So there are federal statutes currently in effect that make it a federal crime to consume, possess, grow or sell marijuana. States are creating laws that circumvent those federal statutes. Including the federal District of Columbia.
What would it take to use this dilution of the law to enact favorable gun legislation that also circumvented the federal laws? A few cases where the states beat the feds on MJ laws?
I could see these new MJ laws as providing quite a bit of case law that could challenge gun laws in a similar “states rights” pursuit.
Thoughts? Differences? Compare/contrast? Legitimate things I am missing in the grand scheme?
We arent beating the feds in CO with regard to our MJ laws. We are breaking federal law and the DOJ is declining to prosecute. You can bet your ass they wouldn’t decline to prosecute for more lax gun laws.
CO laws are based of of Colorado Revised Statutes. We do not enforce federal mandates. Most of our statutes coincide with federal law, but we dont enforce it per se. States have to have laws that are at least as strict as Federal law. While we do not have to enforce federal stuff, we can not prevent the feds from enforcing it in our states.
No more than an oz of possession, no public consumption (although Denverites would odorously disagree), no more than 6 plants, no more than 5 ng in a ml of blood when driving, no possession on federal property.
You can be arrested by federal LE on federal property and charged with possession under federal law, and then be booked in to county and held under the federal violation.
If I recall, a few states have thrown down just such a gauntlet over federal gun laws and their enforcement in recent years. Montana was it? Plus a few others…
In each case the feds have chosen to not prosecute and decide the issue. Personally, this makes me a bit nervous. I’m not willing to stick my neck out based on my state laws to see if the feds want a chop at it or not. Anyone else?
If pro-gun federal laws ever do get passed again (Hey, dare to dream…), I’m sure my state would lead the charge to rebel against them and fight them in any way possible. Maybe not. NJ or NY might beat them to it. Sort of a reverse view of the original topic here.
I just saw this. It will be interesting to see what happens, it probably won’t get very far, but still something to keep on the radar. As high of a penalty that unlawful possession of unlicensed NFA items is (losing the right to even possess firearms), it’s not something I would attempt to challenge, but perhaps someone in Arizona will.
This is an interesting bit of wording I’d like to expand on.
While ordinarily that is true, it’s obviously not anymore at least with respect to MJ. Given that state law is less restrictive than federal law, could a sworn state LEO make an arrest based on a federal statute?
I.E. Colorado nullifies all federal gun laws, and the feds decline to enforce but some dickhead LE (either individual or entire department) in Denver arrests a dude for having an unregistered SBR per the federal statute. Where does it go from there? To the Fed DA who declines prosecution? Is the arrest valid?
How about the inverse. You have a Pro-2A LEO/LEA, no state law restricting SBRs, and the feds are enforcing statutes regarding SBRs. Is the state LEO under a legal obligation to make an arrest if there is an unregistered SBR even though there is no state law?
It seems pointless to discuss case law at the moment because there hasn’t been any precedent set as far as I can tell, but the two scenarios above are very plausible under the current situations in CO, AK, WA, as well as pro-gun states like Montana and Wyoming.
I think you’re giving most Repubs too much credit there. My jaded self sees it down to usual issue: $$$
There’s big $$$ for states to sell MJ (and I’m in favor of legalization of it personally even though I have no interest in the stuff personally) and ignore federal law but what financial insensitive does the state have for bucking the federal laws with regards to fire arms and or Repubs defending it? There may be some $$ to be made, but enough to risk being targeted by anti gun groups and politicians and the ilk? Would most Repubs stick their neck out over that topic? Personally, I think not.
“Introduced by Sen. Phil Pavlov (R) on January 16, 2013, to establish that firearms which are completely made in Michigan may be possessed and sold in this state, notwithstanding any potential federal gun bans claiming authority based on the U.S. constitution’s interstate commerce clause.”
Basically, If it’s made in Michigan, Federal gun bans can go pound sand. I don’t think it went anywhere tho. I’ll have to do some digging.
So for instance, the District residents can have up to six plants and up to three of them can be mature. Ok, so if feds roll up to this house and find MJ plants and some stolen fed.gov property and tag the homeowners with a federal drug trafficking operation.
Then the judge throws out the charges, or the jury finds them not guilty because of the DC law, wouldn’t that lend case law backing to the notion that the District (or state) can override the Fed law and give the slippery slope some downward momentum for applying that to gun charges?
I know more than a few people who smoke marijuana and have never had a prior. There’s a lot of people who smoke it, don’t advertise it, and are professionals in the workplace and lead normal, healthy lives. One of the biggest proponents I know is a lawyer and she loves it cause she can relax, unwind and not deal with a hangover the next day.
Obviously, but is any of them going to check “yes” to a Q such as “are you currently using marijuana?” or similar? If anyone is that dumb, they shouldn’t be allowed to work a spoon…:big_boss:
Per above, I’m a proponent of legal MJ being Libertarian leaning/minded.
Would having a MJ possession ticket in ones past ban them from being able to buy a firearm?
I would think not; unless it had occurred rcently/just before filling out the 4437.
How does/would this work? Plenty of people did dumb shit In Their youth, got caught/a ticket but don’t do the things from their youth anymore.
I really think it is bullshit that one cannot posses a firearm or have a right for any reason other than a few mental disorders. And even that is a grey area for me a lot of the time- not everyone with mental issues that COULD cause them to snap and go on a shooting spree will 100% definitely snap and do so.
what really needs to happen is dismantling 90% of our federal government and all the BS that goes along with it. Liberty needs to make a huge comeback soon or things are going to get really bad for everyone.
4473 is a federal, not a state form. It asks if you are an unlawful user of MJ. Per the state regs, you are legal. Per the federal regs, you are not a lawful user of MJ, as no such thing exists. There is a problem, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Keep you from the firearm? No, of course not. Could be a federal felony if something goes sideways…
Could also lose your clearance if you lie, or misstate your MJ use, even if completely legal at the state level.