National ATF: Until recreational cannabis is federally legalized, pot users cannot own guns

[msgriff]

About 1 1/2 years ago in Newport News Virginia, a six year old took his mothers gun to school and shot his teacher. The mother was charged with various state crimes a few months ago. Today, the Feds charged her with a couple of gun crimes relating to her habitual use of marijuana and lying on the 4473. Apparently, she will plead guilty in some sort of deal, but I certainly hope that she at least becomes a prohibited person.
Link: WAVY TV news

 

[The Heretic]

They'd just clip a bit of hair if they had to, though rare, I wouldn't put it past the federal government. It can get in your hair and glands just by being around it. Hell, a good amount of non-users in Portland might even test positive because of the shear amount of it in certain areas.

Jokes on them - I shave my head, so they can go for pubic hair.

 

[Member 34319]

Jokes on them - I shave my head, so they can go for pubic hair.

With the shear amount of fear mongering about the ATF online, I would be surprised if they took you up on that offer.

 

[MTpockets]

 

[Cosimel]

Somehow I think the Feds wouldn't charge anyone for just cannabis use and/or possession alone; but you can count on it if they think there's other firearm violations. Then there's the rumor going around that Hunter Biden's defense team is thinking of using the Bruen decision to get Hunter's lie on the 4473 thrown out. If that actually succeeds, I can't imagine that question remaining on the 4473, but if it does, I doubt any Federal prosecutor would try for a conviction based solely on drug use.

 

[OneArgus]

If I had Cannabis.

Its fine, and all legal.

Because they identify as a Rose bush.

And I do not own firearms, as they identify as tent poles.

 

[MichaelH]

Somehow I think the Feds wouldn't charge anyone for just cannabis use and/or possession alone; but you can count on it if they think there's other firearm violations. Then there's the rumor going around that Hunter Biden's defense team is thinking of using the Bruen decision to get Hunter's lie on the 4473 thrown out. If that actually succeeds, I can't imagine that question remaining on the 4473, but if it does, I doubt any Federal prosecutor would try for a conviction based solely on drug use.

That'd create a pile of cognitive dissonance for the politically right 2A community if it was effective.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Doesn't matter how much or little one uses; what matters is that question; "are you an unlawful user of marijuana?" .

I'm NOT an Unlawful User, my state made it LEGAL!

 

[CamoDeafie]

I'm NOT an Unlawful User, my state made it LEGAL!

Still Federally unlawful

 

[RedneckRampage]

What if I don't use it, only sell it?

 

[raftman]

What if I don't use it, only sell it?

Well then it could be argued you're using it to make a profit! Does using necessarily mean ingesting?

 

[Member 34319]

I'm NOT an Unlawful User, my state made it LEGAL!

Still Federally unlawful

So, who wins? State or Feds?

If it's the Feds, then I'd pot truly still illegal?

If it's state, than?

 

[ColeInOregon]

The AFT states this everytime a new state legalizes marijuana, in one form or another. The problem is if they were really interested in pursuing these cases they have many opportunities to make high profile and basically open and shut cases. A good example is Joe Rogan, he is on video regularly and openly consuming mj and other substances, in one episode Tim Kennedy, gives him a handgun as welcome gift, also, Alex Jones gifted Joe a rifle on his show. 3 open and shut case right there, with all the evidence on video, 1st a prohibited possessor and 2nd and 3rd a person giving a gun to someone they knew was a prohibited person. Then there's Post Malone open carrying and also transferring firearms back and forth with Garand Thumb, I am sure there are plenty of other examples too.
I know a part of this is just the old "rules for thee and not for me" but also believe the AFT knows they don't have strong case on constitutional grounds. This changing would remove the tools they have to prosecute lower profile offenders by adding charges to an existing crime.
I do hope they charge Hunter with this as it will probably force the governments hand on AFT rule making.

 

[CamoDeafie]

So, who wins? State or Feds?

If it's the Feds, then I'd pot truly still illegal?

If it's state, than?

Federal Supremacy Clause

Funny.

Montana tried it in 2008 to make it legal for unlicensed civilians to own, buy, sell, Montana made NFA items as long as they're residents of Montana. Feds went "yeah, no." NFA and GCA gives Feds "sole" regulationary authority for gun commerce even if not crossed state lines because "can impact interstate commerce" and "Fed Supremacy Clause"

I think Texas did something better but it's still gonna end up before SCOTUS or some such anyhow

 

[The Heretic]

So, who wins? State or Feds?

If it's the Feds, then I'd pot truly still illegal?

If it's state, than?

Eventually the Feds will legalize.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Eventually the Feds will legalize.

Depends on the Administration and Congress. They're still riding the gravy boat of keeping MJ federally illegal

 

[Member 34319]

I think they just haven't written the tax codes yet.

 

[old greg]

If you're going to just start openly lying, make it a little trickier to catch you than to just flip back one page:
Also the flight example was not as trivial as you keep pretending. Again, these people were able to openly flout a regulation that would have resulted in an ordinary person catching a lifetime ban from flying with the associated airline. How is this weak and trivial?

Im not lying, you keep ignoring that i asked two questions. "Can you share some of those "two many examples?"", ALSO, who wasn't expected to follow covid rules?"

I asked two questions, hence the word "also". You only answered one then claim im lying or arguing in bad faith. When you ignoring the fact that i asked two separate questions it sounds like your the one arguing in bad faith.

But if your so upset about someone not catching a lifetime ban for not wearing a mask on a plane, and you have proof, your more than welcome to report them.

 

[raftman]

Im not lying, you keep ignoring that i asked two questions. "Can you share some of those "two many examples?"", ALSO, who wasn't expected to follow covid rules?"

I asked two questions, hence the word "also". You only answered one then claim im lying or arguing in bad faith. When you ignoring the fact that i asked two separate questions it sounds like your the one arguing in bad faith.

But if your so upset about someone not catching a lifetime ban for not wearing a mask on a plane, and you have proof, your more than welcome to report them.

Except you claimed "at no point" did you ask for covid-specific examples when you clearly did… which most certainly is lying. I merely covered two birds with one stone… and then some.

I don't have to report the Texas Dems, they proudly photographed themselves committing the act and were celebrated for it.

 

[The Heretic]

Ok - I started this thread, but I am out of here.