MJ and CC?

[JayMcB]

So settle a bet. MA has decided that possession of under 1 ounce of MJ is now legal.

Whether you agree or not, it is the current law. I got into an argument with a pot consuming acquaintance that if you were detained by local PD or MSP with a legal amount of MJ on your person and a concealed firearm (even with MA LTC), that you'd be in breach of some law. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that you are not under the influence of MJ (or anything else) at the time of the stop.

He tells me you can carry MJ and a firearm with impunity in MA if under the 1 ounce limit.

A bottle of scotch rides on this one....

 

[Lucas McCain]

MA will jam you up any way they can. You will be come unsuitable because MA.

 

[kalash]

What law would you be breaking? Name it. How is it any different than walking out of a liquor store while carrying?

 

[wahsben]

You may not be breaking a Ma. law now but I believe you would be breaking federal law since they havn't legalized MJ and when you fill out form 4473 it asks if you're a user of illegal substances.

 

[SKumar]

What law would you be breaking? Name it.

This is the same argument used for open carry, yet you know how MA courts will look at it.

If you're in MA, just be on the safe side.

 

[Asaltweapon]

If he has a LTC tell him to get some MJ and leave it on the front seat in plain view while carrying his own firearm and speed around town while running red lights and failing to yield to people in crosswalks.

Report back with the results.

 

[JayMcB]

You may not be breaking a Ma. law now but I believe you would be breaking federal law since they havn't legalized MJ and when you fill out form 4473 it asks if you're a user of illegal substances.

Carry and use are 2 very different things, aren't they?

Can you carry (as a non-user) someone's MJ with an LTC?

 

[wahsben]

Carry and use are 2 very different things, aren't they?

Can you carry (as a non-user) someone's MJ with an LTC?

If you have it on you will they believe you're not a user. That's at least part of the problem.

 

[mac1911]

My guess is going to be that if your being searched and found to have not violated MA law for possession and all is good with your license and such then you need to worry about why the police know how much weed you had anyway.
Then although no laws may have been broken there is nothing stopping any LEO from contacting your licensing officer then let the games begin.

 

[TayNinh_66]

Facts are too vague to make an accurate call. But.... just because 1 oz is legal doesn't mean 1 oz is legal.
You can't have it in your car unless it's in a sealed container. (Think open can of beer next to driver)
You can't use it in public. In other words, LEO can cite you and let the court resolve it. Claim there was no probable cause for the search. You'll win but once it's in the computer, CoP can deem you unsuitable.

 

[glide]

You wouldn’t be breaking any laws but you can bet you would be deemed unsuitable and have your LTC revoked.

You could fight to get it back but it will cost you time, money, and all your guns would be gone by then.

 

[Radtekk]

You may not be breaking a Ma. law now but I believe you would be breaking federal law since they havn't legalized MJ and when you fill out form 4473 it asks if you're a user of illegal substances.

While the 4473 question would make PURCHASING a firearm a crime, does that necessarily prevent one from CARRYING a previously purchased gun?

No, I don't smoke. No, I don't want to "try it and see what happens..."

 

[MGnoob]

The constitutions quite clear about it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; shall not be infringed, unless you have some amout of plant material on you that your local government has legalized but is federally illegal to be determined by your federal overloads who are smarter than you and are only looking out for your best interest because you can't be trusted to make life choices.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

The problem with questions like this, and why I hate them so much is that the law, and the application of the law, does not ever follow a neat 'If A than B' kind of logic. This is especially true when you bring in variables like the untested bounds of the Second Amendment, dual sovereignty conflicts, etc. What I can say is that the statement of the OP's friend: "He tells me you can carry MJ and a firearm with impunity in MA if under the 1 ounce limit." is wrong. 'Impunity' implies some degree of certainty which is absolutely lacking given the legal and policy difference between federal and stand government on cannabis, and the tenuous state of the Second Amendment.

Much here depends upon 'discretion'. A cop can go point, by point through MA law and say: "less than 1oz. - check. Valid LTC, check". Or, he or she can start thinking about the federal problem or even that cannabis and guns are incompatible i.e suitability. Legalization of cannabis isn't generally supported by law enforcement, so expecting a problem is not unreasonable. The continuum here ranges from nothing per my "check, check" above, to an unsuitability determination by the issuing authority, to federal prosecution (unlikely).

Our AG is eager to assert state sovereignty against the current federal administration and would very likely seek to intercede if the US Attorney targeted Massachusetts cannabis businesses. But there's no chance that she'll seek to vindicate the Second Amendment rights of someone using or possessing cannabis legally under state law. Many of the states leading the way on the legalization of cannabis are also states that think SCOTUS got it wrong on the Second Amendment. This isn't where they're going to assert state sovereignty.

While the 4473 question would make PURCHASING a firearm a crime, does that necessarily prevent one from CARRYING a previously purchased gun?

No, I don't smoke. No, I don't want to "try it and see what happens..."

Check that, 922 isn't about PURCHASING, it's about possession Habitual users of controlled substances are prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. Purchasing generally (though not always) involved possession.

PS, I think it's really funny how eager people are to state that they don't use cannabis.

 

[Radtekk]

Check that, 922 isn't about PURCHASING, it's about possession Habitual users of controlled substances are prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. Purchasing generally (though not always) involved possession.

PS, I think it's really funny how eager people are to state that they don't use cannabis.

Thanks for the clarification re possession vs purchase. I'm not a lawyer so it was a question, perhaps poorly worded.

To your last point, I'm in Healthcare. Regardless of state or federal law, if I got busted I'd get fired. Period. Full stop. So I don't smoke, and it behooves me to be clear on that point lest it become an issue of debate. And to clarify, I'm a MUCH bigger fan of pot than booze. I'm also a much bigger fan of comfort than poverty, so my libertarian desires crash HARD in to my practicality. Good tequila and comfy couch beats fattie and milk crate every time...

 

[SpaceCritter]

PS, I think it's really funny how eager people are to state that they don't use cannabis.

I argue vehemently here (and elsewhere) in terms of individual rights regarding cannabis. That said: I tried it exactly once, decades ago, with an old friend (who was dying of cancer at the time, but, truth be told, was a fan of said herb long before). It didn't go well. I learned that one night what "stoned off your ass" meant. And what it meant for trying to get work done the following day. No desire to repeat.

 

[drgrant]

What law would you be breaking? Name it. How is it any different than walking out of a liquor store while carrying?

State arrests guy and puts him on 24 hour courtesy hold and sees if feds want to go FR over prohibited person in possession of a firearm, but the LEO would have to be a large type prick to even attempt it... and the local US attorneys office would probably laugh at them for suggesting they prosecute it, absent any other factors/charges/window dressing. That's not exactly a gravy train, resume padding type indictment for a US attorney, unless they're a total dunce. So after getting laughed at by the USA/AUSA, they release the guy but pull LTC based on suitability (if they are the IA) or rat on him based on "suitability", etc, at which point he may or may not lose his license depending on how butthurt the IA gets over it.

Of course, the problem with all of the above is it would never happen in real life, because the
combination of "retard stacking tolerances" would have to stack multiple times in order for this to actually happen- you'd have to have a gun owner being stupid while simultaneously possessing pot; be stupid enough to get searched or consent to search; yet not quite stupid enough to get charged with an actual crime- and on top of all of the above, it would take a really shitty LEO to even make the "plane taxi out to the legal runway". You'd be better off buying a MA "numbers" game ticket, and more likely to win that jackpot in a year of playing that game than any of this happening.

-Mike

 

[wahsben]

While the 4473 question would make PURCHASING a firearm a crime, does that necessarily prevent one from CARRYING a previously purchased gun?

No, I don't smoke. No, I don't want to "try it and see what happens..."

Yes but if you possess MJ and a firearm and especially if your firearm was recently purchased they may claim you lied on the form and you'd be guilty of a felony. Unfortunately these days you're more likely to be considered guilty until proven innocent instead of the other way around. Maybe not so much with local law enforcement but if federal agents end up involved with it who knows. Either way a gunowner that has MJ risks more than one without it does. You never know whether you'll get someone reasonable or some one totally unreasonable.

 

[wahsben]

The constitutions quite clear about it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; shall not be infringed, unless you have some amout of plant material on you that your local government has legalized but is federally illegal to be determined by your federal overloads who are smarter than you and are only looking out for your best interest because you can't be trusted to make life choices.

Haven't you heard that's just an old outdated piece of paper written by old privileged white men.

 

[boscru]

i was a lifetime mj user, from ages 12-55. when i decided to get into shooting i stopped smoking. not that i was worried about lying on the application, just didn't seem logical to continue. would mj cloud my judgement re: carry and potential use of my firearm???? absolutely not.

just seemed like the right thing to do for me.

kd's #14 post nails the issue though. maura would fight for your right to smoke against the feds, but if you're a gun owner? screw you. unsuitable. totally illogical, but that's what is.

btw: whenever i catch a whiff of that aroma, i still love it

 

[MAGA99]

I thought ma will not help enforce federal law????

 

[wahsben]

I thought ma will not help enforce federal law????

In regards to immigration, yes. In regards to gun owners rights not so much.

 

[jkelly1229]

Facts are too vague to make an accurate call. But.... just because 1 oz is legal doesn't mean 1 oz is legal.
You can't have it in your car unless it's in a sealed container. (Think open can of beer next to driver)
You can't use it in public. In other words, LEO can cite you and let the court resolve it. Claim there was no probable cause for the search. You'll win but once it's in the computer, CoP can deem you unsuitable.

Don't smoke and don't live in ma but how would a bag of weed be like an open beer? Unless you have a pipe too. Other than that it's kinda useless on its own

 

[Fixxah]

Swat him and collect your booze.

 

[Sentenza]

To each his own.

 

[wahsben]

Don't smoke and don't live in ma but how would a bag of weed be like an open beer? Unless you have a pipe too. Other than that it's kinda useless on its own

I've known people to eat it.

 

[SpaceCritter]

I've known people to eat it.

When I was very young, we had friends of the family with two boys roughly my age. There was a picnic over their place one weekend. The wife made it a point to tell my mother, "Don't let the boys have any of the brownies."

 

[Bmcl322]

i was a lifetime mj user, from ages 12-55. when i decided to get into shooting i stopped smoking. not that i was worried about lying on the application, just didn't seem logical to continue. would mj cloud my judgement re: carry and potential use of my firearm???? absolutely not.

just seemed like the right thing to do for me.

kd's #14 post nails the issue though. maura would fight for your right to smoke against the feds, but if you're a gun owner? screw you. unsuitable. totally illogical, but that's what is.

btw: whenever i catch a whiff of that aroma, i still love it

Good on ya for stopping. The one thing I'll never understand in this debate is why there isn't more talk about lung cancer. The Tar that regular MJ users have on their fingers & teeth is very visible. Same Tar that ends up in their lungs. Not a big fan of the fact that my health care dollars, that I paid into the system, will be going toward their Chemo and Radiation, that will run into the $100s of thousands of dollars (I know because my Dad died of cancer recently). Same feeling with people that choose to smoke. That said, I believe it should be people's choice whether to smoke or not. ....but should I have to pay for their health care costs that come from their bad health choices? ....just a thought...

 

[JayMcB]

I've known people to eat it.

My understanding is that the active chemicals in it need to be decarboxylated for it to have any more effect than lettuce

 

[wahsben]

My understanding is that the active chemicals in it need to be decarboxylated for it to have any more effect than lettuce

It may be but I've not heard that before.