seattle

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Seems gun owners who want to obtain a CPL must break the law and stay under cover

 

[PiratePast40]

That "study" is blatantly biased. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that the study isn't worth the electrons it took to create it. I hope this isn't too offensive, but I think it's terribly hypocritical to protest for states rights and then turn around and cry out that the federal law, or policy, is our guiding light. There is a significant lack of science regarding marijuana and a viable method of determining impairment due to the numerous measurable chemicals how they react with fat cells. Unlike blood alcohol content, there is still not a definite relationship between cannabinoid concentration and impairment.

That so called study, is nothing more that a straw man waiting for a flame to divide people based on emotion and lacking in reputable science.

 

[RicInOR]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/18/challenge-barring-medical-marijuana-lice

Bold & italic highlight from me -

"This is because the dealer knew of Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) rules that stated "if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you…may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person."

Such a person, the feds insist, would fall afoul of Sect. 922(g) of the federal criminal code (from the <broken link removed> ), which says that anyone "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" is basically barred from possessing or receiving guns or ammo.

Wilson thought that BATFE policy violated her Second Amendment rights and sued."


Wilson v. Holder has been dismissed.

 

[PiratePast40]

I realize that you're trying to show a legal precedent, and I agree that in matters involving the ATF, the opinion is certainly important within the 9th district until challenged. However, a Police Chief in Richland Washington, and a state issued permit don't have anything to do with ATF. To me, this is an issue of a police chief interpreting federal law and applying it to something totally different. If there had ever been an instance of a local law enforcement agency or person, being prosecuted by the feds for issuing a state permit to someone with a MM card, then I suppose it may be a different matter. I would also think that it would be well known. Not that I'm in the loop to receive such news, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened.

I have a pretty hard opinion on this. To me, the police chief is saying that a cancer survivor who takes opiates has every right to self protection. But the same cancer survivor who uses medical marijuana has forfeited their rights. I don't buy it.

 

[GunnyG]

I realize that you're trying to show a legal precedent, and I agree that in matters involving the ATF, the opinion is certainly important within the 9th district until challenged. However, a Police Chief in Richland Washington, and a state issued permit don't have anything to do with ATF. To me, this is an issue of a police chief interpreting federal law and applying it to something totally different. If there had ever been an instance of a local law enforcement agency or person, being prosecuted by the feds for issuing a state permit to someone with a MM card, then I suppose it may be a different matter. I would also think that it would be well known. Not that I'm in the loop to receive such news, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't happened.

I have a pretty hard opinion on this. To me, the police chief is saying that a cancer survivor who takes opiates has every right to self protection. But the same cancer survivor who uses medical marijuana has forfeited their rights. I don't buy it.

The cancer survivor has been filling his Rx at Walgreen's, after getting the prescription from his physician at Group Health or Swedish is not a problem. If he gets several diffent Docs all over town, all writing several Rx's for the same thing, then he will be the unlawful user that gets disqualified.

The barely 18 year old kids who got their Rx from Dr Nick at "Club 420" in the sketchy part of town, for their "sudden onset migraines", who is also filling their MM Rx, may be indicative of a too-loose regulatory climate, and a CLEO may be allowing that perception to hedge on his issuing permits.

 

[mpmax]

Or you could stop using it, all the kids say it's not addictive....

 

[GunnyG]

Or you could stop using it, all the kids say it's not addictive....

 

[Doc In UPlace]

So long as the federal law prohibits MJ, the BATFE will remain immovable on this issue.
States can make laws stricter than federal but they cannot make them less so.
This sheriff and any other CLEO is bound to follow Federal guidelines when it comes to gun law, or suffer the consequences. This is not up to local discretion.

It is a logical fallacy to jump from the availability of a substance to conclude everyone would ingest the substance. Washingtonians can get motor oil, too, but nobody's drinking it.

 

[fd15k]

This ain't Oregon, and while it's nice to live in la la land concerning pot, whether its medical or recreational it doesn't matter under federal law and that's what counts. I wrote about this a couple of years ago before the votes in Washington and Colorado. Interviewed a couple of reliable people at ATF. Like it or not, if you're a regular user of a controlled substance, scratch guns off of your "gotta have" list.

It doesn't matter what you or I think, either. It only matters how the feds look at things, and Eric Holder is not gonna be the AG forever, and BHO ain't gonna be president forever, and I wouldn't count on legalized pot lasting forever, either, and I can see a movement already forming:

Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled « CBS Seattle

Actually it is irrelevant what Feds think when it comes to the CPL/CHL issue. Concealed Carry at this time is regulated under state laws only, and only the state law matters when it comes to the issuance of the license. That is how Oregon Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the CHL can be issued to the medical MJ user, even if they're barred from the firearm possession under the Federal law. CHL does not change the possession eligibility criteria under the Federal law, and does not in any way interfere with the Federal law. It merely provides an exception from the state level prohibition on concealment of firearms.

Now given it is WA in question, a lot depends on how the statute is worded, as well as any other stuff like legislative intent and prior case law. So at this time either legislature can specifically amend the law to clarify that state MJ users are eligible for the CPL, or a court decision may force the issuing agency in question to issue the CPL. Either way some stuff needs to be done there.

 

[fd15k]

Oh, one more thing... ATF qualified Concealed Carry permits in some states for an exemption from NICS. That is based mainly on the issuance criteria. Likely the states that issue to MJ users will lose that exemption.

Washington Concealed pistol license issued on or after July 22, 2011 qualify.

http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/permanent-brady-permit-chart

 

[Gunwheeler]

Oh, one more thing... ATF qualified Concealed Carry permits in some states for an exemption from NICS. That is based mainly on the issuance criteria. Likely the states that issue to MJ users will lose that exemption.



http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/permanent-brady-permit-chart

So if I understand the MJ carded person may have a state issued CHL. But under federal guidelines may not legally own a weapon.

 

[fd15k]

So if I understand the MJ carded person may have a state issued CHL. But under federal guidelines may not legally own a weapon.

That is correct for Oregon, and might be true for many other states. Most importantly, based on the Oregon's example we have established that there is no Federal issue in question, issuance is solely governed by the state law (which may also reference federal law, but that's just how the state law is written).

 

[Nwcid]

So if I understand the MJ carded person may have a state issued CHL. But under federal guidelines may not legally own a weapon.

The Feds can only legally control the INTERSTATE transfer of firearms. One simple example, per Federal law no person under 21 can buy a firearm other then a long gun. Yet in WA it is perfectly legal for a person between 18-21 to buy/own any legal firearm, not just long guns.

Here is another, again showing Federal law can not control intrastate commerce, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act Yes I know they are still fighting about it in court.

 

[fd15k]

The Feds can only legally control the INTERSTATE transfer of firearms. One simple example, per Federal law no person under 21 can buy a firearm other then a long gun. Yet in WA it is perfectly legal for a person between 18-21 to buy/own any legal firearm, not just long guns.

Here is another, again showing Federal law can not control intrastate commerce, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act Yes I know they are still fighting about it in court.

LoL, you might just as well say they can only regulate guns in interstate commerce only because "shall not be infringed". Reality is FFA won't survive a challenge anywhere above district level because of the established Commerce Clause framework that lets feds regulate virtually anything.

Take Gonzales v. Raich as an example - can't grow pot at home for your own use because it reduces demand for interstate sale of pot which itself is prohibited.

 

[PiratePast40]

That is correct for Oregon, and might be true for many other states. Most importantly, based on the Oregon's example we have established that there is no Federal issue in question, issuance is solely governed by the state law (which may also reference federal law, but that's just how the state law is written).

Can you show an example where this has actually happened in Oregon? Furthermore, can you show anywhere that this has happened anywhere due to action by the BATFE?