• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Legal Pot and Gun ownership

love4guns

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
167
Location
Lynchburg
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?
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/guncard.pdf
I guess it's up to the individual to decide if they want to risk a Federal Charge or not.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
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.
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
598
Location
Stanwood, WA
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)
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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:

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/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?

"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:

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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://www.justice.gov/usao/ut/psn/documents/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
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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???
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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)
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
987
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA

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.

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:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top