On guns, Federal Law trumps State Law?

[MarkCO]

I know there are both sides of the debate represented here...

http://www.pe.com/articles/firearms-...juana-law.html

There are a lot of topics that can be discussed about this, but given the actual laws, do you have any legal argument to prove that the police were right or wrong?

[fitz19d]

I think it would be more debatable if they were state legally like possessing it ie like a shop. But that they admitted to using it which is on the form you fill out on the BGC, I think would clearly leave them SOL. (In favor of that fed restriction or not.)

[davsel]

That's all I got.

[Grant H.]

4473 is a Federal Form.

Marijuana is illegal at a federal level.

4473 says you can't use MJ. Doesn't say crap about "medicinal" or "my state says I can"...

Surprised this doesn't happen more.

ETA:

No, the 4473 doesn't say you can't use MJ, but it asks if you do use it, and if you answer yes you automatically fail the 4473.

Your two options, if you use any schedule 1 drug, are:
1. Commit felony perjury and maybe get all guns taken away later along with additional charges
2. Don't own guns

IMO, the cops did the correct thing in CA.

[Martinjmpr]

Until an appellate court or (better yet) the SCOTUS rules on this issue we don't really know. The ATF states that it is illegal but that is their opinion, it is not a statement of law.

And before someone says it (because I know someone will), yes, I realize the ATF can screw you 6 ways from Sunday based on that opinion alone.

That doesn't change the fact that an opinion is what it is. The law says that you have to be an "illegal user" in order to be prohibited. A MMJ card holder can legitimately say that his MMJ card makes him a "legal user."

ATF would counter that because MJ is a Schedule 1 drug, there is no such thing as a "legal user." But, again, what they are stating is a legal opinion, not a law. Until a competent court rules on the issue it will be a legal gray area.

The biggest issue isn't even guns or MJ. The biggest issue here is Federalism: Does the state have the authority to make something "legal" that the Feds say is illegal? The general rule is "no" (like Arizona's illegal immigration rules) but there is a strong argument to be made that Congress has no authority to regulate an activity that takes place entirely inside a state.

And there is the political aspect, too. Suppose SCOTUS rules that Federal law trumps state law re: MJ and that all the states that have legalized MJ must rescind those laws.

And the states tell the Feds to FOAD and they're not going to. What then? Is the president going to send the Army in to close all the MJ shops? Are hordes of Federal agents going to swarm into the state and start arresting people for selling MJ? And what if people start resisting?

You think the Feds want to open up that can of worms?

OTOH, if the court either doesn't issue a ruling, or rules in favor of the states, then what else can states do? Can they legalize machine guns, SBRs and suppressors without all the NFA paperwork as long as those items don't cross state lines? And what if they do, anyway, and basically dare the Feds to do something about it?

[Bailey Guns]

I don't think the US Code that covers this is gray at all. As a matter of fact, to me it's pretty black and white.

[Great-Kazoo]

UNTIL MMJ is removed from the classification it's at now Federally. ANY Use of it you're SOL. There is no WELL it's legal in X state. The 473 IS A FEDERAL FORM. The question asked on the 4473 relates to FEDERAL recognition of MJ . Nothing more, nothing less.

3-4 ? years ago the Feds requested the MMJ records from the state of CO. The state complied, people SCREAMED HIPPA Law Violation. The problem with I'm Protected under HIPPA is the MMJ registry was not a HIPPA covered registry just a state one for issuing MMJ Cards.
Yes it sucks.

[Double00]

From my home town paper.

[HoneyBadger]

OTOH, if the court either doesn't issue a ruling, or rules in favor of the states, then what else can states do? Can they legalize machine guns, SBRs and suppressors without all the NFA paperwork as long as those items don't cross state lines? And what if they do, anyway, and basically dare the Feds to do something about it?

Hasn't at least one state already declared that suppressors manufactured within the state are not subject to NFA rules? Wyoming maybe?

[brutal]

There are many states (AZ?) that are pushing through firearms protection laws from any new Fed regs.

It's certainly going to be an interesting couple of years coming up with regards to our rights and the protection of them from Federal infringement.