WA Medical Marijuana vs Concealed Carry Permit

[1337BaldEagle]

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.

It seems U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro(hyperlink) would agree with you.

It was actually ruled yesterday in Federal Court in regards to "gun ownership" but not CCW. Which begs the question can you have a CCW without being legally allowed to own or posses a firearm. I imagine the courts will say no.

Disclaimer: This is not necessarily my view on mj, just what the courts have determined.

 

[fd15k]

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?

How about Dave's article ?

May 19, 2011
The Oregon Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that people who use <broken link removed> cannot be denied concealed weapons permits, noting that there is nothing in the 1968 federal gun control act that specifically preempts a state's <broken link removed> licensing statute.

<broken link removed>

There is also this :

on January 13, 2012 at 10:07 AM, updated January 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM

The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 9 decided to pass on hearing Sansone v. Gordon, a Washington County case prohibiting local authorities from denying concealed handgun licenses to medical marijuana users based on federal narcotics laws.

http://www.oregonlive.com/argus/index.ssf/2012/01/justices_wont_hear_medical_mar.html

I'm not sure if I answered your question, and it is also not clear to me what you are asking about BATFE.

 

[Gunwheeler]

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.

So for an instate purchase at a dealer I can tell the dealer where to put his federal form that only state law applies and give me my gun?

 

[Nwcid]

So for an instate purchase at a dealer I can tell the dealer where to put his federal form that only state law applies and give me my gun?

Well that is still a Federal business. I do see your point though.

 

[PiratePast40]

We keep popping back and forth between state law concerning carry permits and federal law concerning purchase of a firearm. And to be honest, I wouldn't know where to look for the federal laws concerning possession vs what we normally discuss, which is purchase.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

We keep popping back and forth between state law concerning carry permits and federal law concerning purchase of a firearm. And to be honest, I wouldn't know where to look for the federal laws concerning possession vs what we normally discuss, which is purchase.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH READ! "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."

It clearly says later in the next paragraph " is basically barred from possessing or receiving guns or ammo."

 

[Nwcid]

We keep popping back and forth between state law concerning carry permits and federal law concerning purchase of a firearm. And to be honest, I wouldn't know where to look for the federal laws concerning possession vs what we normally discuss, which is purchase.

Ask and you shall receive, http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.32

 

[Mr Smith]

Yeah if you think the feds don't care about medical marijuana and it being "legal" for recreational use here.... think again: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...-dispensaries-washington-state_n_3653071.html

The DEA has and will continue to crack down on it.

I'm just waiting for the day they raid everyones homes that have a "green card" as they call them...

 

[Nwcid]

So for the context of this portion of the argument the Federal laws say;

"(3)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),"

21 U.S.C. 802, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/802 has this to say,

(1) The term "addict" means any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.

(27)The term "ultimate user" means a person who has lawfully obtained, and who possesses, a controlled substance for his own use or for the use of a member of his household or for an animal owned by him or by a member of his household.

 

[PiratePast40]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH READ! "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."

It clearly says later in the next paragraph " is basically barred from possessing or receiving guns or ammo."

Then we get back to my question of who actually stepped in to stop the sale. It wasn't the feds, it was the shop owner. The feds got involved during the lawsuit, and then they provided clarification of their policy. The question still remains, when have the feds stepped into gun ownership based on a MM card, with that being the only issue? Sure, there are instances when someone was arrested for a federal crime and illegal firearms possession was thrown in with the rest of the charges. But where have the feds actually looked someone up for a MM card and then cross referenced that with either a state permit or a purchase?

The implication is that legal MM users are a breath away from ATF agents kicking down their doors, and confiscating their guns, but history doesn't seem to bear that out.

I doubt that we'll ever agree on the states rights issue.

I've seen the benefits of MM with a loved one. There are many others who have benefitted from MM when narcotics were a lousy option or not an option at all. The fact that they have chosen a legal option in their state is no reason to deny them the right to self defense.

 

[1337BaldEagle]

Ask and you shall receive, http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.32

You actually beat me too it but this only shows that it is unlawful for someone to partake in "interstate transfers" and "interstate and foreign commerce." Not necessarily for personal use. Not necessarily for within a single state.

Then (d) talks about: "(d) No person may sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person:"...(3) 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),"

Even though it may be lawful in your state it needs to be legal by the CSA for it to be federally ok for someone to transfer a firearm to a person they have "reason to believe" is in violation of the CSA.

Now interestingly enough even though I found plenty making it illegal to you as a transfurer I didn't see one law making it illegal for you as a transferee while being a felon. Not to say there isn't any elsewhere, its just not here.

 

[fd15k]

Well that is still a Federal business. I do see your point though.

Theoretically speaking the issue is that the current dealers are licensed under the USC, and are subject to regulations prescribed by USC. So under FFA a different licensing and compliance framework is required to move the dealers from under the federal purview.

Then we get back to my question of who actually stepped in to stop the sale. It wasn't the feds, it was the shop owner. The feds got involved during the lawsuit, and then they provided clarification of their policy. The question still remains, when have the feds stepped into gun ownership based on a MM card, with that being the only issue? Sure, there are instances when someone was arrested for a federal crime and illegal firearms possession was thrown in with the rest of the charges. But where have the feds actually looked someone up for a MM card and then cross referenced that with either a state permit or a purchase?

The implication is that legal MM users are a breath away from ATF agents kicking down their doors, and confiscating their guns, but history doesn't seem to bear that out.

Feds can't possibly stop the sale because they qualify the buyers based on NICS and NICS does not contain MM records. In addition to disqualification based on NICS dealers are required to deny some sales based on some information that is available to them, like in that MM card case. I have not heard of Feds actually pursuing MM users purchasing firearms after the fact, and likely there won't be many out there due to unavailability of the records, but I totally agree with you that gun owners with MM are totally exposed to the possibility of federal prosecution. That is actually what I said about that lady in the Jackson county - she basically shouted to the feds "I am a gun owner and MM card holder", giving them PC to search her premises for MJ and guns at any time.

 

[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.

Don't sue them. You'll find that if you look at a map, Richland is still in WASHINGTON. The Oregon court ruling does not apply.

 

[fd15k]

Don't sue them. You'll find that if you look at a map, Richland is still in WASHINGTON. The Oregon court ruling does not apply.

Nobody implied that Oregon law would apply, the point there was that Feds have no direct say in who gets the license. Thanks for being difficult.

Essentially I had to get off my bubblegum and look into the WA law. Apparently it does make a reference to the federal law, and qualifies issuance of CPL with the eligibility to possess a firearm under state and federal law. So unless the law is amended or struck down in its entirety by the court for whatever reason, there is no way for MM guys to get a CPL.

RCW 9.41.070
Concealed pistol license — Application — Fee — Renewal.
(1) The chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of a county shall within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person within this state for five years from date of issue, for the purposes of protection or while engaged in business, sport, or while traveling. However, if the applicant does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or Washington state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, the issuing authority shall have up to sixty days after the filing of the application to issue a license. The issuing authority shall not refuse to accept completed applications for concealed pistol licenses during regular business hours.

The applicant's constitutional right to bear arms shall not be denied, unless:

(a) He or she is ineligible to possess a firearm under the provisions of RCW 9.41.040 or <broken link removed>, or is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law;

 

[nastybynature]

I am confused as to why he would go to the City of Richland instead of Benton County Sheriff's office.....

 

[Derbarbarian]

I'm just waiting for the day they raid everyones homes that have a "green card" as they call them...

The funny thing is, there isn't a "green card" at all, It's merely a form signed by your Dr. which I included below. A few years ago when everyone was getting on the MM band wagon kids especially used to brag about having "green cards" that they went to a "special" doctor to get them from and that they paid $300+ for them, they always hated being told those cards aren't worth the paper they're printed on not to mention any doctor can sign said form if you have a "genuine" need for one. A few years ago if a cop stopped you and you whipped out one of those fancy "Green Cards" they would just laugh at you and toss your "stash."

 

[009]

pertaining to original post, Wa. state. this doesn't really make sense. i thought their was such thing as patient confidentialality and no mm registry unless you take orig. authorization to the health dept. and for a fee receive a fancy picture card w/no expire date etc. something just don't sound right about this. was to much personal info. given? and we are talking about Wa. so don't confuse things, remember who the author of confusion is! and for the record i agree with DeanfromOregon #20

 

[Derbarbarian]

pertaining to original post, Wa. state. this doesn't really make sense. i thought their was such thing as patient confidentialality and no mm registry unless you take orig. authorization to the health dept. and for a fee receive a fancy picture card w/no expire date etc. something just don't sound right about this. was to much personal info. given? and we are talking about Wa. so don't confuse things, remember who the author of confusion is! and for the record i agree with DeanfromOregon #20

There is no MM registry, and there's no fancy card, that form I posted above is the only form you need.. Anyone who paid $250-300 for a fancy card with their picture on it is an idiot..

 

[whiskeybill]

What this is all boiling down to is a states rights issue. In Washington, we have determined that the use of marijuana, both medically and recreationally, is legal. However, it is still illegal at the federal level. Period. Firearms use and possession is still regulated primarily by the federal government. Drug enforcement is still primarily carried on with the DEA at the federal level. The current administration has shown a propensity to ignore certain laws. I emphasize ignore! Ignoring a law does not make it go away. What happens when they suddenly decide to enforce the law?

A couple of years ago, the Montana state legislature passed a law that would exempt Montana residents from any federal laws pertaining to firearms purchases. It was a narrowly written law, as you had to be a legal resident of the state, purchasing firearms made in the state of Montana, strictly for use in the state of Montana. The feds smashed that down with the beloved "Commerce Clause".

As far as I am concerned, this whole thing is an engraved invitation for both recreational users and medical card holders to get on a list. I do not know how many of you are in either category, but I can assure you I do not care. I am keeping my nose clean in strict accordance with both state and federal law. That in itself is getting harder and harder to do on a good day with so many "laws" muddying the waters. This is an attorneys' paradise.

 

[Dave Workman]

I am confused as to why he would go to the City of Richland instead of Benton County Sheriff's office.....

To quote Hillary: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE??!!!!