Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drug Trafficking Firearms topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would close loophole allowing firearm-enhanced charges to exclude cannabis distribution
Summary
Sponsors told the committee HB 12-02 would restore firearm-enhanced drug-trafficking liability for possession-with-intent-to-distribute and manufacturing cannabis now classified as misdemeanors, arguing the presence of a firearm makes the offense equivalently dangerous.
Delegate William Ballantyne presented House Bill 12-02 to amend criminal-law definitions so possession with intent to distribute cannabis and manufacturing cannabis with intent to sell are treated as a drug trafficking crime when accompanied by a firearm. “The introduction of a firearm into the equation of illicit sales is just as dangerous regardless of the substance,” said Jason Steinhardt, an assistant state's attorney who testified in favor.
Why it matters: After legislative changes reduced some cannabis distribution offenses to misdemeanors, prosecutors said a statutory gap emerged that could prevent charging a firearm-enhancement offense in cases where illicit cannabis distribution and firearms coexist. Prosecutors argued the bill targets the weapon, not legitimate licensed cannabis businesses operating under state law.
Supporters from multiple state’s attorney offices described homicide and shooting cases tied to illicit cannabis transactions. Assistant State’s Attorney Marill Williamson said street-level illegal cannabis remains a valuable commodity and recounted prosecuting homicide-related cases where firearms were used in connection with cannabis deals. The bill’s supporters asked the committee to give the measure a favorable report so prosecutors could pursue firearm-related charges in cannabis-related drug trafficking incidents.
Committee discussion included questions about whether licensed, regulated cannabis businesses could be exposed; witnesses said the bill targets unlawful sales and that lawful licensed operations would not be the intended subjects of the statute.
No committee vote was recorded during the hearing.
