Quote Originally Posted by DFBrews View Post

I know it is a grey area and a "enthusiastic" DA could tack in some kind of charge to that effect. But have never gotten a straight answer from a lawyer.
Lawyers aren't allowed to give "straight answers." The answer is always "It depends..."

WRT MJ and guns, before Heller and McDonald it would have been an easy call, since the 2nd Amendment had not been declared to be a "fundamental right" nor had it been "incorporated" to the states.

But now that the 2nd amendment has been determined to convey an individual right to own firearms and incorporated to the states, there is a real question of whether merely using MJ in accordance with state law can deprive you of a fundamental right.

I would argue that it can't, any more than using MJ would deprive you of your right to speak freely or be free from unreasonable search and seizure, but of course that's just my opinion.

There is also the Federalism question: Who has the authority to determine what substances are legal within the boundaries of a sovereign state, the state or the Federal government? Because under our Constitutional system, the Federal government is supposed to be a government of limited and specified jurisdiction while the states have general jurisdiction.

Up to now, the states have generally acquiesced to the Federal government with regard to the classification of drugs (mostly because by allowing the Feds to regulate drugs, enforcement is done with a LOT of Federal $$) but if a state wanted to assert that the right to regulate drugs within the boundaries of a state was the right of that state and not of the Federal government, I think they could make a strong argument for it.

Of course, the Feds could prevent all of this if they would reschedule MJ from Schedule I to something else or by removing MJ from the schedule entirely. With California joining the states that have legalized recreational weed it seems to me that the Federal government is going to have to do something sooner or later.