ATF: Legal Medical Marijuana Use Makes It Illegal to Buy a Gun | Les Jones
In case you were wondering.
In case you were wondering.
- Thread starter diverdon
- Start date
ATF: Legal Medical Marijuana Use Makes It Illegal to Buy a Gun
No change to the way it's always been:
It would seem that if you once used MJ (but didn't inhale ?) you might not be a 'user' [in the present tense].
But if you have a medical MJ card you are likely a 'user', and it remains unlawful under federal law.
No change to the way it's always been:
It would seem that if you once used MJ (but didn't inhale ?) you might not be a 'user' [in the present tense].
But if you have a medical MJ card you are likely a 'user', and it remains unlawful under federal law.
Last edited:
So, if you live in CO and legally smoke pot now can you still legally purchase a gun?
After all, it is still illegal to use MJ at the federal level. Would you not have to answer the question about using illegal drugs as "yes"?
After all, it is still illegal to use MJ at the federal level. Would you not have to answer the question about using illegal drugs as "yes"?
Interesting.
This is a DUH! moment...read the paperwork you sign when you get a firearm through a FFL...you should anyway since you are SIGNING IT!
atf-f-4473-1Firearms Transaction Record Part I
Section 11. part e.
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to,
marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Yes/No
atf-f-4473-1Firearms Transaction Record Part I
Section 11. part e.
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to,
marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Yes/No
I have read that line a bunch of times and fully know what it means. The 4473 is a Federal form produced and regulated by the Federal ATF. But, there are some states that do their own instant checks. Not sure if CO is one of them. The word "unlawful" applies if the Fed is asking but not if the State of CO is.
I am not trying to stir up shit; just infuse a different point into the thread.
Oh shit! I am a dumb ass for not reading the link.
Sorry GMan.
Sorry GMan.
may be they are just out front of the situation on the federal level anticipating a national legalization of pot
Then I got then I got high, man you should not have posted this, guess what will be going through my head the next few days, and I don't even get high.
Afroman - Because I Got High - YouTube
Afroman - Because I Got High - YouTube
Some states have gone against Federal law by allowing controlled substances. All a state can do is choose not to enforce, which is what CO has done. We have moved away from being a nation of laws. I am not sure how the Federal government has the constitutional right to ban drugs in the first place. When they banned alcohol, they used a constitutional amendment. With controlled substances they did not. Why not?
The Feds could ban intra-state commerce of controlled substances as well as put in place an international importation ban, but where does the Federal government derive the right to ban substances outright? That is a state duty.
Now, you have background checks for guns, which are a violation of the constitution, asking if you have ever used a controlled substance, which has been defined in an unconstitutional way... and a state that says it is not going to abide by Federal law. Did the Colorado law cite constitutional reasons for legalizing pot? No. They just said people in CO want to smoke weed. I think the Feds are not cracking down in Colorado because they know it could create a thorny Constitutional issue if it made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Even then, who knows if the Supreme Court would uphold the Constitution. They have ignored it before.
The Feds could ban intra-state commerce of controlled substances as well as put in place an international importation ban, but where does the Federal government derive the right to ban substances outright? That is a state duty.
Now, you have background checks for guns, which are a violation of the constitution, asking if you have ever used a controlled substance, which has been defined in an unconstitutional way... and a state that says it is not going to abide by Federal law. Did the Colorado law cite constitutional reasons for legalizing pot? No. They just said people in CO want to smoke weed. I think the Feds are not cracking down in Colorado because they know it could create a thorny Constitutional issue if it made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Even then, who knows if the Supreme Court would uphold the Constitution. They have ignored it before.
The term 'unlawful user' as described by the GCA is a person who has been convicted of possession in the previous year, or somebody found to have it in them through an administered drug test. Whether a person is addicted is up for debate.
We do live in interesting times and I'm curious to see how history will look back on this time period. I'm hopeful it will end well enough, but I'm hedging my bets.
It's called Taxes...
Just like the health care law mess, it was blatantly unconstitutional to fine people for not paying a private party for something.... But despite the endless hype of "it's not a tax" when the law was passed, the Supreme court nicely helped them re-write the law and claim that the individual mandate penalty is a "TAX" so now perfectly fine....
You can have your Marijuana under federal law if you pay for a tax stamp for them... the problem is they won't sell you a tax stamp for them... so....
Same with NFA stuff... It comes down to taxing it... you are evading the tax if you don't have the tax stamp... never mind they won't give you one.. so...
You can thank the idiots who voted to ratify the 16th amendment to the constitution because they felt a bit jealous of some rich people and wanted the Government to go steal some money for them just because they were jealous... See how that worked out for everyone... The super rich pay less taxes than anyone else HA!
Folks we have a winner.
That is nice of the ATF and all, but our Sheriff has already made a stand and LOST on Med Mary Janers and revoking their CHLs. So it'll be decided in court.
Supreme Court: Oregon Marijuana Patients Can Keep Their Guns | Marijuana and Cannabis News | Toke of the Town
Concealed handgun owners with Oregon medical marijuana authorizations will be allowed to keep their gun licenses after a U.S. Supreme Court decision not to hear a sheriff's legal challenge which claimed U.S. federal law trumps Oregon state law
Supreme Court: Oregon Marijuana Patients Can Keep Their Guns | Marijuana and Cannabis News | Toke of the Town
Concealed handgun owners with Oregon medical marijuana authorizations will be allowed to keep their gun licenses after a U.S. Supreme Court decision not to hear a sheriff's legal challenge which claimed U.S. federal law trumps Oregon state law
FWIW - I have been thinking about legalization and the bedfellows behind the movement - everyone from the leftist to the libertarians. What the libertarians aren't picking up on in their vain crys of freedom, is that it is always about control. Legalization is merely the illusion of the granting of a right. Control will be established via the health care law (and others). Additionally, you need to clue into the efforts to make vehicles driverless by 2050. It sure as hell isn't for your convenience - it is about controlling your movements (from your micro apartment to your production center and back). Arguing that we have an out of control population of stoned / drunk / drugged drivers on the roads, will be another arrow in the quiver. Learn to see the man behind the curtain…he ain't no wizard.
Local police refuse to participate in 'voluntary' traffic checkpoints -- Society's Child -- Sott.net
The US government's use of traffic checkpoints to gather drunk and drugged driving information from motorists has come under fire recently, so much so that some police agencies are withdrawing their participation.
These checkpoints, established by a subcontractor for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, are co-manned by off-duty, uniformed officers and intended to ask people about their driving habits.
Local police refuse to participate in 'voluntary' traffic checkpoints -- Society's Child -- Sott.net
The US government's use of traffic checkpoints to gather drunk and drugged driving information from motorists has come under fire recently, so much so that some police agencies are withdrawing their participation.
These checkpoints, established by a subcontractor for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, are co-manned by off-duty, uniformed officers and intended to ask people about their driving habits.
I just renewed my Colorado CCW and with it, the paper work very specifically said that even though weed is legal here, you cannot as a CCW holder be in any type of possession of it or have it in your blood. I don't use weed so it doesn't bother me any but the paper work did make it very clear that weed and guns in Colorado don't mix.
It is interesting how the wording on the BATFE form says "are you an unlawful user of, OR ADDICTED TO" ... stimulant, narcotic etc. Technically, the caffiene in coffee is a stimulant, so would all people who are "addicted" to their morning cup of coffee be technically precluded from use/possession of firearms?
Although caffiend isn't unlawful, there appears to be an inclusion of people who are unlawful users, OR people who are addicted to stimulants...but hell, we wouldn't want common sense to prevail here would we?
Although caffiend isn't unlawful, there appears to be an inclusion of people who are unlawful users, OR people who are addicted to stimulants...but hell, we wouldn't want common sense to prevail here would we?
That's actually a very valid argument. I believe the intent was addicted to a medication or the like. But it's worded so loosely. Wonder if we all sent letters to the ATF if they would bite and clarify. I'd love to see what they say about that.
DDont give them any ideas!
My comment about having common sense prevail was because I realize that the apparent intent was one thing, yet a truly anti-gun administration could define things to include very arbitrarily so that even moderate use of alcoholic beverages would be defined as "addicted". To be sure, there are a great many people who are actually addicted to coffee, tea, and caffienated beverages who could be precluded from firearms if BATFE chose to define them as addicts.
It could even go so far as to include anything that alters moods one way or another. Anyone who ever took one of the ADHD drugs as a child could be precluded based on use of a narcotic...even though it was prescribed by a doctor, and given to them prior to their reaching the age of consent. Things could get VERY draconian.
It could even go so far as to include anything that alters moods one way or another. Anyone who ever took one of the ADHD drugs as a child could be precluded based on use of a narcotic...even though it was prescribed by a doctor, and given to them prior to their reaching the age of consent. Things could get VERY draconian.
Similar threads
