The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary Jane

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary Jane

Postby bignflnut » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:42 am

It is legal under Pennsylvania law for the holder of a validly issued patient Medical Marijuana Card to possess approved forms of medical marijuana. However, as per the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) state legalization of medical marijuana is not recognized by the federal government;, and possession of a valid Medical Marijuana Card and/or the use of medical marijuana defines you an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”; and, therefore, prohibited by Federal law from the purchase or acquisition, possession or control of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.32(a)(3).


Hawaii, Ohio, Pennsylvania...the HITS to our RKBA just keep on coming under this gun-friendly administration...
Why is the State of Pennsylvania agency enforcing federal law? Why are they not upholding a State citizen's RKBA?

Is there ANY pro-gun org engaging this issue?

How far away is it to think that the Marijuana database gets cross referenced with the last X years of NICS data (yeah, it's SUPPOSED to be destroyed) and there are knocks on doors?
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6252
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary

Postby evan price » Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:46 pm

Like it or not the law is clear on this. Many state level offenses may not specifically disqualify rkba where the stricter federal law does.
This would best be addressed by changing federal laws.
"20% accurate as usual, Morty."

Striking down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!
Carpe Noctem- we get more done after 2 am than most people do all day.
User avatar
evan price
Forum Janitor
Forum Janitor
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Westfield, Ohio

Re: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary

Postby bignflnut » Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:44 pm

evan price wrote:Like it or not the law is clear on this. Many state level offenses may not specifically disqualify rkba where the stricter federal law does.
This would best be addressed by changing federal laws.

Right, I clearly don't agree or "like it". I can see how clear these statutes are. The questions follow: Why to State level enforcement officers uphold federal laws that contradict State and Local laws? Why is there a NATIONAL background check necessary? Why are we cheering while this grid of contradictions is built to keep us from our Rights? What does "unalienable" mean? "Shall not be infringed"? Is this not the textbook case? Will no pro-gun org engage the issue or prevent the government from seizing weapons from law abiding and non-violent citizens?
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6252
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary

Postby djthomas » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:19 pm

PA decided to operate its own instant background check system known as PICS and received federal blessing to have a PICS check be in lieu of NICS at the point of sale. PA also requires all handgun transfers to be run through PICS. In order to serve as an alternative to NICS the state must determine the person's eligibility under both state and federal law. They can't ignore knowledge that the person has availed themselves of something that makes them a prohibited person.

This whole marijuana thing is getting a bit old. All these collateral consequences are a direct result of the idea that it's OK to pick and choose which laws to abide by and enforce. The current administration has pledged to be a law and order administration. That means upholding the law as written. Congress can make this problem go away tomorrow. But it won't. At best they'll prohibit the DOJ from spending funds to enforce the law. How dumb is that? We have the votes to prohibit ourselves from enforcing the law but we don't have the courage to just repeal the law we disagree with.

All hue and cry should be directed to Congress. Period, full stop. They managed to rewrite the tax code in a month; they can fix the MJ issue in a weekend.
Never ask if you can carry at a non-posted place, but always ask why you cannot at one that is!
Just because they offer call ahead seating doesn't mean you call ahead for carry permission.
User avatar
djthomas
 
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Medina County

Re: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary

Postby evan price » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:28 pm

All hue and cry should be directed to Congress. Period, full stop. They managed to rewrite the tax code in a month; they can fix the MJ issue in a weekend.

Absolutely.
"20% accurate as usual, Morty."

Striking down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!
Carpe Noctem- we get more done after 2 am than most people do all day.
User avatar
evan price
Forum Janitor
Forum Janitor
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Westfield, Ohio

Re: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary

Postby Brian D. » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:29 pm

djthomas wrote:PA decided to operate its own instant background check system known as PICS and received federal blessing to have a PICS check be in lieu of NICS at the point of sale. PA also requires all handgun transfers to be run through PICS. In order to serve as an alternative to NICS the state must determine the person's eligibility under both state and federal law. They can't ignore knowledge that the person has availed themselves of something that makes them a prohibited person.

So if because of some snafu a buyer in Pennsylvania got run through both the state and federal background checks, would it be a PICNIC? :lol: (Sorry!)
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
Brian D.
 
Posts: 14684
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary

Postby bignflnut » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:49 pm

djthomas wrote:
This whole marijuana thing is getting a bit old. All these collateral consequences are a direct result of the idea that it's OK to pick and choose which laws to abide by and enforce. The current administration has pledged to be a law and order administration. That means upholding the law as written. Congress can make this problem go away tomorrow. But it won't. At best they'll prohibit the DOJ from spending funds to enforce the law. How dumb is that? We have the votes to prohibit ourselves from enforcing the law but we don't have the courage to just repeal the law we disagree with.

All hue and cry should be directed to Congress. Period, full stop. They managed to rewrite the tax code in a month; they can fix the MJ issue in a weekend.

I agree. This idea that they should prohibit DOJ from funding enforcement is exceedingly dumb. Enforce the law and repeal the ones you don't like. Begging the question: What process produced 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), and 27 C.F.R. § 478.32(a)(3)? If it is an act of Congress, is it not in direct contradiction with the 2nd Amendment? If not, does it take Congress to undo it?

Hold on there about hitting Congress with 100% of the blame. The AG just came out and drew a MJ scented line in the sand.

With 26 States allowing MJ, one would think that a dozen redstate State AGs could file some sort of argument against MJ > RKBA
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6252
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary

Postby djthomas » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:31 pm

bignflnut wrote:Hold on there about hitting Congress with 100% of the blame. The AG just came out and drew a MJ scented line in the sand.

Actually, the Sessions memo perfectly illustrates the problem and reinforces why Congress gets 100% of the blame. The Obama administration said there's this federal law we don't like so we won't really enforce it, kk? Then along comes the Trump administration and says hey, there's this federal law on the books and this old memo that says we're not going to enforce it - that's not how it's supposed to work, guess we'll return the discretion to each of the federal districts as it is for any other federal law. Trump did the same thing with DACA - he essentially said "I agree that they should be allow to remain but Congress has to enact legislation to make that happen. So, Congress, get to work."

Sessions is an easy scapegoat for the MJ advocates and anyone who doesn't like this administration but the fact of the matter is we are a nation of laws. There is a process for changing laws we disagree with. By all means, avail yourself of that process, but don't blame the guy who is upholding his oath to faithfully execute the laws of our nation.

I have zero sympathy for states that have essentially operated as criminal enterprises in profiting from the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance. It would be hilarious to see state officials charged under RICO, just to prove the point of federal supremacy on this topic. Don't like it? Again, talk to Congress.
Never ask if you can carry at a non-posted place, but always ask why you cannot at one that is!
Just because they offer call ahead seating doesn't mean you call ahead for carry permission.
User avatar
djthomas
 
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Medina County

Re: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary

Postby WY_Not » Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:50 pm

Federal Supremacy? Please show me the exact clause that gives the Federal government the authority to regulate a plant. I'm looking at Article 1, Section 8 and not a single one of those enumerated powers gives them authority over a plant or the thousands of other aspects of our lives that they have encroached upon.
Learn how Project Appleseed is supporting freedom through Marksmanship and Heritage clinics.

Samuel Adams wrote:If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
User avatar
WY_Not
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 10:15 pm
Location: Miami County, OH

Re: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary

Postby evan price » Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:57 pm

bignflnut wrote:I agree. This idea that they should prohibit DOJ from funding enforcement is exceedingly dumb. Enforce the law and repeal the ones you don't like.


This is what prevents felons from petitioning for relief of disability by the BATF.
Since 1992, Congress, in its annual appropriations, has explicitly barred BATF from expending funds to investigate or act on applications by individuals. This is courtesy of Chuck Schumer. BATF has not been processing applications. In Bean V ATF the U.S. Supreme Court sided with BATF, holding that the bureau's inaction on applications does not constitute a “denial” under the law, in light of the congressional ban on expenditures. Thus, applicants cannot go to federal court to seek judicial review to regain their firearm privileges.
"20% accurate as usual, Morty."

Striking down evil with the mighty sword of teamwork and the hammer of not bickering!
Carpe Noctem- we get more done after 2 am than most people do all day.
User avatar
evan price
Forum Janitor
Forum Janitor
 
Posts: 8834
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Westfield, Ohio

Re: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary

Postby bignflnut » Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:23 am

evan price wrote:
bignflnut wrote:I agree. This idea that they should prohibit DOJ from funding enforcement is exceedingly dumb. Enforce the law and repeal the ones you don't like.


This is what prevents felons from petitioning for relief of disability by the BATF.
Since 1992, Congress, in its annual appropriations, has explicitly barred BATF from expending funds to investigate or act on applications by individuals. This is courtesy of Chuck Schumer. BATF has not been processing applications. In Bean V ATF the U.S. Supreme Court sided with BATF, holding that the bureau's inaction on applications does not constitute a “denial” under the law, in light of the congressional ban on expenditures. Thus, applicants cannot go to federal court to seek judicial review to regain their firearm privileges.


Wait a minute. Even though you attribute it to Chucky, Congress properly controls the purse strings and should remove funding from enforcement that they think is unjust. One would think that if the votes existed for such action, then repeal of appropriate laws would be a light lift. I was agreeing that the Executive via DOJ should not decide which laws are worthy of enforcement or not. Legislative creates law, Executive carries it out, but legislative can remove funding and repeal laws.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6252
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: The Pennsylvania State Police Firearms Division on Mary

Postby bignflnut » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:03 am

An earlier statement, suggested medical marijuana users should give up their firearms. CBS reported this statement was on the Pennsylvania State Police website. From cbslocal.com:

“It is unlawful for you to keep possession of any firearms which you owned or had in your possession prior to obtaining a medical marijuana card, and you should consult an attorney about the best way to dispose of your firearms.”

The above statement is no longer found on the State Police web site. Governor Tom Wolf has reassured Pennsylvania gun owners that Pennsylvania police will not be seeking medical marijuana users to confiscate their guns. From wesa.fm:

According to the governor, the Pennsylvania State Police do not advise that if people receive medical marijuana they get rid of their guns. However, if they have questions about gun ownership and applying for medical marijuana, they should consult with their attorneys.

The one thing Wolf was clear on is that the state will not be seeking out those who already own guns.

“We’re not going to take their guns away," Wolf said.


So we have the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate at work here, where a State Governor can step in and negate a federal action against the States' citizens/people with Officers under the Governors direction. Wolf is to be applauded.
It seems unlikely that while Governor Wolf is in office, the Pennsylvania government would turn over the database of medical marijuna users. But digital databases are easily mover around. A future Pennsylvania government may not be so sensitive to privacy issues.

The issue of medical marijuana and prohibited possessors is not going away. The rational thing would be to reform the federal law, and reduce the categories of prohibited possessors to those who have committed violent crimes.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6252
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet


Return to National Firearm Politics & Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron