Guns and Marijuana: US v. Cooper

[ikeo1]

I'm far more concerned about the mentally ill. Pot is a temporary impairment.

Mental illness is not. We used to have mental institutions here but Jerry Brown thought they would do better on the streets.

We know how that turned out.

I agree with you but i think it was both parties who got rid of asylums in general on a national scale to save money. Same thing with cutting education. I've always questioned how marijuana is considered schedule I but alcohol is not. A lot of people don't do marijuana to get high. It's primarily been used for medicinal use like the majority of plant derived medicines.

Biden was supposed to decriminalize it and get it off schedule I, but empty words by a politician. So shocking

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

I agree with you but i think it was both parties who got rid of asylums in general on a national scale to save money. Same thing with cutting education. I've always questioned how marijuana is considered schedule I but alcohol is not. A lot of people don't do marijuana to get high. It's primarily been used for medicinal use like the majority of plant derived medicines.

Biden was supposed to decriminalize it and get it off schedule I, but empty words by a politician. So shocking

All Biden did was decriminalize his son via pardon and get his son off a conviction "schedule".

 

[ikeo1]

All Biden did was decriminalize his son via pardon and get his son off a conviction "schedule".

I kinda had a good nest egg when he left that's gotten crushed in the last 2 months, but i did sell some in preparation... I give credit to both old guys when its due and criticize when its appropriate as I think we should with our elected officials.

 

[Dvrjon]

I'm far more concerned about the mentally ill. Pot is a temporary impairment.

Mental illness is not. We used to have mental institutions here but Jerry Brown thought they would do better on the streets.

We know how that turned out.

But many don’t know How we got here…..

The process began in the 1950s, reducing the California mental health hospital population from 37,000 in 1955 to only 2,500 three decades later.
///////
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy made deinstitutionalization federal policy, signing the Community Mental Health Act. (Kennedy’s sister was mentally ill and suffered a botched lobotomy.)

The new law provided federal funding over three years to build a network of “community” mental health centers that would take over treatment of mentally ill patients, allowing psychiatric hospitals to be largely emptied out, their patients released into society at large.

With Kennedy’s death, funding for the national network of mental health treatment centers ended.
///////
Ronald Reagan is often blamed for emptying the state’s hospitals onto the streets, but by the time he became California’s governor in 1967, the California mental health hospital population had already dropped to 22,000.

But Reagan did sign the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) of 1967, intended to end involuntary and never-ending commitments of people with mental health issues. The law was designed to close down the practice of confining people to psychiatric hospitals without their consent.
////////
California Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, in 1984 told the NYT, “They’ve gone far, too far, in letting people out.”
///////
So, “Jerry Brown” had little to do with this, although he was pressured to empty the prisons through federal court control.

 

[compulsivegungrabber]

But many don’t know How we got here…..

The process began in the 1950s, reducing the California mental health hospital population from 37,000 in 1955 to only 2,500 three decades later.
///////
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy made deinstitutionalization federal policy, signing the Community Mental Health Act. (Kennedy’s sister was mentally ill and suffered a botched lobotomy.)

The new law provided federal funding over three years to build a network of “community” mental health centers that would take over treatment of mentally ill patients, allowing psychiatric hospitals to be largely emptied out, their patients released into society at large.

With Kennedy’s death, funding for the national network of mental health treatment centers ended.
///////
Ronald Reagan is often blamed for emptying the state’s hospitals onto the streets, but by the time he became California’s governor in 1967, the California mental health hospital population had already dropped to 22,000.

But Reagan did sign the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) of 1967, intended to end involuntary and never-ending commitments of people with mental health issues. The law was designed to close down the practice of confining people to psychiatric hospitals without their consent.
////////
California Governor Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, in 1984 told the NYT, “They’ve gone far, too far, in letting people out.”
///////
So, “Jerry Brown” had little to do with this, although he was pressured to empty the prisons through federal court control.

You forgot the MHSA signed by Carter in 1980 and repealed in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981, passed by a Democratic controlled house, Republican controlled senate, and signed by Reagan. People sure like to parrot the echo chamber that is the internet. A juggernaut of algorithms that reinforce people's beliefs be they right or wrong, based on fact or fiction. It is a giant coercion machine that preys on human beings Achilles heel, that even the most rational people have an absolutely irrational need for validation. Our problems are 50 years of bi partisan glad handing and kowtowing for finance and favor. I moved everything out of the market when it boomed after the election, because I had a feeling, and that feeling was right.

I'm all for some of the things the Trump administration is doing, but some of the others are going to hit people hard, who have short memories and want it all better now. 40% of the nation can't come up with 400 bucks. That is pocket change in my opinion, but to someone who does not have it, it might as well be a million dollars. Honestly, until everyone, from the poor petty criminal to the richest billionaires has equal access, protection, and punishment under the law, nothing is going to change. With every push at the boundaries of lawfare, it will only get worse.

After Smoot Hawley, the Republicans did not control the house for 60 years. 20 million working, voting age people who are at or below the poverty line, hardly pay any federal tax, but will be hit hard by tariffs are going to be, even poorer, pissed off, and ready to take it out at the ballot box during the midterms. Take a look at some of the margins in the swing states last election. It would not take much to swing those if people's wallets are hurting. Not to mention, we are not on track to close the deficit, much less pay pack any debt. Just like the money that backed Harris, the money that backed Trump want's an ROI, period. I don't think it can be saved, but I hope I'm wrong. But, in the end, mine is just an opinion of another anonymous douche bag on the internet, so take it for what it is.

 

[raellic]

I'm far more concerned about the mentally ill. Pot is a temporary impairment.

Mental illness is not. We used to have mental institutions here but Jerry Brown thought they would do better on the streets.

We know how that turned out.

What is your view on which mental health conditions or situations would be disqualifying? There's an extensive list of disqualifying situations, such as having been "adjudicated a mental defective" or "committed" to a mental health facility. The case law makes it clear that someone has to be found incompetent by a judge or other lawful authority in a meaningful, deliberative hearing to qualify as adjudicated or committed. As for specific conditions, someone who just has a diagnosis but is in remission and has never been in a prohibited category is still able to purchase/possess. Do you think that should be changed? If so, why?

 

[Stephen]

I'm far more concerned about the mentally ill. Pot is a temporary impairment.

Mental illness is not. We used to have mental institutions here but Jerry Brown thought they would do better on the streets.

We know how that turned out.

I think that you will find it was Ronald Reagan who signed the law that accelerated the release of mentally ill people to the streets when he was governor.

 

[Dvrjon]

I think that you will find it was Ronald Reagan who signed the law that accelerated the release of mentally ill people to the streets when he was governor.

Welcome aboard! I think you’ll find that posts 2 and 3 directly above provide a bunch of detail on this issue.

Best.

 

[Jimi Jah]

I think that you will find it was Ronald Reagan who signed the law that accelerated the release of mentally ill people to the streets when he was governor.

True. Add that with his 1987 amnesty as Reagan boo boos.

Camarillo State mental hospital was still open during Jerry's first term. I enjoyed the nutty graffiti patents would scratch on the walls.

 

[rfgCA]

Alcohol consumer + Own car = OK
Alcohol consumer + Own gun = OK
Pot smoker + Own car = OK
Pot smoker + Own gun = NOT OK

Where is the logic in that

 

[Kevin James]

Hi, I just want to add the lawyer perspective here. Under current Federal law, because marijuana is a controlled substance, you cannot be a user of marijuana and purchase a firearm. It's expressly stated in the statute, which is 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). It's also in the ATF regulations. It's also in the case law. See also the guidance for FFLs from the Department of Justice here, which has a lot of valuable information about recency of use, convictions, etc.

Some people want to believe very badly that you can get around this in a state where personal use of marijuana is legal-- but you cannot. Note that I'm not telling you how to live your life, although I do have my personal views. I'm not telling you that you're actually going to be charged with anything by answering the Form 4473 question untruthfully, if that is the only issue. I'm just telling you that if you have used marijuana within the last year or are currently using marijuana, or any other drug, you are lying on the form and are committing a crime by buying a firearm. Separately, if you ever get arrested for something else and have marijuana and a gun in a car or in your possession (like in the mentioned case of U.S. v. Cooper), they will look back at your Form 4473 and you could get in trouble for that, even if you otherwise would not have been caught. The Cooper opinion lays everything out in that scenario, and I fully expect that the District Court on remand will reach the same conclusion as before. In other words, Cooper is not going to win. Until they change the Federal statute or remove marijuana from the DEA schedules, that is the state of the law. I would recommend that people not use drugs at all if they intend to have or purchase firearms. I hope this answers this issue one once and for all for everyone's benefit.

Hello. Since you are offering the "lawyer perspective" on this, I'm curious and would like to pick your brain on something. As I understand it, the case has now been submitted to the Supreme Court, with the Justice Department arguing that the law prohibiting firearms ownership for unlawful users of controlled substances including marijuana should also apply to PAST marijuana users, not just those currently using or currently intoxicated. I'm curious how far in the past would be considered?

An AI search of 922G (best I can do since i'm not a lawyer) seems to indicate that an unlawful user is someone who's use is recent enough to show they are actively engaged in such conduct. While it does not give a precise time line, it notes guidance with examples such as :

• A conviction for unlawful drug possession or use within the past year.
• Multiple arrests for drug offenses within the last five years, with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year.
• A positive result on a drug test administered within the past year.

It also noted that courts have generally interpreted "unlawful user" to mean more than casual use, focusing instead on regular use that has some proximity to firearms possession.

So the question is this... based on what the DOJ is trying to argue about past use, and the guidance on 922g above seeming to focus on a timeline more within a year, how would someone be affected that is NOT a current or recent past user, but used marijuana only in social settings long ago, like say 20 to 30 years ago in college for example? Would they still be at risk for losing their rights? I'm thinking there are a LOT of people who would fall into this type of situation and I definitely know a few.

 

[raellic]

I really doubt the Supreme Court will consider simple use (i.e., not trafficking, distribution, sale, etc.) beyond one year to be disqualifying-- after all, the form says "are you" an unlawful user, not "have you ever been" an unlawful user. But if there are any indicia of more recent use, or periods of use and non-use followed by periods of use, that complicates things. I wouldn't worry about your social use in college even though the DOJ may officially disagree. They could be taking a broader view of the law for the purposes of argument, expecting to lose on that issue.

 

[Kevin James]

I really doubt the Supreme Court will consider simple use (i.e., not trafficking, distribution, sale, etc.) beyond one year to be disqualifying-- after all, the form says "are you" an unlawful user, not "have you ever been" an unlawful user. But if there are any indicia of more recent use, or periods of use and non-use followed by periods of use, that complicates things. I wouldn't worry about your social use in college even though the DOJ may officially disagree. They could be taking a broader view of the law for the purposes of argument, expecting to lose on that issue.

OK, thanks. My concern was just really with the DOJ arguing "past use" without defining any specific parameters about what that means exactly, leaving even the situation I described as vulnerable which would be ridiculous.

 

[treelogger]

Federal law (the 922g you quoted above) simply says "unlawful user", without defining what "use" means. That's very common in law: the black-letter law sets the general outline, and it leaves it to agency regulation to fill in the details. That definition can be found in 27CFR478.11, which says the following:

A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. ...

(I omitted the part at the end that is only relevant to members of the military)

See all the references to "one year" in there? A conviction within one year, or a drug test? From this text, people in general conclude that the question on the 4473 form about "illegal use of drug" means whether you have used it within one year. Note that filling 4473 is done under penalty of perjury, and it doesn't ask whether you have been convicted or failed a test, but whether you used.

And as the discussion at the beginning of this thread (about the federal court case) shows, it is currently in litigation for one case and without creating precedent yet whether this should change. So as far as I know, the above quote from the ATF is still in force.

 

[Dvrjon]

As I understand it, the case has now been submitted to the Supreme Court,

What makes you think this has been submitted to SCOTUS? The case was heard by a 3-judge Appellate panel, which remanded it to the district court for specified reconsideration.

That leaves the .gov guys the options of:
1. Retrying in the district court
2. Seeking en banc review by the full circuit, or
3. Seeking interlocutors intervention by SCOTUS (which will be rejected out-of-hand because the issues haven’t been argued.)

How is it going to SCOTUS now?

 

[Kevin James]

What makes you think this has been submitted to SCOTUS? The case was heard by a 3-judge Appellate panel, which remanded it to the district court for specified reconsideration.

That leaves the .gov guys the options of:
1. Retrying in the district court
2. Seeking en banc review by the full circuit, or
3. Seeking interlocutors intervention by SCOTUS (which will be rejected out-of-hand because the issues haven’t been argued.)

How is it going to SCOTUS now?

Sorry, I realized what I am referring to may be a different case entirely, United States Vs Hemani which the US DOJ has asked for Supreme Court review of a 5th Circuit decision which they disagree with regarding past marijuana use and firearm possession.

Here is what I was able to find in an AI search. Based on this info I'm not as concerned as the term "past use" seems to be more in the vain of a regular user who is not currently intoxicated at the exact moment of firearm possession... not past use as in someone who partook even just socially many years ago.

Google AI search:
In United States v. Hemani, the central issue is whether a federal law prohibiting firearms possession by an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance can be applied to a person based solely on past and regular marijuana use, not being intoxicated at the time of possession.
Background of the case

• The case involves Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man who was charged with possessing a firearm while being a regular user of marijuana.
• There was no evidence that Hemani was actively intoxicated or under the influence of marijuana at the moment he possessed the firearm.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling
The Fifth Circuit's decision, which the government is appealing, held that applying the law to Hemani was unconstitutional because historical gun regulations "do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage". This reasoning is rooted in the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which requires modern gun regulations to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition.

The DOJ's position
The Department of Justice disagrees with the appeals court, arguing that early American laws restricted firearms from "habitual" drinkers, even when sober. The DOJ's position is that the law should apply to regular or habitual drug users, not just those currently under the influence.

Why the distinction matters
The core dispute highlights the difference between restricting firearms for an intoxicated or impaired person versus a person who uses a substance regularly but is sober. The Supreme Court's ultimate decision, if it takes the case, could determine whether regular, non-intoxicating marijuana use is a sufficient basis to prohibit someone from owning firearms.

 

[sklepych]

I guess I`m kinda old fashioned, I wont trust anyone using weed with a firearm. If you want to use weed, that’s your choice — not my concern. But if you want to handle firearms under the influence, I’d rather not be around for that. Even if you’re not under the influence of marijuana being a firearm owner, I can’t predict what might be on your mind when you are. The same goes for alcohol — I don’t use it myself, and I generally don’t trust those who do. Thats not about the legality, thats my personal choice of people which I dont want to be around

 

[Dvrjon]

I guess I`m kinda old fashioned, I wont trust anyone using weed with a firearm. If you want to use weed, that’s your choice — not my concern. But if you want to handle firearms under the influence, I’d rather not be around for that. Even if you’re not under the influence of marijuana being a firearm owner, I can’t predict what might be on your mind when you are. The same goes for alcohol — I don’t use it myself, and I generally don’t trust those who do. Thats not about the legality, thats my personal choice of people which I dont want to be around

The issues being presented here have nothing to do with possession or use of firearms while in the act of using marijuana.

 

[timthetwin]

The amount of time THC is in your body is much different than alcohol. While I believe in letting folks have their freedom, I do not believe in being under the influence and using firearms. If a weed user wants to own firearms that is fine, but how many will technically handle or carry them with some amount of THC still in their system? I doubt SOs will issue CCWs to MJ users. Also, the whole who would you rather hang out with question is silly. Jumping straight to alcoholic is ridiculous, while on the flip side who uses weed and does not get high? From my experience with knowing some weed users they make poor choices and are unproductive people, but each to their own.

 

[sklepych]

have nothing to do with possession or use of firearms while in the act of using marijuana.

hence the other clarification in my post about habitual users. I can clarify that again - I myself never supported that and have no place in my life for people doing so, as well as habitual alcoholics. Wanna do it - your choice, my choice is stay away from such individuals and have a general degree of disgust