Link

DOJ Prosecuting Pot-Using Gun Owners Despite State Legalization

The Department of Justice under President Joe Biden has begun to target legal gun owners who also use marijuana in the many states that have legalized medicinal or recreational marijuana.

Federal statute makes it a felony punishable by up to 15 years for an unlawful user of a controlled substance to possess a firearm. Gun owners who partake in marijuana according to the laws of their state are therefore left in a precarious position.

The DOJ’s decision to file charges against such individuals has raised eyebrows. Biden pardoned federal convictions for marijuana possession last year. The strict enforcement in states where marijuana is legal has led critics to conclude that the administration is attempting to nullify the Second Amendment through a loophole.

A case is currently pending before the Eleventh Circuit challenging the statute and the DOJ’s enforcement of it. Former Florida agriculture commissioner Nikki Fried sued Attorney General Merrick Garland to overturn the ban in the Panhandle State, where medicinal marijuana is legal. She was joined in the lawsuit by two medical marijuana patients and a person who refuses to participate in Florida’s medical marijuana program “on the sole basis that they are unwilling to concede their Second Amendment rights.”

According to the filing, medical marijuana patients “may legally participate in Florida’s medical marijuana program in accordance with the Florida Constitution and state statute. However, solely due to this state-legal use of medical marijuana, [the Biden administration deems] them too dangerous to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

But the effort is not only being led by Fried, a Democrat. Gun-rights groups have rallied against the ban’s alleged unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.

“Because all Americans are presumptively protected by the Second Amendment, the government can justify prohibiting medical marijuana patients from possessing firearms only by demonstrating that the prohibition is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote the Firearms Policy Council in an amicus brief.

According to the group, the tradition allows for the disarmament of dangerous persons. “But there is no tradition of disarming peaceable citizens, no tradition of disarming ‘unvirtuous’ citizens, and no tradition of disarming citizens based on their status as misdemeanants or felons,” argued the group.

The National Rifle Association has also come out against the ban, with the NRA’s director of media relations Amy Hunter telling Reason that “it would be unjust for the federal government to punish or deprive a person of a constitutional right for using a substance their state government has, as a matter of public policy, legalized.”

Fried and company initially lost in district court, but they hope to prevail in front of the Eleventh Circuit judges.

In a separate case, Judge Patrick Wyrick of the Oklahoma U.S. District Court heard arguments involving Jared Michael Harrison, a medical marijuana employee pulled over by the police and found to be in possession of marijuana and a loaded revolver.

Lawyers for the DOJ were of the opinion that past regulation that prevented intoxicated individuals from possessing a firearm justified their use of the ban in this case.

“The restrictions imposed by each law only applied while an individual was actively intoxicated or actively using intoxicants,” Wyrick argued in response. “Under these laws, no one’s right to armed self-defense was restricted based on the mere fact that he or she was a user of intoxicants [and] none of the laws appear to have prohibited the mere possession of a firearm.”

Whereas the laws the DOJ cited narrowly carved out exceptions to the right of armed self-defense, the firearm possession ban for users of marijuana “takes a sledgehammer to the right.”

“This is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison,” Wyrick wrote. The case is currently being appealed to the 10th Circuit.

With there being a real possibility of a circuit split, the ban could reach the Supreme Court in the near future.

In the meantime, the DOJ is undeterred. It recently filed charges against Deja Taylor, the mother of a six-year-old who shot his teacher in the face. State prosecutors in Virginia seemingly addressed the incident by filing charges against Taylor for neglect and failing to properly secure a handgun.

However, the DOJ has now charged Taylor with possessing marijuana in a state where it is legal. She was also charged with making a false statement about her marijuana usage. She checked “no” on a form that asked: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

Taylor is expected to plead guilty to the charges.

Man, they hate guns & I love guns, but then I’m not a street thug spraying and praying. I don’t smoke dope, but even if I did, it’s not my business.

“Smoke ‘em, if ya got’em.”

[snip] She was also charged with making a false statement about her marijuana usage. She checked “no” on a form that asked: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” [end snip]

This seems shaky to me. How would they know it was a false statement at the time it was answered? Could she have not been a user at the time the question was answered and later given the weed a go?

The issue here is difference between State and Federal law.

Many states, Michigan included, made it marijuana legal by state law. However I recall clearly when this happened the Federal Government made it very clear that it is still illegal at the Federal level. Given that we have several international boarders which are under Federal jurisdiction, it is not legal to transport or possess any federally banned substance, even if it's legal by state law.

This is also why marijuana dispensaries can't deposit their funds in any bank that is FDIC insured as it is considered illegal drug profits. The businesses have to keep it all on site. Many people know this which leads to large vehicles being stolen and driven through the walls of these businesses to steal the the cash reserves on hand.

Fucking hypocrites! They absolutely don't care about marijuana use, safety, or anything but squeezing who they perceive as their political enemies. This is simply media-assisted propaganda to get people to voluntarily give up their guns, or not buy one in the first place, you know, on the off chance that somebody might offer them a toke at a party. You want to get high? That's OK, but you better not have bought a gun, the Feds will be coming after you. Ridiculous!

I’d wager my S/S check All street thugs smoke weed. Go bust them, they’re easy to find.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: recoatlift,

This action by the DOJ would seem to be in conflict with a ruling by a Federal Judge in Oklahoma based on Bruen...Unconstitutional was the determination!

Court rules marijuana users cannot be barred from firearm ownership - result of Bruen ruling

There was a stink for a while the state of CA DOJ was rejecting gun buyers during their 10 day wait if they had a state medical MJ card. It’s pretty much fully legal state-wide and Medical cards not required now but a few years ago before that every stoner would see some shady doc and claim whatever to get an Rx. Nice to know the state databases to be interconnected.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
This action by the DOJ would seem to be in conflict with a ruling by a Federal Judge in Oklahoma based on Bruen...Unconstitutional was the determination!

Court rules marijuana users cannot be barred from firearm ownership - result of Bruen ruling

Interesting schism. Does not being truthful on a federal form still count? For means of rejection despite Bruen ? Technically an unlawful user (federally) despite state ?

I don't get their treatment of weed. They love it and say it should be legal and now they come after you if you use it.
Most big city tourist areas reek of weed smell. I think it will become completely legal in the near future.
My doctor has said that it would be beneficial for me, but for those of us with a clearance, it is a no go.
We had a guy retire recently after putting in 30 years of service. Before he retired, he ordered a Lay-Z-Boy recliner and bought a Tiffany candy dish. After he retired, he sits in his new recliner with his Tiffany candy dish filled with weed gummy bears. He is so blasted all the time that if you text him, it takes days for him to respond.
That doesn't sound like a bad retirement.

quote:

Originally posted by recoatlift:
I’d wager my S/S check All street thugs smoke weed. Go bust them, there’re easy to find.

Well, technically they didn't lie on a 4473, so they haven't violated federal law by filing a false federal form.......

Go for one of the big dogs first - Hunter Biden.

I knew this was coming, they didn’t change the 4473 questions for nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
The issue here is difference between State and Federal law.

Correct. We have a union of states, not an all powerful central government. So conflict is possible.

I think criminalizing marijuana is bad policy for states or the feds. Without going down that rabbit hole too far, it isn't a very dangerous drug, and adults should have that freedom. If alcohol is legal, marijuana is no more and may be less dangerous, anyway.

Second, the feds should not be criminalizing marijuana generally. Defining and prosecuting crime should be the job of the states. If the feds want to criminalize weed on Army bases, they are free to do that. Most federal drug crime is an overreach in terms of federal power.

But, that doesn't mean there can't be a conflict such as the one described. And an anti-gun administration may be more zealous in prosecuting drug related crime if it also has what they see as the benefit of squeezing gun ownership.

The feds making mj a schedule 1 drug in 1970 was somewhat of a harbinger of things to come, the thc potency has skyrocketed since then...

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
The issue here is difference between State and Federal law.

Correct. We have a union of states, not an all powerful central government. So conflict is possible.

I think criminalizing marijuana is bad policy for states or the feds. Without going down that rabbit hole too far, it isn't a very dangerous drug, and adults should have that freedom. If alcohol is legal, marijuana is no more and may be less dangerous, anyway.

Second, the feds should not be criminalizing marijuana generally. Defining and prosecuting crime should be the job of the states. If the feds want to criminalize weed on Army bases, they are free to do that. Most federal drug crime is an overreach in terms of federal power.

But, that doesn't mean there can't be a conflict such as the one described. And an anti-gun administration may be more zealous in prosecuting drug related crime if it also has what they see as the benefit of squeezing gun ownership.

That's right, jhe888.

Except... "it isn't a very dangerous drug".
As stoic-one points out "the thc potency has skyrocketed since then..."
It may not be dangerous in small amounts.
But I don't want to go down that rabbit hole either because your other points are more important.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
That's right, jhe888.

Except... "it isn't a very dangerous drug".
As stoic-one points out "the thc potency has skyrocketed since then..."
It may not be dangerous in small amounts.
But I don't want to go down that rabbit hole either because your other points are more important.

MJ today is significantly stronger than it was in the 70's when it was Schedule 1 listed.

Like Alcohol, anything in moderation is less dangerous.

Nonetheless, agree with JHE regarding Weed on a federal level,

That MJ is illegal increased the drug cartels importing, or using mules, as well as using illegals to bring product in, putting it on Schedule 1 just made the problem worse vs legalizing and taxing. Then again, the image of pot users in the 70's was long haired hippie freaks driving a VW Microbus on the way to a Grateful Dead concert and wasn't what society embraced as normal at the time.

Still, lots saw this coming, whatever ones view is on MJ the law now is, smoke pot lose your 2A rights, and that's possibly why getting MJ off the list isn't happening. It lets the left use it as a weapon on guns.

States need to make POT Card holder data private similar to the way CWP holder information isn't displayed or allowed to be requested under state open records laws.

Otherwise, expect the DOJ to be asking states for CWP information, and MJ Card data and then cross reference for all the gun owners to go after...

With the commies, it is all out war on guns and conservatives. It is currently against federal law, so there is that, but the enforcement of federal laws has become so arbitrary and capricious as to engender very little respect.

Though not personally a fan of drug use at all, I would happily chuckle if Judge Wyrick’s ruling were upheld by SCOTUS and this law were scrapped nationwide.

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
The issue here is difference between State and Federal law.

Many states, Michigan included, made it marijuana legal by state law. However I recall clearly when this happened the Federal Government made it very clear that it is still illegal at the Federal level. Given that we have several international boarders which are under Federal jurisdiction, ...

Oh, it's much, much worse than that. The CBP regards the entire state a "border zone":

quote:

Federal law gives U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, "extraordinary powers" to search vehicles and detain people who are within a "reasonable distance" of the border, the American Civil Liberties Union said.

CBP has set the "reasonable distance" at 100 miles, which makes the state the "functional equivalent" of an international border, the ACLU said.

Full article: Michigan considered a 'border zone,' citizens subject to search, detention, ACLU says

They get away with this because the entirety of the Great Lakes, and the waterways that connect them, are classified as U.S. Navigable Waters.

And, yes: This does mean our home is subject to warrantless search and seizure--as are our cars, just driving about in our neighborhood, dozens and dozens of miles from any of the Great Lakes.

"Federal overreach," anybody?

It was only a matter of time before the Democrats tried this of course.

What’s especially hypocritical is that Hunter Biden has admitted that he was an illegal drug user while at the time that he bought the handgun that his wife later tossed in a dumpster. Yet the DOJ is ignoring that case and moving on to this complete waste of time and money just to harass people.