A user of cannabis, even if legal under state law, violates federal law (18 USC 922(g)(3)) if he has possession (physical control and/or access) to a gun or ammunition. Violation is punishable by up to ten years in federal prison (18 USC 924) and would automatically include a lifetime loss of gun rights.
[I] It doesn't matter whether he acquired the gun or ammunition before he began using cannabis. It doesn't matter whether he acquired the gun or ammunition from a private party. Someone who is a user of cannabis, even if legal under state law, may not legally, under federal law, have possession of any gun or any ammunition — no matter where or how acquired.
[A] Under 18 USC 922(g)(3) it is unlawful for anyone who, "…is an unlawful user of … any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))…." to, "…possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce…."
[B] Possession is broader than ownership. See U.S. v. Booth, 111 F.3d 1 (C.A.1 (Mass.), 1997, at 1):
"…The law recognizes two kinds of possession, actual possession and constructive possession…. Even when a person does not actually possess an object, he may be in constructive possession of it. Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time of exercising dominion and control over an object or over the area in which the object is located. The law recognizes no distinction between actual and constructive possession, either form of possession is sufficient. Possession of an object may be established by either direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove ownership of the object,…"
[C] A gun or ammunition which has ever traveled in interstate commerce satisfies the statutory, "… in or affecting commerce…" requirement. See U.S. v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir., 2001), at 200:
"…the Court in Scarborough v. United States had the opportunity to address squarely "whether proof that the possessed firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce is sufficient to satisfy the statutorily required nexus between the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and commerce." 431 U.S. 563, 564 (1977). The Court accepted the Government's contention that it only need prove that "the firearm possessed by the convicted felon traveled at some time in interstate commerce." Id. at 568. Thus, the Scarborough Court established the proposition that the transport of a weapon in interstate commerce, however remote in the distant past, gives its present intrastate possession a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to fall within the ambit of the statute. Because S 1202(a) is the predecessor to the current felon-in-possession statute, this statutory construction applies equally to S 922(g)(1)…."
[D] Cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance, and as such can not be legally, under federal law, prescribed, sold, possessed, or used.
[E] Therefore anyone who uses cannabis is an unlawful user of a controlled substance under federal law, even if legal under state law, and thus prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition.
[II] See Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011), in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user; BUT the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 – 1066):
"…Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials…"
And thus the Oregon Supreme Court specifically acknowledged that while Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun, she could still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).
Its sad you can have a gun while being prescribed all types of other terrible meds yet weed come on… wake up. All these laws are only based on another man or woman's opinion, based on voluntary compliance!!
How about Airing on the side of the Constitution. " Shall not be infringed upon". Cannabis smokers don't commit violence. Alcoholics and Opiates oh and Men that get home from work early do. lol
Do not get your medical marijuana card, lobbyist are praying that you do, so they can take your Second Amendment right away from you. Once you get your card, about five or 10 years down the road they’re going to illegalize the marijuana card again and you cannot and will not be able to get your second amendment back. Lobbyist pay billions of dollars to these companies to get you to get your medical marijuana card so they can take your gun rights away. If you do not believe me do your homework
Screw them someone needs to fight them. Your protected in my oppinion by the 2nd,9th and 10th amendments. I can’t tell you what to do but I know I live in an open carry state and I have my medical lic I grow, and yes I carry. Come at me bro I’ll fight you police state communist bastard politicians
States are complicit since they're the dope man.
Drunk people should not have a gun, high people should… the reason is ovious.
Having a card technically does not mean you use cannabis. It just means you have access. Correct? 🤔
A user of cannabis, even if legal under state law, violates federal law (18 USC 922(g)(3)) if he has possession (physical control and/or access) to a gun or ammunition. Violation is punishable by up to ten years in federal prison (18 USC 924) and would automatically include a lifetime loss of gun rights.
[I] It doesn't matter whether he acquired the gun or ammunition before he began using cannabis. It doesn't matter whether he acquired the gun or ammunition from a private party. Someone who is a user of cannabis, even if legal under state law, may not legally, under federal law, have possession of any gun or any ammunition — no matter where or how acquired.
[A] Under 18 USC 922(g)(3) it is unlawful for anyone who, "…is an unlawful user of … any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))…." to, "…possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce…."
[B] Possession is broader than ownership. See U.S. v. Booth, 111 F.3d 1 (C.A.1 (Mass.), 1997, at 1):
"…The law recognizes two kinds of possession, actual possession and constructive possession…. Even when a person does not actually possess an object, he may be in constructive possession of it. Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time of exercising dominion and control over an object or over the area in which the object is located. The law recognizes no distinction between actual and constructive possession, either form of possession is sufficient. Possession of an object may be established by either direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove ownership of the object,…"
[C] A gun or ammunition which has ever traveled in interstate commerce satisfies the statutory, "… in or affecting commerce…" requirement. See U.S. v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir., 2001), at 200:
"…the Court in Scarborough v. United States had the opportunity to address squarely "whether proof that the possessed firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce is sufficient to satisfy the statutorily required nexus between the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and commerce." 431 U.S. 563, 564 (1977). The Court accepted the Government's contention that it only need prove that "the firearm possessed by the convicted felon traveled at some time in interstate commerce." Id. at 568. Thus, the Scarborough Court established the proposition that the transport of a weapon in interstate commerce, however remote in the distant past, gives its present intrastate possession a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to fall within the ambit of the statute. Because S 1202(a) is the predecessor to the current felon-in-possession statute, this statutory construction applies equally to S 922(g)(1)…."
[D] Cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance, and as such can not be legally, under federal law, prescribed, sold, possessed, or used.
[E] Therefore anyone who uses cannabis is an unlawful user of a controlled substance under federal law, even if legal under state law, and thus prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition.
[II] See Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011), in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user; BUT the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 – 1066):
"…Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials…"
And thus the Oregon Supreme Court specifically acknowledged that while Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun, she could still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).
Its sad you can have a gun while being prescribed all types of other terrible meds yet weed come on… wake up. All these laws are only based on another man or woman's opinion, based on voluntary compliance!!
I'm pretty sure the best CBD is on the Weedborn website.
How about Airing on the side of the Constitution. " Shall not be infringed upon". Cannabis smokers don't commit violence. Alcoholics and Opiates oh and Men that get home from work early do. lol
For marijuana card hit me on
Kik I'd: 73sct
Email: ntifang@gmail.com
Just leave your weapon at home when you are going to buy it and taking it back home. Then just dont keep it on you when you are carrying your weapon.
There's a thing called the 2nd amendment that trumps any fascist law.
Do not get your medical marijuana card, lobbyist are praying that you do, so they can take your Second Amendment right away from you. Once you get your card, about five or 10 years down the road they’re going to illegalize the marijuana card again and you cannot and will not be able to get your second amendment back. Lobbyist pay billions of dollars to these companies to get you to get your medical marijuana card so they can take your gun rights away. If you do not believe me do your homework
Screw them someone needs to fight them. Your protected in my oppinion by the 2nd,9th and 10th amendments. I can’t tell you what to do but I know I live in an open carry state and I have my medical lic I grow, and yes I carry. Come at me bro I’ll fight you police state communist bastard politicians
If you answer yes to medical marijuana on the 4473 you’ll be denied so I’d think no.
simple fix, make it legal on the federal level. Issue resolved