Medical Marijuana and LTCs

[45collector]

[video=youtube_share;wPP_yIerTX0]http://youtu.be/wPP_yIerTX0[/video]

 

[dcmdon]

except that the BATFE can revoke your FFL if they think you are breaking the law.

In theory, you don't need an FFL if the gun is manufactured and sold in the same state. Thats the whole point. If I remember right, the state
actually passed a law stating as such.

 

[jar]

This is the logic being used in Montana or ND (I can't remember which) were people are making machine guns with no federal registration and the state is backing them up.

Got a cite for that? I find it extremely hard to believe that ATF wouldn't come down on that like a ton of bricks.

 

[jar]

In theory, you don't need an FFL if the gun is manufactured and sold in the same state. Thats the whole point. If I remember right, the state
actually passed a law stating as such.

That's not likely to hold up in court given Wickard v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich.

 

[Kevlar]

Ok. I'm just throwing this out to hear what people think. Per the interstate commerce act, if the gun is made in the same state that its used in, the feds have no juristiction.

So if a S&W or Kahr is made here, has never left the state, then compliance with MA laws would really only be relevant. thoughts?

It's an interesting question.

It's been addressed by the USSC relative to 18 USC 922(g)(1)...

The issue in this case is 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.

>snip<

Petitioner was found guilty and he appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 539 F. 2d 331. It held that the interstate commerce nexus requirement of the possession offense was satisfied by proof that the firearm petitioner possessed had previously traveled in interstate commerce. In view of the split among the Circuits on this issue,[4] we granted certiorari. 429 U. S. 815 (1976).[5] We affirm.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=431&invol=563

In theory, the same logic would apply to a violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).

This is the logic being used in Montana or ND (I can't remember which) were people are making machine guns with no federal registration and the state is backing them up.

Not exactly.

Eight states have passed laws exempting most firearms (machine guns specifically excluded) manufactured in-state from Federal regulations...

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state/

That's not likely to hold up in court given Wickard v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich.

IANAL, but it is my understanding that Scarborough remains binding precedent.

 

[higgsmuon]

what does marihua do to you ?

what I hear it is suppose to make you sleepy or slow.

Makes no sense to me at all.

 

[dcmdon]

Got a cite for that? I find it extremely hard to believe that ATF wouldn't come down on that like a ton of bricks.

Google "Montana machine gun law" and you'll get about 100 references.

To date, nobody's pushed it. But it is law in Montana.

 

[dcmdon]

Kevlar,

Scarborough found that offense was satisfied by proof that the firearm petitioner possessed had previously traveled in interstate commerce. This is like a S&W that is made in MA going to Davidsons in AZ where it is then sold to a MA dealer. The firearm has traveled in interstate commerce. So its subject to federal law.

So Scarborough would therefore not apply to a firearm that has NEVER traveled in interstate commerce.

So I don't see how this would contradict Montana law, which specifies firearms made in Montana and kept in montana.

 

[dcmdon]

what does marihua do to you ?

what I hear it is suppose to make you sleepy or slow.

Makes no sense to me at all.

It makes you slow. It stimulates your appetite. It can help with long term pain. Its not chemically addictive.
At higher doses it can make you euphoric.

I know a 50 year old woman with chronic neck pain who uses it. She takes 1 hit in the morning and one in the evening. It has changed her life.

Prior to the accident she was a puritanical teetotaler. She did not smoke, drink coffee or alcohol.
After the accident her doctor put her on perkaset for the pain. Within 1 year she was addicted.
After a week detoxing she tried to manage it with Advil and Aleve. She was not successful.

She ended up on the couch, depressed, afraid to move. Then a hippie friend of hers suggested she try it.
She was very against it at first, then she tried it and it was done.


The truth of the matter is that even if its done recreationally, pot is far less destructive than alcohol.
People are not a danger to themselves or others when they are high. Unlike drunk people.

 

[jar]

So Scarborough would therefore not apply to a firearm that has NEVER traveled in interstate commerce.

So I don't see how this would contradict Montana law, which specifies firearms made in Montana and kept in montana.

Wickard and Gonzales apply though. A firearm made and sold within Montana affects interstate commerce by reducing demand for interstate firearms transfers. I think it's a BS overreading of the commerce clause, but it's the law.

 

[jar]

Google "Montana machine gun law" and you'll get about 100 references.

To date, nobody's pushed it. But it is law in Montana.

First result found:

Section 4. Prohibitions. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Montana from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Montana and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Montana does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Montana from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Montana from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Montana.



Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:

(1) a firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

(2) a firearm that has a bore diameter greater than 1 1/2 inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

 

[dcmdon]

Wickard and Gonzales apply though. A firearm made and sold within Montana affects interstate commerce by reducing demand for interstate firearms transfers. I think it's a BS overreading of the commerce clause, but it's the law.

By that logic, anything could be construed to be within the reach of the Federal government.

Ok, now I have to familiarize myself with Wickard and Gonzales. Thanks. Ignorance is curable. I appreciate it.


So it looks like the Montana legislature pulled back on the machine gun portion. Interesting.
Its interesting that they allow a bore of up to 1.5". so if someone really wanted to push it, they could build and sell, within Montana a 20 mm cannon and not register them as DDs.

 

[dixidawg]

a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

Could also apply to a shotgun.

 

[deezwho]

I would imagine it's also hard to find ammunition made in your home state. Plus you would technically not be able to buy it from someone who holds an FFL anyway.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Wickard and Gonzales apply though. A firearm made and sold within Montana affects interstate commerce by reducing demand for interstate firearms transfers. I think it's a BS overreading of the commerce clause, but it's the law.

Don't take this as gospel as I have no references to it . . .

I recall reading a year or more ago that one argument that the Feds used was that the iron ore used to construct the gun came from another state, so therefore even if made/sold/used in a single state, the Feds contend that it still was a subject of interstate commerce.

Pure BS but judges do lap that stuff up.

By that logic, anything could be construed to be within the reach of the Federal government.

That's the whole idea by the Feds . . . to be able to reach out and "own" everything and everybody!

 

[Thedub88]

I heard that the feds revoked the firearms licences of marijuana card holders in cali

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[pastera]

If a new machine gun were to be produced, it is illegal to transfer in normal interstate commerce. As there is no ability to engage in interstate commerce, how can there be an effect on something that does not exist?

Using the idea of raw materials being the origin of the commerce, if one can prove that the raw material originated in the state prior to the enacting of the relevant laws, is this 'pre-ban' material that could be locally smelted, forged and machined into legal NFA items?

 

[jar]

If a new machine gun were to be produced, it is illegal to transfer in normal interstate commerce. As there is no ability to engage in interstate commerce, how can there be an effect on something that does not exist?

Because it frustrates Congress' effort to eliminate interstate commerce in machine guns. From Gonzales v Raich:

While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

I don't agree with it, but so it goes.

 

[drgrant]

I heard that the feds revoked the firearms licences of marijuana card holders in cali

This makes absolutely no sense, given that 99% of the people who own guns in CA have no such "gun license" whatsoever. There are like 40-50 thousand CCW holders in CA (guestimate) but the average casual gun owner in CA doesn't have a CCW.

-Mike

 

[ochmude]

This makes absolutely no sense, given that 99% of the people who own guns in CA have no such "gun license" whatsoever. There are like 40-50 thousand CCW holders in CA (guestimate) but the average casual gun owner in CA doesn't have a CCW.

-Mike

Maybe he means they revoked FFL's, not CCW's? I wouldn't think feds would even have the authority to revoke a state issued license/permit.

 

[dcmdon]

Maybe he means they revoked FFL's, not CCW's? I wouldn't think feds would even have the authority to revoke a state issued license/permit.

Very good point. I think the above is some kind of urban lore. Legal by state standards, shouldn't affect a state license.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Google "Montana machine gun law" and you'll get about 100 references.

To date, nobody's pushed it. But it is law in Montana.

I think you guys should read United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 (2003) and 451 F.3d 1071 (2006), which is right on point and deals with homemade machine guns. It's a 9th Circuit case, so it's binding on Montana; the fact that SCOTUS vacated the first decision in light of Raich would be extremely compelling persuasive precedent--virtually binding--to other circuits.

 

[Emoto]

Ok, so since some of you with legal minds are reading this thread maybe someone can explain this to me: If a constitutional amendment was required to outlaw alcohol, why was one not required to outlaw pot?

 

[dcmdon]

I think you guys should read United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 (2003) and 451 F.3d 1071 (2006), which is right on point and deals with homemade machine guns. It's a 9th Circuit case, so it's binding on Montana; the fact that SCOTUS vacated the first decision in light of Raich would be extremely compelling persuasive precedent--virtually binding--to other circuits.

Based on this summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart_(2003)

Its another example of the GREATLY broadened interpretation of the commerce clause to include merely the idea that by doing something locally you may affect interstate commerce. Just amazing.
By that logic almost local economic activity could fall under the commerce clause. Oh you are cutting wood on your property? Well, it will affect how much oil you will burn. Oil moves via interstate commerce, so your wood is regulatable via the commerce clause.

Maybe I'm late to the party, but I'm afraid that this great experiment in limited government known as the United States of America is finished.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Ok, so since some of you with legal minds are reading this thread maybe someone can explain this to me: If a constitutional amendment was required to outlaw alcohol, why was one not required to outlaw pot?

Because the early 20th Century progressives actually gave a shit about the process and didn't try to bend words in the Constitution to mean things they never intended. Remember, in 1919 when the 18th Amendment was ratified, Roosevelt hadn't tried to push through the New Deal and his Court Packing Plan yet, both of which helped usher in a new broadened and expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Keep in mind pot wasn't *actually directly* outlawed federally until 1970. From 1937 to 1970, it was outlawed using--get this--the taxing power. During that time, the federal govenment made it illegal to possess pot without a tax stamp. But in order to get a marijuana tax stamp, you had to have the pot in your possession first. You can see how that would go if you applied for a stamp. Opiates and cocaine had essentially been banned under a similar regime in 1914 under the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act.

So while there was a lot of damage done to the Commerce Clause in the 1930's, it was actually a little over 50 years between the time the 18th Amendment was passed and before marijuana was outlawed using the commerce power.

 

[dcmdon]

So by all this logic.

If you live in WA or CO and grow your own pot or buy locally grown pot, you will affect interstate commerce in MJ. So the Feds can regulate it.

Don

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Ok, so since some of you with legal minds are reading this thread maybe someone can explain this to me: If a constitutional amendment was required to outlaw alcohol, why was one not required to outlaw pot?

The govt's understanding on limits on its power has evolved over the years. Back in 1934 the $200 NFA transfer tax was adopted because congress wanted to ban machine guns and it was obvious the constitution did not allow a ban, hence a prohibitive tax - rendering MGs about as unaffordable in 1934 as they are today.

Chicago's deal with the $25 handgun tax is the same thing. My guess is they started with a low tax figuring it might get challenged, and the low $$ amount might result in a court decision that is it "OK to tax handguns" (after all, the feds have been doing it for years with Pittman-Robinson). Once they get that decision, it will be time to add a couple of zeroes to the tax levy.

 

[namedpipes]

How would one use it without possessing it?

Sit and breathe next to someone that is?

 

[MichaelJR]

So, doc gives you a script for a synthetic opiate. You can run next door to kappys and pick up a bottle of cabo wabo, go to town on them both and clean your guns....no problem, big pharm wins and so does the fed, lining their pockets with tax money.

Doc prescribes you a plant, that has legitimate medicinal value, zero addictive properties, and is completely non-life threatening....and you go to jail and you're stripped of your constitutional rights.

Makes perfect sense. Oh wait, the fed is involved, it makes perfect cents (and dollars).