Austin Case Illustrates Threat to Gun Rights Posed by Marijuana Use

States that have decriminalized or legalized marijuana

courtesy governing.com

“California attorney Bruce Margolin, who is among the country’s pre-eminent litigators for marijuana law, said he has never seen a case before in which the government packaged pot use with gun possession to criminally charge someone.” Margolin is talking about the case of Steven Boehle, an Austin man who’s just plead guilty to use of a controlled substance while owning firearms. And as part of the plea agreement, he has to give up his guns.

“Have not had that come to my attention in my 50 years of practice,” said Margolin, who is the executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “Seems very arbitrary, unjust, unfair to say people who use marijuana shouldn’t have the same rights as other people in our society to protect themselves and their families.”

That may very well be. But it’s federal law. The Brady Bill prohibits gun ownership by anyone who is a user of or addicted to any controlled substance. Under the 1993 law, smoking weed makes you a prohibited person. That’s becoming a bigger issue as more states — 29 of them now — decriminalize marijuana possession and/or use to one degree or another.

Boehle’s probably not the most sympathetic figure in the ongoing clash of state and federal laws where marijuana usage and gun rights collide.

Federal and local authorities arrested Boehle on April 12, a day before they say, according to an informant, he planned to celebrate his 50th birthday by shooting police because he was upset about a drunken driving arrest in which his blood test came back negative for alcohol.

A search of the St. Johns Avenue home where Boehle was living netted three firearms and 1,110 bullets. A subsequent search of a South Austin storage unit rented to Boehle discovered 10 more guns, all rifles. In the home, authorities say they found 6.3 grams of marijuana along with a note that read, “The great miracle will take place at 8:30 a.m. on Holy Thursday.”

U.S. Judge Mark Lane reviewed the letter and called the threat “marijuana-induced gibberish.”

So no charges were ever brought against him for the alleged threat. Regarding the weed, however…

Boehle was slapped with unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and with making a false statement in connection with the attempted acquisition of a firearm. The latter charge is related to a 1993 misdemeanor conviction in Connecticut for domestic violence in which Boehle slapped, choked and bit his girlfriend. The conviction was entered into a national database, triggering purchase denials by three Austin gun shops Boehle had visited.

However, during pretrial litigation the charge was determined to be insufficient to prohibit gun possession.

So the main beef against Boehle is the weed possession.

With their case weakening, prosecutors held tight to the gun-and-weed charge, using it to successfully to argue that Boehle should be denied bond and kept in jail pending the resolution of the case.

And keep him in jail they did…for eight months.

Boehle contended that the law provides no clear definition of what constitutes a “drug user.” Is that one bong hit? Once a month useage? If you used regularly in the past and have stopped, how much time has to pass before you’re no longer considered a user any more? That’s apparently been adjudicated.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals established the definition of an unlawful drug user who is unable to own guns in 1999, when it affirmed the conviction of a Midland man who had been arrested several times with marijuana. He argued on appeal that the law fails to establish a time frame for when a person must use a controlled substance in connection with the possession of a firearm. The court ruled that an ordinary person could determine the man was a drug user. He was sentenced to two years in prison.

Although Boehle had never been arrested for drugs, he likely met the standard because investigators said his girlfriend told them he smoked pot regularly.

Being caught with over six grams of wacky tabacky would seem to indicate regular use. Hence, Boehle’s attorney advised him to take the deal that was being offered.

After pleading guilty to the charge in September, Boehle, 50, was sentenced to five years of probation this month. … The probation conditions require that he forfeit the 13 guns that investigators seized from two Austin locations and that he submit to drug testing. The latter condition could be complicated by a new Texas law that allows a form of marijuana to treat epilepsy, which Boehle has had since he was a boy, according to his sister.

What happens if his doctor prescribes CBD oil to treat his epilepsy? That’s anyone’s guess at this point.

What this convoluted case illustrates, though, is that federal law hasn’t begun to catch up to the new reality of the every-increasing number of states that have decriminalized or outright legalized marijuana use. The Trump administration is reportedly re-examining policy in effect during the Obama years that let states set their own laws, while the feds continued to fully enforce the statutory prohibitions.

Will any change to the Brady Bill’s ban on gun ownership by weed smokers result? Don’t count on it. Not if you value your gun rights.

comments

  1. avatar Sam I Am says:

    One sentence in the article poses a bigger than this issue question”: What to do with people convicted of a crime, after the activity is no longer criminal? Especially in situations where civil rights were forfeited for convictions before the crime was decriminalized. Is it OK that now you can keep your rights for activity that was once a crime, but for those convicted prior to the change, it is just “Too bad, so sad”?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      At no point has the use of marijuana been decriminalized on the only level that matters.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Yes. And?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Which makes the point moot. A drug conviction is a drug conviction. Just because the state decided to go full retard and start handing out soma tablets, doesn’t mean the feds have to play along.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Punish the crime, not the pre-crime, maybe-crime, might do-crime. Drug and Alcohol crimes are attempts by puritans to make people “act right”. They are “sin” crimes.

          I do not care how many people want to destroy their lives with chemicals. I do care if their actions harm others (just living with an addict is not “harm”). If the threat of punishment would end drug and alcohol abuse, it would have happened already. Just because elected officials have a delegated authority to create laws does not mean every law is justified, effective, or publicly useful. Show me how many people were deterred from using drugs and alcohol just because there were laws against consumption or possession. Punish the crime, leave everyone else alone.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Unfortunately, we’re going to have to disagree. I know enough (and I’ll admit it’s not a lot) about pharmacology to know that there are drugs that should not be allowed into circulation. Drugs with 100% addiction rates and absurd rates of inducing psychotic episodes. I’ve seen police reports of addicts going full 28 Days Later psycho zombie before.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Where is the crime in any of that? You are describing a medical emergency.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          How about we start with negligence? But if I have to explain to you why letting people have free access to drugs like that is a horrible idea, we have little to discuss. Until you realize that your ancap bullshit is a childish temper tantrum that doesn’t work in the real world, you’ll be forever frustrated as to why society decides to tell you to go fuck yourself. Human society is a delicate balance. The positions you advocate here lead to results just as horrific as any you would attribute to your “statist” boogeymen. Until you grow up and acknowledge that you can’t always get what you want, even if you really really think you should, you’ll keep screaming at a wall. Have fun.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Did you just computer-generate a bunch of random words for your response?

          My point was punish drug an alcohol addicts for actual crimes committed while under the influence. When has any pre-action prohibition been effective much? 18th much?”

          Look, if you want to use your gun to shoot your toes off, I would reject the notion you should be called into account by law enforcement; they were your toes, and you harmed no one else. Shooting my toes off is completely different. You committed an assault with a gun. Time to punish.

          Just to be consistent, know that I do not support the idea of trying to “save” someone from suicide. Their life is their life, their decisions are their decisions. I am responsible for neither. However, if the person wanting to commit suicide attacks cops in the hopes of SBC, if the attacker lives, they should be charged and convicted of a capital crime. Punish the crime, not some sort of “moral” turpitude.

          Addicts need medical and maybe psychological help. They do not need to be made criminals in the bargain. But, once again, just how many people are deterred from being addicts simply because “the law” makes those addictions illegal?

        7. avatar Ollie says:

          And ?????
          If you use dope and purchased your firearm after the Form 4473 was “updated” to include the dope question, you have committed a felony.
          If you get caught, whether or not you are charged with a felony depends on how big of a nuisance you are to your local & federal authorities.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          No dispute here.

          If someone wants to use drugs, and does no harm (commits no crime), why should there be laws against drug use? In the case you cite, the person who lied on the form committed the crime of lying on the form. Punishment for lying (criminal act) is perfectly logical. Punishment for using the drugs is not punishing a crime, but punishing a behavior in and of itself. Puritanical poppycock.

          If drug laws “work”, what is the magical ingredient the alcohol prohibitionists overlooked in the war on “demon rum”?

      2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        We had to pass an amendment to ban booze. Please cite the amendment passed to give the Feds the authority to ban a plant.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          Especially when that plant is legit for consumption according to the Bible — marijuana qualifies as an herb of the field and is therefore ‘approved’ for use in food.

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    Sorry buddy your conundrum sucks…don’t threaten people in a psychotic haze and mebbe I’ll care. DUH…federal law and all that crap.

  3. avatar Dan l says:

    Over half the u.s. population has smoked weed. Over half the population owns firearms. It hasnt been a problem. People arnt shooting people high on weed. If u did a ven diagram theres a big segment that likes weed and firearms my guess 20 to 25% of u.s. Thats alot of people that can lose rights and privledges including your freedom. So its okay to own guns and be on dr prescribed opiods, but you cant own guns if you are on much milder and better for you weed….

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      I’ve only ever seen two people stoned and with guns. Neither was interested in shooting anything — he was loading, emptying, and reloading a 25-round .22 toy, she was spinning the cylinder on a .45 revolver and “cleaning” the barrel with cotton swabs dipped in Neosporin.

      The only worry I would have with mj and guns is the small set of people for whom a heavy THC hit can result in paranoia (which happened to me when I was given brownies without being told not to eat more than about a tablespoon worth — though in my case it made me go around making sure my guns were secure).

      1. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        Or if said person smoked weed laced with something else like PCP which is what causes the person to become violent, not by mj on its own.

  4. avatar Andrew Faulkner says:

    I would rather have pot heads with guns than drunks with guns, but alcoholics are not prohibited.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Being an alcoholic doesn’t support narco-terrorists.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        You win the interwebz serge😄Ya know drugs pretty much wrecked my sons life. Mostly pot as he was(is) genetically predisposed to mental illness. And I smoked my fair share of weed longago. What a waste of time,money and ambition…

      2. avatar VerendusAudeo says:

        Neither does cannabis. Most of it is grown in California or Canada by regular people.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          So what’s in all those 70# packs they keep smuggling across our southern border?

      3. avatar trollolol says:

        You understand legalization puts those people out of business right?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… Funny how unregulated pot will still be cheaper than regulated pot.

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          serge, the only reason unregulated mj might be cheaper than regulated is government interference in the free market.

          For example in Oregon, research had indicated that the price of an ounce should drop by half or more if it were legit — so of course the politicians handed a government bureaucracy the authority to write the rules about selling it, and they deliberately rigged things so the price dropped maybe ten or fifteen percent — at which point counties and municipalities jumped in and added taxes to bring the price right back up.

          Which meant the number of people growing it at home just increased.

    2. avatar EatMyArsenal says:

      yes they are. its says so on the 4473.

  5. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    y’all newly coined austinites steer clear of oat willie’s now, y’hear?
    set ~that~ phazer on stun and you’ll have a conundrum of your own.

  6. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Support your local law enforcement, Theey and the laws they enforce are there to protect us.

  7. avatar kyle says:

    Why “negotiating” on ‘reasonable gun control’ has always and will always be a bad idea.

    When my friends and family bring up ‘common sense gun control’, i say piss or get off the pot.

    abolish the 2nd or go away.

    …they go away.

  8. avatar Grendal says:

    Odd it is never a straight clear cut case. Yet, why no challenge that the fed can’t make gun laws.

  9. avatar Iggy says:

    If you want to be a Junkie, then no pew pew pew!

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “If you want to be a Junkie, then no pew pew pew!”

      A junkie is defined as an addict or someone with compulsion issues. I would venture to say that no one “wants” that.

      Also, it’s not “no pew pew pew” it’s “no rights for you”.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Fail to see the problem. Don’t do drugs. It’s not rocket surgery.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          You fail to see the problem with people effectively losing their 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights just because someone said “drugs”? That’s the problem.

          Here, this is the kind of shit that happens all the time thanks to the WoD: Read it carefully. Loose tea and a tomato garden are now an excuse for SWAT raids. That is, as you would say, pants on head retarded. Oh, and they had to take this to the 10th Circuit and spend five years of their lives to get any form of justice. That’s AFTER a Federal District judge found in favor of the police on all counts.

          http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-hydroponic-tomato-garden-police-raid-20170729-story.html

          Please explain how any of this is justified?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Shit happens. The world is not perfect. The alternative is worse.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          I’m really not sure how you can make that claim without any data to back it up.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I fail to understand what you don’t understand, and why you need “data” to prove what is obviously proven: if you don’t engage in an activity, you avoid the negatives. Doesn’t need objective scientific data. If you hourly smash your hand with a hammer, once you stop, the pain soon ends. Do you need data to believe that claim?

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          I think he’s talking about mass drug legalization… Ok… Here’s your data… pre-Opium Wars China. (Post Opium Wars was even worse, but there are extenuating circumstances.) You know the one that was so crippled by mass opium addiction that they couldn’t fight off a handful of third line warships.

        6. avatar Roymond says:

          So in the world according to serge, all the government has to do to eliminate Second Amendment rights for millions would be to add to the list of what makes one a prohibited person — say, speeding tickets for more than ten mph over the speed limit, any crime involving alcohol, etc. etc.

  10. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    I use my AXMC as a pipe. The local headshop/gunsmith makes a $900 adapter.

  11. avatar jwm says:

    This guy sounds like an asshole that had been violent in the past and was talking of being violent in the near future. They got his guns no matter how twisted their logic was. That’s what they wanted. His guns.

    I believe weed should be legal. But I don’t write federal law.

    1. avatar Ollie says:

      If he was really the victim of a false arrest, why didn’t he just sue the police ?
      A liberal Austin jury would have given him a big bag of money.
      The fellow was stupid.

  12. avatar Tony Cox says:

    I think the underlying issue here that is going to have to eventually be solved is the differences between federal law regarding marijuana and the increasing number of states that are ignoring federal law and legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana.
    As it stands, such legalization or decriminalizing is unconstitutional; something is going to have to give, either the federal law is going to have to change, or states are not going to be allowed to supersede federal law. Citizens being caught in the middle of contradicting laws is unfair to the citizen. Where do the courts in the individual cases come down? On the side of state law or federal law?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      State laws do not supersede federal laws. The State and the Fed are parallel and independent jurisdictions. Just because you are not committing a state level criminal offense does not mean you are not violating a separate and independent federal statute. Pot laws are one example, treason is another. Robbing a federally insured bank is both, and in fact you can be separately prosecuted in each jurisdiction.

      Word to the wise: Jeff Sessions wants to re-institute the federal prosecutions relaxed under the Obama Administration for pot law violations. Which means if you are selling pot legally under state law that the feds may still pay you an unfriendly visit. They have the authority to shut you down, seize your stock, and indeed even seize the property you own or lease, and throw you in jail. The business records you keep that the state requires will prove the case against you. Will it happen? Who knows. It is Trump’s call.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      No, Tony, what’s unconstitutional is the federal drugs laws in the first place — there is no basis whatsoever for them in the Constitution; hence, such power lies in the hands of the states. In a SCOTUS that understands the Constitution, the first case with state decriminalization v federal law, every federal drugs law on the books would get tossed.

  13. avatar Tony says:

    I think the underlying issue here that is going to have to eventually be solved is the differences between federal law regarding marijuana and the increasing number of states that are ignoring federal law and legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana.
    As it stands, such legalization or decriminalizing is unconstitutional; something is going to have to give, either the federal law is going to have to change, or states are not going to be allowed to supersede federal law. Citizens being caught in the middle of contradicting laws is unfair to the citizen. Where do the courts in the individual cases come down? On the side of state law or federal law?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Separate sovereigns. There is no constitutional conflict. Just because you didn’t break state law doesn’t mean .FED doesn’t get a crack at you. Quite honestly, if I were the DEA, I’d be raiding “dispensaries” every other day. It’s a slam dunk multi-felony conviction.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        You touch on a tiny, little, not so much known “loophole” in so-called “double jeopardy” rules. Separate sovereigns means both fed and state can come at you for the same crime, and not violate your constitutional rights.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I wouldn’t call it a loophole so much as a failsafe. The only time the feds file charges is when the state courts manage to fuck things up.

      2. avatar Tony says:

        Unless I’m mistaken, state law cannot supersede federal law. If the federal government declares something illegal, but then a state declares that same thing is legal in that state, then either the federal government has to put their foot down regarding their constitutionally given authority, or there is a conflict, which is what we have now.
        If I’m the federal government, I don’t know that this fight is worth fighting

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          Yes, Tony, you’re mistaken. According to the Constitution, unless that document clearly assigns a power to the federal government, any state law on the matter trumps and federal law.

          So county sheriffs in those states which have decriminalized marijuana should arrest any federal agents persecuting their citizens.

      3. avatar StuPidasso says:

        What is it about marijuana prohibition that has you so excited? You seem to be under the same opinion as the movie Reefer Madness. Smoking or eating canabis products is not like using dangerous or addictive drugs. In fact it is safer than alcohol and not addictive unlike alcohol. Not that I am accusing you of taking a drink here and there. Nobody is dying smoking weed or beating the their wives because they are too high. I hate that gun rights are being tied to this. Drunks are scary and unpredictable. Never in my life have I seen a person under the influence of canabis be threat because they were high.

        The fact is you need the support of people like me. I believe in freedom for all legal US Citizens. Guys like you are on the way out. Overall we believe the same things we just have different morals. I just don’t support laws that enforce said morals on anyone.

        Educate yourself on where the money goes that is spent on marijuana. It is not the cartel. It is a USA made product. In fact many of these places are staffed by veterans and the small business owners that run them are as hard working as any other farmer.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          “Not addictive”… Yeah… BULLSHIT.

        2. avatar EatMyArsenal says:

          pwrserg, you are probably the most ignorant pussy on ALL of these forums. why don’t you quit being a 5 year old troll and OD on your soma tablets. 1) marijuana is the ONLY drug that natural. 2)anything can be addictive: pepsi, alchohol, cheesebergers, FU**ING ELMER’S PASTE! pot DOES NOT give withdraw effects which is what “hooks” people making them addicts (aside from terrible self control). 3) if you have no idea what you’re talking about SHUT THE FU** UP!! As someone who smoked before the ARMY, got more medals than anyone else in my platoon, got out, still smokes, and can manage a firearm better than most civilians? ya… you are SO FU**ING WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU POST!!!! because everyone who smokes is a brain dead burnout that cant function? wrong, 100%. I see your ass everywhere on her being a fu** boy about everything. shut up dude, you’re a closed minded bent dick. Being high on PCP and high on pot are two COMPLETELY different things.. And, lastly, it’s just as easy to get fu**ed up off cough syrup as it is drinking liquor, you gonna ban that too? dumb ass…

  14. avatar strych9 says:

    I’ve said this before: This is a very grey area of the law.

    As the article asks: What constitutes use? When does someone cease to be a user after having used the substance? A day? A week? Six months? 27 years? Further, what part does intent play in this? What if the person decided five days ago to throw out all their pot and just quit using? Still prohibited or not?

    Further, the law as written can be used to go after a wide variety of people. Have a bad car accident and display the “wrong symptoms” coming off the pain meds after a bunch of surgeries? You’re addicted to a controlled substance under the law, turn over all your guns or face the wrath of the law.

    Folks can make the “junkie” argument all they want but the truth is there are a lot of people who could technically run afoul of this and lose their rights for taking Rx painkillers after a serious injury.

    Then there’s the possession issue. I haven’t smoked dope in a long, long time. However, pot being legal in Colorado I have allowed someone to store a reasonably small amount of it in my house when they left the state for a state where the substance is not legal. I’ll pass any drug test you wanna give me but technically for those few days I possessed the drug. I was not a “user of or addicted to” so how does that all work out in court?

    The laws on this simply can’t cover all the possible scenarios in a reasonable way. It’s time to remove pot from being Schedule 1 and, really, probably disband the DEA.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Time to remove all drugs from the schedule; legalize them all.

      No drug laws, no drug crime. Why do we insist on making everything so complicated?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Because I don’t think it’s a good idea to give a good chunk of the population that is already functionally retarded, and in dire need of a post-birth abortion, firearms and PCP. That would be what we call a BAD idea.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Laws do not stop the bad guys from getting guns. Laws do not stop the lame-brained from getting drugs. Punishment for the violations is all that is at stake. Can’t get bad guys off the street fast enough to make the effort cost effective. If a bad guy with a gun, or a lame-brain with drugs commits a crime while under the influence of either a gun or a drug, there are laws to punish that behavior. Or, as you might say, make it more “illegaler”.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… Except with drug laws, we can prevent drug psychosis by going after the dealers. Getting stoned out of your gourd to the point of being a danger to yourself and others is not a right. Neither is supplying an idiot with the means to do so.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          “Yeah… Except with drug laws, we can prevent drug psychosis by going after the dealers.”

          Riiiiiight. Because there are no drugs in the US thanks to the current laws. No dealers either. So much prevention is taking place that it’s almost a full blown miracle. We might need to get the Vatican in on this to see who needs to be Sainted!

          This is the same argument that was used to support Prohibition, which failed really rather spectacularly and effectively created what we now know as organized crime which was used, in part, to create the NFA. I’m not seeing the upside for anyone on this, except of course the gangsters who got rich as fuck off selling bathtub gin.

          You’re trying to use laws to change basic human behavior. That always has been and always will be a fool’s errand.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          So long as we don’t deal with dealers like the vermin they are, it will continue to get worse. The reality is that so long as people consider drugs to be “no big deal” we’ll always have a problem. Simple solution is to punish anybody who perpetuates this stupidity. A jail sentence for possession may not deter other users, but a public flogging would work far better. The reality is that we don’t have real punishments. Modern jail is a professional school for career criminals. This needs to change.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Obviously public shaming, religious rectitude, fire and brimstone preaching, and a whole bunch of PSAs haven’t done anything to alter behaviors. Why keep wasting time and effort? Besides, drug dealers are only “vermin” because they operate a supply chain for what should not be illegal goods. Do you really think we (society) just haven’t been smart enough to find a way to persuade people to not become addicts, use chemicals to excess? That we just haven’t spent enough money? Look at the history of trying to control addictions? Why does the problem grow? Did you even notice that after the 21st amendment was passed, the addiction problem didn’t generate near the number of criminals engaged in bootlegging? The cure proved worse than the problem. Back then, even the primitive minds of people who were completely opposed to hedonistic behavior understood the futility of corralling “demon rum”.

          If people who want to poison themselves do not harm others, why should that activity be a crime? We only have all the drug-related crime because society decided to “clean up sin”. As recent as the 1880s, cocaine was completely legal. It was only the general “temperance” movement in this country that created uncontrolled crime in drug and alcohol trafficking. No drug laws, no drug crime, no cartels, not “vermin” dealers. Make the stuff as openly available as it once was (Coca-Cola, anyone?)

          Fight the fights you can win.

        6. avatar StuPidasso says:

          You keep putting all kinds of drugs in the same category. This article is about marijuana and gun rights. You started talking about state governments handing out Soma tablets in your first comment. Later you talk about people using PCP and shooting the place up. Wow!

          Drugs laws don’t really prevent anything that gun laws don’t prevent. Are they effective, do you believe gun laws stop crimes? Do you feel the same way about drug laws? You seemed to when you said that drugs laws prevent drug induced psychosis. So you must agree with the statement, “gun free zones stop gun crimes.”

          You are a hypocrite.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah. That argument is right up there with “but muh’ Alcohol”. Let me simple it up for you. A gun is not a drug. It does not destroy your faculties and make you less useful as a member of society. Selling a gun to someone is not the same thing as selling them PCP. The point of laws is not to prevent crime. No law does that. The prevention school of jurisprudence is pants on head retarded. What laws do is punish anti-social behavior. For example. If you spend your life being stoned out of your gourd, you are a drain on society. Thus, society has two choices, remove you or correct your behavior. “Muh’ freedom” is not an argument when the end result of your actions is a society of stung out addicts depending on the remaining 30% for their next handout / fix.

        8. avatar Jim says:

          I don’t think anything pwrserge has ever said has been true, what a doofus.

        9. avatar Roymond says:

          It’s not just the politicians who didn’t learn anything from Prohibition, it’s serge too.

  15. avatar Scott says:

    People who smoke pot should have the same rights as any other good citizen. Responsible citizens who consume alcohol are allowed 2nd amendment rights why should it be different with weed ? Outdated laws and minds need to catch up

    1. avatar MLee says:

      In theory, same rights sounds fine, except for some actual realities thrown in. I know a number of major pot head and you know what, they act like f—ing pot heads. I don’t drink, use any medications nor smoke pot. I also have a pilots license and carry concealed. Would I want one these pot heads I know partaking in aviation? Hell NO!
      Someone who takes a hit once in a while is quite different than people who smoke it everyday, virtually all day. I know the type and they are idiots. They are pot heads. I’ve known the type and been around them almost my whole life.
      The reality is, I’d rather not have bake heads stoned on pot all the time carrying firearms around. It’s no different that allowing a damn drunk to operate a motor vehicle.

      We can talk rights all the day long, but that’s my opinion. You want to be a pot head, you’re not carrying.
      Having a firearm in the home is one thing, but personally, I’d disallow constitutional carry or carry licenses for those who are using marijuana. Don’t like it, tough, don’t be a pot head.
      PS: I live in Washington State.

      1. avatar Enzo Baldwin says:

        I’m pretty sure that most states have statutes against carrying under the influence. I fail to see how that wouldn’t apply to marijuana as well. If you’re using any substance in a recreational manner to the point that you’re impaired than you shouldn’t be carrying. Shoot I’ve ridden my motorcycle past people asleep at the wheel on the freeway that I wouldn’t trust to have the reaction time to use a firearm.

      2. avatar meadowsr says:

        How’s that any different from someone whose orange juice in the morning is actually half a screwdriver, has some beers to tide them over ’til their three-martini lunch, more beers until Happy Hour kicks in, downs a bottle of wine at dinner, then bourbon night caps? I’d be more concerned about this person exercising their Second Amendment-protected right than the pot head.

        This is where the hypocrisy lies, IMO.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Some look at a glass and see it as half-empty.
          Some look at a glass and see its as half-full
          I look at the glass and think, “Oh boy, free beer!”

  16. avatar GS650G says:

    Don’t smoke weed and never tried it. Can’t see any benefit to it and I don’t see the medical benefit either.

  17. avatar anonymoose says:

    Just legalize it already! Trump actually said he would legalize weed if congress put it on his desk. Hillary wanted to double down on.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Huh? [CITATION NEEDED]

      1. avatar StuPidasso says:

        He actually said during a campaign stop that it should be left up to the states. Later Roger Stone encouraged him to support legalization. Trump said he believe federal law should be abided if there is one but that states should decide marijuana laws. It was during the campaign. In February of 2017 Jeff Sessions spoke out against marijuana and said he was going after it. Trump later tweeted that Sessions had much bigger fish to fry than low hanging fruit like marijuana.

        I am huge Trump and Roger Stone fan.

        1. avatar Scott says:

          a perfect example is Joe Rogan. He smokes about everyday and is an expert bow hunter and hunts for his own meat. He is also a standup comedian,bjj black belt, commentates for the ufc, and runs a podcast. He lives his life at a high level and is a regular pot user. We still have outdated views. Abit discouraging

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    I’m not in favor of disbarring pot smokers from their 2A rights. And if the feds ever try to stigmatize martinis, I might feel like going all Rambo on their a$$es.:-)

  19. avatar ironicatbest says:

    Support your Local Law Enforcement. Thank an officer today. The BATFE is overburdened with the tax money they are making on those products already, let’s not flood them with revenue from legalizing Marijuana too.

  20. avatar Jb says:

    The feds will eventually make weed legal. The states that have legalized are raking in the taxes and the fed won’t pass on that.

  21. avatar Joe R. says:

    The convicted dude should at least be able to sell his not-otherwise-illegal goods. Letting the cops take your guns is the real crime.
    WTF happens to confiscated guns? PBA Fundraiser time? Proceeds to purchase black market unstamped cigarettes to fund your next Fast and Furious inside war on the U.S. Border Patrol so Obama holdovers can keep the doors open for criminal illegals, terrorists, and drug gangs, so you can justify crime fighting budgets??? Sh_t sounds like CA wild-firefighting and Jerry ‘NERO-FEMA’ Brown.

  22. avatar Michael says:

    If you read both the Shafer Report and a report from the Drug Adviser to the UK, one Professor David Nutt. You will find that cigarettes, alcohol, and even caffeine are worst than cannabis. Just like suppressors, SBR, SBS, and most full autos…marijuana is purely a recreational product that harms no one unless improperly used.

  23. avatar Dylan Caylor says:

    This comment thread is so cringe worthy, if you’re not applying the same logic of firearm ownership to marijuana possession/ consumption you’re being intellectually dishonest and need to reevaluate what your core beliefs are. Crazy how you’re on a blog about firearms likely advocating for loosening regulations on a destructive tool which(like marijuana) has contradicting state and federal regulation.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Now hold on there, feller.

      Having and shooting and carrying a gun is exercising God’s gift of the right of self-defense.

      Getting drunk on alcohol, or whacked on drugs is simply sin.

      Guns are good, booze and dope are tools of the devil.

  24. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The is no difference between the alcohol abusing parents of Scott Kelly, And any marijuana abusing gun owner. The problem is the pot heads have carved out, they think, something that will get them legal marijuana intoxication for medical purposes.

    Alcohol has always been an effective medical treatment. But at the cost of intoxicating the patient. Marijuana is the same. Medically effective but it also causes intoxication.

    When was in the army I met soldiers who were restricted from driving because of the medicine they were taking. If you want pot to be considered “medicine” then deal with the restrictions that come with using, any, medicine.

  25. avatar DangerDave says:

    I’m glad this story was posted, if nothing else but to highlight the hypocrisy and self-importance of some members of the community. I find it highly ironic that certain people, including pwserge, subscribe to the “admittedly I don’t much about this subject but we should ban it anyway because I think its bad for some arbitrary”-school of thought. Funny, that’s where a bunch of gun-grabbing politicians went to school to get their degrees!

  26. avatar Quest says:

    The crux of this issue is that marijuana has been miscategorized as a schedule I drug, when all evidence points to it having some medical use cases. Just as someone who is prescribed Ritalin (schedule III) for ADHD doesn’t lose their right to gun ownership, people prescribed cannabis in the course of cancer treatment shouldn’t either. Lowering its schedule should allow medical marijuana patients to regain their fundamental firearm rights.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      The ironic thing about medical marijuana is that if the feds had just left the stuff alone we wouldn’t need medical marijuana laws because research would have isolated many of the compounds by now and they’d be on the market as specific substances for specific afflictions.

      I listened to an interview with a doctor who has studied the stuff, and was astonished to hear that it’s not just THC and CBDs, that there are hundreds of “active ingredients” with a whole array of different effects — including cancer-fighting. But thanks to the racist-inspired law against marijuana, instead of having specific pills for specific applications, people are left with the equivalent of taking several dozen drugs at once in order to get the one of two that benefit them, while not knowing what the other drugs even are!

      Just as a example of the problem, marijuana is quite effective for dealing with PTSD — IF you get the right strain with the right compounds. If those compounds had been isolated so folks like me could take just the ones that help, then anyone suffering from PTSD could take them and enjoy what it does for many — eliminates flashbacks. But since the only way to get the beneficial compounds is to take the whole “medicine cabinet”, there are a lot of people with PTSD who shouldn’t use marijuana because in some people some of the other substances can set off panic attacks and/or paranoia.

      The deal is pretty much the same for anxiety disorders.

  27. avatar DangerousDave says:

    Hey TTAG, the drugs you should be worried about are the ones that whoever programs this website is taking! I edited a comment after it was posted and then it marked my post as spam and deleted it. Please fix.

  28. avatar Roymond says:

    So in the world according to serge, all the government has to do to eliminate Second Amendment rights for millions would be to add to the list of what makes one a prohibited person — say, speeding tickets for more than ten mph over the speed limit, any crime involving alcohol, etc. etc.

  29. avatar Sam I Am says:

    It is important to understand the difference between legislation, and implementing regulations (regulations that put detail in the legislation is and executive branch function).

    It is also import to understand that politicians want every decision and piece of legislation (and implementing regulations) to provide both the opportunity to “point with pride”, and “view with alarm.”

    The executive branch has authority to expand or contract the “prohibited” person definition. (implementing regulation). In addition, states have the power and authority to determine: the threshold between felony and misdemeanor; the length of punishment for any crime. (any of this ringing any bells?)

    So yes, it is possible for 2A “rights” to be tightly restricted without eliminating the second amendment. Regulated to the point that legal use of guns is only permitted in your home. And…you still have the RTKBA, but only as the government allows.

    Congress will not take responsibility for limiting the executive branch authority to design and publish “implementing regulations”.

    Unless you are, or once were, a federal employee you cannot fully grasp the sense of superiority and entitlement over the public a large segment of the federal bureaucracy possesses.

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Or if you’ve lived with a federal employee.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Yes.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email