Richland (WA) Medical Marijuana Patient Denied Concealed Pistol License

[steelerdude99]

And so, for anyone gnashing his teeth and rending his garments about this being wrong:
...

2) That could be fixed. Congress could amend 18 USC 922(g) to provide that an unlawful user of a controlled substance would not include someone using marijuana under a state medical marijuana law. Or Congress could amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for the lawful prescribing of marijuana (just as it does for Oxycontin). Or Congress could fix this in a variety of other ways.

3) So have you written you Congressional representatives?[/list]

Mr. Ettin,
I don't think there's enough public support nor enough congressional votes to override a presidential veto. This president does not want US citizens to own guns. Anything that creates another prohibited person can and will be used. Plus, from what I've heard (but have no real proof), our president was a marijuana in his younger days.

In my opinion (and I'm not a marijuana user), keeping the law just like it is allows for the federal government to ignore users of medical marijuana as well as CO/WA "state legal" users of marijuana until they have or attempt to purchase a firearm. At which time, they'll throw the book at them.

chuck

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I don't think there's enough public support nor enough congressional votes to override a presidential veto. This president does not want US citizens to own guns. Anything that creates another prohibited person can and will be used. Plus, from what I've heard (but have no real proof), our president was a marijuana in his younger days.

In my opinion (and I'm not a marijuana user), keeping the law just like it is allows for the federal government to ignore users of medical marijuana as well as CO/WA "state legal" users of marijuana until they have or attempt to purchase a firearm. At which time, they'll throw the book at them....

That might be, and if so, the laws won't change.

But current law is what it is, and there's not really anything useful to be gained by sitting around grousing about it. We need to understand what it is so that we can avoid violating it, because violating laws can have some undesirable consequences. If the laws are objectionable to you, get involved in trying to change things. If the political reality is against, that's the way it is.

 

[d2wing]

There is more to this. Controlled substances also include many prescription medications used legally. I know a person that was arrested on suspicion of DUI. A blood test showed he had taken Tylenol 2 which contains Codiene, a controlled substance. The person lost his drivers lic and was charged with DUI with an illegal drug. After much expense and several hearings he was cleared of charges and got his lic back. Later when he went to bu a shotgun he was denied by the FBI. No word if these means he can never buy a gun.

 

[Palehorseman]

Good luck with the CC records amounting to anything. Right now in Colorado, recreational marijuana is basically exclusively cash. While ID must be presented at time of sale, its illegal to record any information, its used only as age verification.

Medical Marijuana cards are ISSUED BY THE STATE. OF COURSE they know who has one and who doesn't, and one wouldn't need his medical records to show that he was a medical card holder. There would be absolutely no "raid" necessary to obtain this information. They already have it and are now apparently cross-referencing that info with concealed carry permit applications. Personally, if I was in Colorado or Washington, where recreational pot is now legal, and (at least in CO) no records kept....I'd forego the medical card and simply buy from those supplying the recreational market in order to better protect my privacy.
Under the law, its a completely different animal. There is NO exception for marijuana use under the federal guidelines, even if used medically. Oxy and such is perfectly legal under federal law when prescribed. It doesn't necessarily make sense, but thats the way it is currently.

A recreational drugger drives up, walks in, buys his weed, walks out. gets in vehicle and drives off. Plate is run, vehicle registration is X-referenced with CC records, bingo. ATF does not have to catch everyone, when ATF justifies their existence for more $, even one beats none.

 

[krupparms]

As I live in a state that also issues medical pot cards & is considering laws similar to Cal.,Was.,&Co.. I can see there will be mass civil disobedience as we have seen in other states! Gun sales are way up since the S.O. is gone! ( Well they still have the sheriff. & 1 deputy!). People will just ignore the law! The Federal government & the states will have to change the laws soon as more states go down this road . Here in OR. the state is the one that issues the cards. So it should be no problem to get a list of card holders. Mass civil disobedience is already going on in Oregon!

 

[Frank Ettin]

There is more to this. Controlled substances also include many prescription medications used legally. I know a person that was arrested on suspicion of DUI. A blood test showed he had taken Tylenol 2 which contains Codiene, a controlled substance....

Different issues --

1. A controlled substance is any drug covered by the Controlled Substances Act. That includes medication legally prescribed and used.
   
   
2. It is always a violation to drive on the public roads under the influence of any drug, even when lawfully used, if it can be shown that your ability to drive was impaired by the drug.

 

[suemarkp]

I'm not so sure federal law matters for a state CPL. Washington allows felons to possess firearms, but not "violent felons", and they warn you of that (e.g. a felon may not be able to buy from a gun store, you can buy outside of a FFL and be ok from WA law enforcement but could still be prosecuted in federal court if you got the attention of a federal prosecutor). That is what made it impossible for us to use our CPLs to skip the Brady background check at a FFL because state law was not as restrictive as federal law.

I think Washington tried to get their CPL regulations inline with federal law so we could skip the instant check (that isn't instant) with a CPL. Mine was still issued before the date where they unified with federal law, but I'm not sure if WA is still trying to stay aligned with federal law or not -- the list of issue dates that comply would be ever changing.

 

[benEzra]

I'm sure I might get flamed here for saying this, but it makes me sad that people will fight for their "right" to carry/use a firearm while using weed, etc. How responsible weapon handling and weed go hand-in-hand in some people's minds is something I just cannot fathom.

No one is talking about carrying while intoxicated (whether with cannabis or anything else). We are talking about being denied a carry license, or even the right to own a gun, because you have a prescription to use cannabis medicinally.

Do you believe, then, that if you are prescribed any medication that has alcohol or opiates in it, that you should have your carry license revoked and/or your guns taken away? How about if you buy a case of beer at the grocery store?

 

[deadin]

because you have a prescription to use cannabis medicinally.

A prescription the Feds don't recognize. If I could get a "doctor" to issue me a scrip for heroin, crack or meth, would it then be allright??
Part of the problem is that many (most?) municipalities have "Obey the laws of the City, State and Federal Government" somewhere in their code.

I know my city is waiting for the Feds to come up with something a little more substantial than "We won't enforce the current laws" from an AG that will probably be gone in a few years.

 

[JRH6856]

^^^This!

I believe that MJ should at least be reduced to Class II status which would allow it the be legally prescribed for medical use. But I know that what I believe about this doesn't metter unless there are enough people believing the same way strong enough to successfully pressure Congress to change the law. Unless and until the law changes, it is what it is and is enforceable anytime the feds choose to do so.

 

[sherman123]

Until we can finally get it completely legal on a federal level we will see messes like this. Reminds me of the problems with banking for cannabis shops in Denver. Gotta love these gray areas.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

With respect to those who brought up the "I'm worried about how the state got this information", I believe there is too much pointless worry about this...it's all conjecture at this time because there isn't any information as to how the state found out. Assuming nefarious means is pointless.

Especially when you consider that very likely she filled out forms along the way to getting her CCW permit admitting to the use of marijuana under a medical prescription believing that, since she is complying with state law, her honesty on the subject was perfectly legal. Unfortunately for her, it's federal law, not state law, that she ran afoul of.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Anyone using marijuana should be denied a gun permit of any kind.

I'm trying to figure out what you mean by this. If you mean that anyone currently under the influence of marijuana should be denied a permit, in the same manner that someone intoxicated on any other controlled substance should be denied, then you are, of course correct.

If you mean to imply that anyone that has or even does regularly use marijuana should be denied access to their right to defend themselves because marijuana use somehow makes someone incapable of responsibly making these decisions or whatever, you are, of course, dead wrong. Regular use of marijuana, even recreationally, does not disqualify someone from responsibly owning and employing a firearm any more than drinking a six pack after work. In fact, the derogatory affects of marijuana on your coordination and your decision making skills is much less than alcohol. And the moral ambiguity people apply to this "dangerous drug" does nothing constructive for anyone. Some people are still stuck in "Reefer Madness," and need to understand that the majority of us are hopefully beyond the propaganda...

 

[benEzra]

deadin, the poster I was replying to was making an impairment argument, not a Federal-law argument. I should have quoted more of it to be clearer:

I'm a "Constitutional Carry" kind of guy, and don't believe that permits, disability, etc should stop you from carrying. HOWEVER, I do agree with what "The Bushmaster" said. A firearm is a tool like a hammer or a vehicle. They should all be used responsibly. When you are under the influence of ANY substance that reduces your reactions or mental facilities, you should NOT be using a tool with he capability to cause harm.

It's as simple as that. Yes, it sucks that the medication you use for whatever reason may disqualify you from exercising your Constitutional rights, but you need to also make sure you are exercising GOOD JUDGMENT. When you're drunk, you shouldn't be out target shooting, or trying to utilize a firearm for CCW.

I'm sure I might get flamed here for saying this, but it makes me sad that people will fight for their "right" to carry/use a firearm while using weed, etc. How responsible weapon handling and weed go hand-in-hand in some people's minds is something I just cannot fathom.

Frankly, people that believe these things do mix make me wonder if they are capable of the kind of judgment needed to make proper decisions on weapon handling, or when and how to use a weapon in self defense or defense of others.

To be clear, I am NOT talking about taking away their right to OWN a weapon. I'm just saying that they should not be choosing to try to carry a weapon in public.

FWIW, I misread this post originally to refer to ownership as well; my apologies. But I still think that having a prescription for a medication, or drinking alcohol occasionally, should not disqualify one from a carry license, as long as one does not carry while impaired. Taking a medicine on a medically appropriate schedule does not imply 24/7/365 impairment from same.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Old news. ATF 21 Sep 2011: hold a med MJ card, you are a prohibited person under the standards of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Why act surprised?

http://www.atf.gov/files/press/rele...all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf

ATF: Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees 21 Sept 2011

Old news:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44712648/...juana-users-have-right-bear-arms-no-says-atf/

MSNBC News: Do medical marijuana users have right to bear arms? No, says ATF 9/29/2011


http://www.hightimes.com/read/atf-medical-marijuana-patients-cannot-buy-guns

ATF: Medical Marijuana Patients Cannot Buy Guns, Wed Sep 28, 2011


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/6/medical-pot-users-fuming-over-atfs-gun-sale-ban/

Medical-pot users fuming over ATF’s gun-sale ban 6 Oct 2011


This is old news. Did someone wake up from communing with the hookah smoking caterpillar and smash their face into reality?

Wait until a crusading anti-pot newspaper decides to do a public service like Memphis Commercial Appeal did with the Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit database and put a searachable version of this public record data on-line.

 

[NavyLCDR]

that's funny ,,, the state didn't care about federal law when they gave him a dope card :banghead:

You know, the actually sounds like an excellent basis for a lawsuit. Especially given this from the WA State Constitution:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

and - it is not illegal in WA to possess a firearm under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

 

[egyas]

No one is talking about carrying while intoxicated (whether with cannabis or anything else). We are talking about being denied a carry license, or even the right to own a gun, because you have a prescription to use cannabis medicinally.

Do you believe, then, that if you are prescribed any medication that has alcohol or opiates in it, that you should have your carry license revoked and/or your guns taken away? How about if you buy a case of beer at the grocery store?

Let me clarify, as my original "I agree with Bushmaster" was too curt and not 100% accurate. After looking back at his port, I see that he was saying they shouldn't be able to have a permit. I disagree with that. To me this is like saying that if you drink, you can't have a driver's license because you might use them at the same time.

What I do very much believe that anyone using weed, or other medications that impact ability or mental function SHOULD NOT carry a weapon. Note, I am not saying they should not be able to get a permit, unless they are unable to function without the medication. If they cannot function without medication that diminishes their mental faculties, the I do believe a carry permit should be denied.

I had major spinal surgery 17 years ago (laminectomy and discectomy at L4-L5, and fractures in the discs around that area), and was on morphine, followed by Percocet, then later Darvocet and finally Vicodin for a very long time, before and after surgery. While thankfully I am now back to about 90% mobility, I have not needed pain medication for 15 years. I fully remember however, the effect continued use of those medications had, on both judgment and abilities. I was, in no way, safe to be carrying a weapon then. Here in the People's Republik of Illinois it wasn't an issue (since we had no hope of CCW then), but nonetheless, I would never have even tried to apply were it available. And I would have supported not granting said permit to me based on my condition at the time.

Basically, if you choose to go out and carry, you should forgo using those meds (or medical weed) while you are carrying. And you should forgo carrying for however many hours/days afterwards until you are no longer under the effect of those meds.

If you make the abominably poor decision to carry while under the influence of weed, Morphine, etc, I believe that you should be charged with negligence and/or public endangerment if you are caught. When you are impaired, you are a danger to the community, and should be 100% responsible, civilly and criminally, for your actions.

 

[JRH6856]

You know, the actually sounds like an excellent basis for a lawsuit.

Exactly who would be sued and what would be the basis for the suit?

 

[NavyLCDR]

Exactly who would be sued and what would be the basis for the suit?

Upon further thought, yeah, it probably would be a weak lawsuit. The state certainly could license you to engage in an activity that would disqualify you from the Concealed Pistol License, however.... merely possessing a medical marijuana card or doctor's recommendation is not proof that the person actually used it. I believe it is state policy to deny the CPL if the person has a medical marijuana prescription - AND you sign for a release of medical information when you apply for a CPL in Washington. I think that could be fought successfully in court. "I got a prescription. I tried it. It didn't work. I quit using it. Therefore, I was wrongly denied a CPL based upon a card or prescription for a substance I am no longer taking."

In addition, persons without a CPL must submit an application to purchase a handgun to the local LEO for approval if they want to purchase a handgun from an FFL in Washington. I wonder if they are denying the applications to purchase a handgun if the applicant has a medical marijuana prescription?

This is the statement on the Washington CPL application:
"Signing this application authorizes the Department of Social and Health Services, as well as mental-health institutions and other heath-care facilities, to release information relevent to your eligibility for a conealed pistol license to an inquiring court or law-enforcement agency."

 

[JRH6856]

"I got a prescription. I tried it. It didn't work. I quit using it. Therefore, I was wrongly denied a CPL based upon a card or prescription for a substance I am no longer taking."

The problem is, the federal law which prohibits firearm possession doesn't distinguish between current or past use.* Just trying it once to see if it worked, (which is freely and voluntarily admitted in your example) is enough to disqualify and make firearms possession a federal felony. So by denying the CPL, the state is actually preventing you from committing a federal felony. I guess you should be grateful.

You might be able to make a case that by issuing the medical card the state knowingly impairs the protected right, but what releif could you seek? And you would still be a federally prohibited person no matter what the outcome.

*ETA: OK, actually it does make a distinction, but still allows inference of current use from past behavior. There is some wiggle room here.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The problem is, the federal law which prohibits firearm possession doesn't distinguish between current or past use. Just trying it once to see if it worked, (which is freely and voluntarily admitted in your example) is enough to disqualify and make firearms possession a federal felony. So by denying the CPL, the state is actually preventing you from committing a federal felony. I guess you should be grateful.

That's OK. You can still "try it once to see if it worked" and then run for president of the United States. That's worked for at least two presidents that we know of.

 

[JRH6856]

That's OK. You can still "try it once to see if it worked" and then run for president of the United States. That's worked for at least two presidents that we know of.

But they they don't need to carry guns. They have SS agents to carry guns for them. Besides, they only admitted it while campaigning and we know anything said during a campaign doesn't count.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Actually, having looked at the statutes, and read through the ATF letters cited above, the law DOES distinguish between current and past use.

Here's what it says:

Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/
transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:
(1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
(3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;

Present tense verb here...IS an unlawful user or IS addicted to.

I also left the first stipulation in there as well, as it may be possible for a person to have been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year related to marijuana use or possession. In this case, a past conviction meeting this would result in revocation of this right.

http://www.rip.uscourts.gov/rip/supervision/firearmpossession/FirearmPossessionProhibition.pdf

So President Clinton and President Obama, though they admitted to marijuana use years ago, are NOT prohibited from owning or possessing any firearms because they are not currently an unlawful user or addited to it AND they were not convicted of any marijuana crime wherein the punishment for that crime had a maximum sentence exceeding one year.


Here's a link showing federal marijuana laws and penalties:

http://norml.org/laws/item/federal-penalties-2

Which means President Obama can shoot skeet all he wants.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Actually, having looked at the statutes, and read through the ATF letters cited above, the law DOES distinguish between current and past use....

See post 25 in which I quote the applicable definition from the ATF regulations and a court decision on the question.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

^^^^

Errr...I freely admit to having looked back to exactly that post prior to googling your reference.



But when I read through the statute, I saw the other stipulation about criminal conviction that wasn't covered in your post. So I googled that as well, for the second link.


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but my interpretation of the first clause in the statute I cited (about criminal conviction) would mean that a person convicted of a federal offense of possession of marijuana has a misdemenor conviction with a max imprisonment of one year.

Which means that a past conviction for first offense possession (sufficiently far enough in the past to be deemed sufficient for not a current user as well) would NOT be a reason to deny a person the right to own or possess a firearm.

However, a person convicted of a second federal offense for possession WOULD be reason to deny them the right to own or possess a firearm because, even though it's still a misdemenor AND the person may only serve 15 days of actual jail time, it is a conviction which carries a maximum of 2 years prison time. "For a second conviction, the penalties increase to a 15-day mandatory minimum sentence with a maximum of two years in prison and a fine of up to $2,500."


Am I correct in my interpretation?