Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 89

Thread: Legal Pot and Gun ownership

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lynchburg
    Posts
    167

    Legal Pot and Gun ownership

    Just a question. Can a person own and carry a gun while in possesion of Marijuana in your state now? If its legal wouldn't it be treated simlair to Beer and Liquor?

  2. #2
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    IMHO to have a firearm and pot on your person at the same time would be at your own risk.

    Regardless of State Law, Federal Law makes pot an illegal substance. To purchase a firearm you would have to lie on the Form 4473 which would be a violation of Federal Law. A "user" of a prohibited substance is also a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. http://<br /> http://www.justice.go...ts/guncard.pdf
    I guess it's up to the individual to decide if they want to risk a Federal Charge or not.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or or any other controlled substance?
    Well since marijuana is not addictive that's a no.

    It is lawful now in our state.

    The Feds don't like it and their law does not trump ours, unless we want to totally throw the constitution out the window.

    This does not mean your local LEO won't sell you out to the Federal Government.

    Does it mean the Feds can totally trample your liberty and property rights? Yep.

    Will this fear keep most of us from partaking, I think it will keep many. I am not a fan of marijuana myself, but will fight for the right for others to do with their bodies what they want.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013
    I think carrying openly under the influence of any mind altering substance, including alcohol and weed, is a bad idea. Impairment and OC don't go hand in hand. That said, at home, if you want to light up, now that it's legal (not sure where you would legally BUY it, mind you) nobody should tell you otherwise. Just like if you want to get a good drunk on. It's nobody's business but yours. If you chose to carry in public openly and were visibly impaired....constitutionally? I think that's your right. But in WA, could they get you on .270? I know I wouldn't want to go through the court system to fight it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Well since marijuana is not addictive that's a no. <snip>
    Heavy drinking does not equate to addiction, just as heavy weed use does not equate to addiction.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by compmanio365 View Post
    I think carrying openly under the influence of any mind altering substance, including alcohol and weed, is a bad idea. Impairment and OC don't go hand in hand.
    +1
    That said, at home, if you want to light up, now that it's legal (not sure where you would legally BUY it, mind you) nobody should tell you otherwise.
    +2
    Just like if you want to get a good drunk on. It's nobody's business but yours.
    +3
    If you chose to carry in public openly and were visibly impaired....constitutionally? I think that's your right. But in WA, could they get you on .270?
    They might charge you, but it's not very likely that it would stick.
    I know I wouldn't want to go through the court system to fight it.
    Been there. Done that. Didn't get a t-shirt. But, I haven't lost a .270 challenge yet! (he said, knocking on his head, thinking that it was wood)
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lynchburg
    Posts
    167
    [QUOTE=sudden valley gunner;1862356]

    Since its technically not "unlawful" a person could check that box saying they don't use unlawful marijuana. To commit perjury one has to knowingly provide false information right? Something like this will end up in appellate court one day.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    [QUOTE=love4guns;1862487]
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post

    Since its technically not "unlawful" a person could check that box saying they don't use unlawful marijuana. To commit perjury one has to knowingly provide false information right? Something like this will end up in appellate court one day.
    The form does not seem to reference a Federal statute in regards to drug use. So what exactly is the signer testifying to?

    "Unlawful" under Federal law, or "Unlawful" under state law. It seems ambiguous.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 12-06-2012 at 03:41 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    IMHO to have a firearm and pot on your person at the same time would be at your own risk.

    Regardless of State Law, Federal Law makes pot an illegal substance. To purchase a firearm you would have to lie on the Form 4473 which would be a violation of Federal Law. A "user" of a prohibited substance is also a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. http://<br /> http://www.justice.gov...ts/guncard.pdf
    I guess it's up to the individual to decide if they want to risk a Federal Charge or not.
    The federal prohibition of marijuana existed in a legal gray area, so long as there was no legal source of marijuana within the national borders of the United States. The prohibition of intoxicants is one of the legal powers the U.S. constitution reserves to the states; The federal government simply lacks authority, even under the supremacy clause, for anything not specifically granted to it by the constitution, and doubly so for anything specifically denied to it by the constitution. This is why the 18th amendment was ratified in 1919, to override the 10th amendment to make federal prohibition of alcohol constitutional. The feds had exactly the same amount of supremacy over the states when it came to prohibiting an intoxicant in 1918 as it does today in 2012, and they needed to pass the 18th amendment to make prohibition legal.

    The 21st amendment wholly repeals the 18th amendment, returning the law on prohibition to the state it was in in 1918. The 21st does clarify that the federal government has the authority to block interstate and international smuggling of intoxicants into any state where they are illegal, but this does not grant them the authority to prohibit any intoxicant within a state if the state does not wish to do so. Importing marijuana into Washington is only illegal at the moment if state law prohibits it; It sortof does, since marijuana must be approved by the liquor control board in order to be legal.

    The U.S. constitution forbids Congress to pass any laws relating to things the federal government is not allowed to meddle with. An unconstitutional law is null & void from the moment of inception, not from the moment of successful legal challenge, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional amendment that renders an existing law unconstitutional renders that law null & void from the moment the amendment takes effect.

    A federal law that makes it illegal to possess a firearm while committing a crime becomes null & void (at least for that particular "crime") if the crime in question is one that is due to a law that is constitutionally null & void.

    That being said, nobody would have ever invented police if nobody ever broke the law or violated an oath. We'd just be sworn not to ever break the law some time in childhood. Just because the law says something, doesn't mean people will obey it, even if they've sworn a sacred oath to obey it.

    An interesting point of constitutional law though, is that NO ONE outranks an elected county sheriff when it comes to law enforcement within that specific county. If the county sheriff is on board with the legalization, then federal agents won't be able to enter the county to enforce unconstitutional laws without being subject to arrest, trial, conviction and imprisonment.

    Then there's federal law. 18USC241 and 18USC242 make it a criminal act to use official authority under color of law to infringe upon the rights granted to any citizen by the laws of the United States or protected by the constitution. Violating these statutes is worth a year in prison for a simple oral discouragement; Ten years if a threat of a dangerous weapon is involved or two or more officials work together to violate rights, and is an actual for-real capital crime (life without parole or execution) if anybody dies as a result of the violation of rights. When was the last time you saw a federal SWAT team that was unarmed, or consisted of only one agent?

    [QUOTE=Dave_pro2a;1862496]
    Quote Originally Posted by love4guns View Post
    "Unlawful" under Federal law, or "Unlawful" under state law. It seems ambiguous.
    What federal law? An unconstitutional law is null & void from inception, not from successful challenge. Prohibition of intoxicants is an authority reserved to the states under the 10th and 21st amendments. When Washington legalized marijuana, the federal prohibition of it within the state of Washington became unconstitutional.
    Last edited by Difdi; 12-06-2012 at 04:01 PM.

  10. #10
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    IMHO to have a firearm and pot on your person at the same time would be at your own risk.

    Regardless of State Law, Federal Law makes pot an illegal substance. To purchase a firearm you would have to lie on the Form 4473 which would be a violation of Federal Law. A "user" of a prohibited substance is also a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. http://<br /> http://www.justice.go...ts/guncard.pdf
    I guess it's up to the individual to decide if they want to risk a Federal Charge or not.
    ATF Form 4473
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    It seems to me there are enhanced federal penalties for using a gun during the commission of a drug crime. I vaguely recall a court case where the word use was litigated because the prosecutor asserted mere possession constituted use. I think the federal appellate court agreed. But, my memory of the case is pretty vague.

    I wouldn't wanta be a test case.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-06-2012 at 04:21 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    [QUOTE=Dave_pro2a;1862496]
    Quote Originally Posted by love4guns View Post

    The form does not seem to reference a Federal statute in regards to drug use. So what exactly is the signer testifying to?

    "Unlawful" under Federal law, or "Unlawful" under state law. It seems ambiguous.
    18 USC 922 (Gun Control Act of 1968)

    (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to 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));]
    The 4473 even says "are you an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana...."

    without a doubt federal law.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Heavy drinking does not equate to addiction, just as heavy weed use does not equate to addiction.
    True statement.

    Intoxicated is intoxicated. Doing it frequently does not equate addiction.

    I know pot heads who will stop without symptoms, I know alcoholics who have very bad symptoms. Anecdotal on my part, but I do recall reading evidence somewhere that contrasted the addictive non addictiveness of the two substances.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by jphoenix View Post
    Opinion withheld.

    Ahh come on now don't be shy. Don't be afraid to speak your mind.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    True statement.

    Intoxicated is intoxicated. Doing it frequently does not equate addiction.

    I know pot heads who will stop without symptoms, I know alcoholics who have very bad symptoms. Anecdotal on my part, but I do recall reading evidence somewhere that contrasted the addictive non addictiveness of the two substances.
    Yet the Federal law doesn't distinguish between using or using to excess when it comes to Marijuana. Just using, period is against the law.

    Anyone can make the argument that pot is less of a problem than alcohol but they can't make the argument that it's legal under Federal Law.

    Simple answer, use at your own risk. No problem under WA Law. Big problem under Federal Law if you mix in a firearm. Can you afford that risk???
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  16. #16
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    True statement.

    Intoxicated is intoxicated. Doing it frequently does not equate addiction.

    I know pot heads who will stop without symptoms, I know alcoholics who have very bad symptoms. Anecdotal on my part, but I do recall reading evidence somewhere that contrasted the addictive non addictiveness of the two substances.
    Yet the Federal law doesn't distinguish between using or using to excess when it comes to Marijuana. Just using, period is against the law.

    Anyone can make the argument that pot is less of a problem than alcohol but they can't make the argument that it's legal under Federal Law.

    Simple answer, use at your own risk. No problem under WA Law. Big problem under Federal Law if you mix in a firearm. Can you afford that risk??? (not the "you" personally, but the "you" collectively)
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Yet the Federal law doesn't distinguish between using or using to excess when it comes to Marijuana. Just using, period is against the law.

    Anyone can make the argument that pot is less of a problem than alcohol but they can't make the argument that it's legal under Federal Law.

    Simple answer, use at your own risk. No problem under WA Law. Big problem under Federal Law if you mix in a firearm. Can you afford that risk??? (not the "you" personally, but the "you" collectively)
    Yes my first response in this thread covered that as did many other responses. The form you mentioned mentions being addicted to this is what OC4me are discussing.

    And no just using isn't against the law period. Difdi has a good post on that subject. Unconstitutional law is not necessarily law, the framers thought this way why should we think differently.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member Difdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Question 11d in there would seem to violate the fifth amendment. I know that courts have upheld one's right to lie to prevent self-incrimination in other matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    No problem under WA Law. Big problem under Federal Law if you mix in a firearm. Can you afford that risk??? (not the "you" personally, but the "you" collectively)
    Unconstitutional laws are null and void. Can you point to where in the U.S. constitution it says the feds can prohibit marijuana? I can point to two places where it says they can't.
    Last edited by Difdi; 12-06-2012 at 08:20 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Difdi View Post
    Question 11d in there would seem to violate the fifth amendment. I know that courts have upheld one's right to lie to prevent self-incrimination in other matters.



    Unconstitutional laws are null and void. Can you point to where in the U.S. constitution it says the feds can prohibit marijuana? I can point to two places where it says they can't.
    They rely on unconstitutional rulings from a government appointed court to rule in favor of the government. The constitution a law restricting government is pretty much ignored unless it fits their purpose.

    Thomas Jefferson forewarned this....

    You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    As normal misreading of the law or this form to support ones position

    ATF Form 4473
    11e Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

    While the State now allows marijuana possession the Federal Government still does not and applies here.

    Being an unlawful user and citing marijuana as well, it still applies since you are applying to the federal government to purchase the firearm.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    As normal misreading of the law or this form to support ones position

    ATF Form 4473
    11e Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

    While the State now allows marijuana possession the Federal Government still does not and applies here.

    Being an unlawful user and citing marijuana as well, it still applies since you are applying to the federal government to purchase the firearm.
    Covered. It would be helpful if you were more specific and actually quoted anything anybody "misread to fit their own purpose".

    No one was misreading anything . Discussing the or addicted to part...........it is not addictive.....

    So your personal opinion of unconstitutional federal law is that it isn't null and void?
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 12-06-2012 at 08:56 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by jphoenix View Post
    You reallywant me to speak my mind?
    Yes I do. I welcome open dialogue and debate.

    Okay. First of all, unless it is medical marijuana a person has no business carrying it,
    this is opinion, you have no business telling what others do with their bodies.

    especially along with a weapon. A loaded or unloaded. Second, some tried pot in high school, college but grew up and became responsible. No finger pointing but the topic of illegal drugs then add in a firearm really gets under my skin. I have seen what can and has happened with drunk drivers running into the vehicle of a family minding their own business. People under the influence of even pot that had impaired judgement shott and kill not just anyone but a child.
    Yep I don't smoke it or imbibe in it either. I do have a good micro beer every once in awhile.

    How many pot heads get into wrecks can you cite that, how many die of over taking?
    Do you have evidence that the child would not have been shot if they didn't indulge in pot?



    I cannot count using my fingers and toes how many of those types calls I responded to as a Fire Fighter and yes, I can see each one of those victims as clear today as I did the time of the emergency response.
    Not clear if you are talking about pot or other drugs.

    Rights? What about the rights of a 5 year old girl that got shot by a 24 yr old under the influence of pot and decided to play bullseye practice in his backyard with his pot smoking buddies. He missed his target, they were laughing that they hit a house next door. They stopped laughing when they learned that 5 year old was taking a nap in the room the bullet entered.
    Was pot the only thing they partook in? Would this not have happened if they were just complete idiots?

    I take gun ownership and carrying very serriously for many reasons. A main one if I have seen first hand what happens when idiots have them.
    So you are for stronger gun regulations?

    My stong opinion. You have pot on you lock the gun up, period, no question. Ownership and being on medical marijuana, take it up with your criminal defense lawyer. Some bar associations have a 30min $30.00 deal.
    I would respect your personal opinion here if you didn't differentiate between being on medical marijuana, and if you held the same view point for all pharmaceuticals. Doesn't mean I'd agree.

    Last, I do value my rights as a legal citizen of the U.S. and stand up for myself and my rights and those of others but I also choose to which times I will fight and which I will comply and fight later.
    I can't selfishly pick what rights I'll fight for, I feel we all have rights or we all don't.

    I get along with local law enforcement, I do not see them as my enemy. Have called upon their service a couples times here already. Each time the officers were polite and professional. No one will change my respect for a LEO. He or she is no different than any other working LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZEN, just chose a different ine of work.
    Good for you. Of course government employees making thier living off of tax dollars show respect for each other. I have had many respectful encounters with LEO too, and I have had some very negative ones and have first hand witnessed how cops can get away with illegal activity without punitive penalties. And no you or the cop are not choosing a line of work like any other citizen, you are choosing a line of work that takes money from citizens, recognizing this and admitting this will help put who deserves respect first into perspective.

    And if you should dial 9-1-1 and I respond to the call, I will provide the highest level of emergency care as I can even if I do not agree with your remarks made on some of my previous posts. Don't pee in my boots and I won't in yours. Do we have a deal?
    I am absolutely glad you will still do your job you take my money to do. I'm not quite understanding the remarks section since this is the first dialogue we are having.

    I am not sure what you mean by peeing in your boots, does this mean I shouldn't disagree with you or state my viewpoints on public servants?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  23. #23
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    I read the OP as asking if simple possession of MJ, not use or intoxication.... at the same time being in possession of a firearm? Correct?

    Simple possession is legal in WA, as of today, so simple possession with a firearm on your person would not pose a problem.

    Intoxication is defined in the law, both for alcohol and MJ...public intoxication is not tolerated, armed or not armed.

    As to the feds? They can pound sand...and take their unmarked helicopter with them. Yes boys and girls, they have what we used to called a LOACH in Nam, and do their pattern searchs for grows up here every fall. They do not fly at legal height above the ground, and they do not have a readable license number on that helicopter either. Both are illegal, but then try get them for it.

    I am not a user, I will not be a user now that it is legal, but if that is what you like, be discrete, and relax at home. Just like you should not go out and party too hard with alcohol, same goes for MJ.

    I expect a court challange if the feds should try bully the state on this, that is assuming this new AG is wirth his credentials.

  24. #24
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Proof Marijuana can be hazardous to your health http://www.king5.com/news/marijuana/...182389881.html
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  25. #25
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    The ATF dropped by the shop today and dropped off some information. One piece of information that they passed along is that if someone says they have in their possession a "Medical Green Card" then they are disqualified from making a gun purchase.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •