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

[billdeserthills]

So pot laws are racist? Sorry, I don't buy that one.

Marijuana’s racist history shows the need for comprehensive drug reform | Brookings

John Hudak writes that cannabis reform must play a central part in the national conversation around policing, criminal and racial justice, and social equity.

www.brookings.edu

 

[The Heretic]

No more than if you have a beer after work you are an alcoholic.

I have known a lot more "mean drunks" than mean pot smokers, and I have known a lot more alcoholics than pot smokers.

If we are going to continue to make it illegal to smoke pot and own guns, then to be "fair", we should do the same for anybody who regularly drinks alcoholic beverages.

 

[wired]

Marijuana’s racist history shows the need for comprehensive drug reform | Brookings

John Hudak writes that cannabis reform must play a central part in the national conversation around policing, criminal and racial justice, and social equity.

www.brookings.edu

Yeah, the evidence is extensive that marijuana laws were targeted at minorities and were one of the tools helping to fill prisons when prison labor camps were in vogue up through the 1950's. Got rid of slavery , had to get cheap labor somewhere.

 

[Mark W.]

The Fifth just ruled this is unconstitutional Granted only effects their area BUT still.

 

[billdeserthills]

The Fifth just ruled this is unconstitutional Granted only effects their area BUT still.

 

[Xaevian]

Soon to be expanded to apply to a certain D.C. federal gun charge?

Vinnie, break out the tin foil, and not that aluminum, non-tinfoil stuff!

 

[E4mafia]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1689404583536218112

 

[gmerkt]

And yeah, pot laws are/were racist, especially in how they interact with gun laws

I still question the intersection of pot laws and firearms ownership as being racist. Being truthful in answering the question about marijuana use doesn't have to be about race. Meaning, a white or someone of color are equally on their honor in answering the question. So long as they say "no," they won't be disallowed regardless of color.

There are a great many white people who've been using marijuana since the 1970's, anyway. Surely any functional / practical racism no longer attaches to the question on the Form 4473? Saying it another way, I'm white -- if I answer "yes" to the question, I'm going to be denied just as any person of color who answers "yes." And if they answer "no," they will get the gun and I won't.

no one has the balls to repeal it

Pot is legal in almost half the states. I don't think any element of racial connection is the reason for federal inaction on the subject now. I think decriminalization of it on a federal basis will come in the future some time. Look how long it takes Congress to get things done. It's a thorny issue, lots of opinions on how it should be done, not a lot of agreement so far.

It's only my opinion, but using marijuana is probably no worse than using alcohol. You shouldn't drive cars or use firearms when using either one.

Re. cannabis topical cream, (somebody told me) you are as likely to get high by handling hemp rope as by having some cannabis cream on your skin. Yet federal employees technically are barred from using the cream because it's a cannabis "product."

The marijuana thing has been there since 1968 since the inception of the GCA.

I was able to look back at earlier editions of the 4473. Yes, the marijuana question was right there. It wasn't until the 2016 edition that it was printed in bold type and emphasized the juxtaposition of state vs. federal differences.

I turned 18 in 1968, so I wasn't legally able to buy a firearm before the 4473 was used. But a few times, older friends bought stuff for me. As I recall, the sale was simply made on a receipt, they didn't have to fill out a federal form making any declarations. It had been a law since 1938 that drug users weren't allowed to buy guns but if there was some way to try to pin buyers down about this I'm not aware of it. What I'm saying here is, before the 4473, how was the alleged racism of asking about marijuana use carried out?

 

[gmerkt]

The Fifth just ruled this is unconstitutional Granted only effects their area BUT still.

I saw that in the news and immediately thought about this thread.

Some poor guy with a couple of roaches in his car ashtray gets nailed on a pull-over, while also carrying a gun. So he gets crucified on the gun angle.

BUT: Is there a danger that a ruling of this sort will come to benefit the commercial illegal drug trade just as it does a private citizen otherwise minding his own business?

 

[Mark W.]

ONE LAW FOR ALL SO MAYBE

 

[wired]

I still question the intersection of pot laws and firearms ownership as being racist. Being truthful in answering the question about marijuana use doesn't have to be about race. Meaning, a white or someone of color are equally on their honor in answering the question. So long as they say "no," they won't be disallowed regardless of color.

There are a great many white people who've been using marijuana since the 1970's, anyway. Surely any functional / practical racism no longer attaches to the question on the Form 4473? Saying it another way, I'm white -- if I answer "yes" to the question, I'm going to be denied just as any person of color who answers "yes." And if they answer "no," they will get the gun and I won't.


Pot is legal in almost half the states. I don't think any element of racial connection is the reason for federal inaction on the subject now. I think decriminalization of it on a federal basis will come in the future some time. Look how long it takes Congress to get things done. It's a thorny issue, lots of opinions on how it should be done, not a lot of agreement so far.

It's only my opinion, but using marijuana is probably no worse than using alcohol. You shouldn't drive cars or use firearms when using either one.

Re. cannabis topical cream, (somebody told me) you are as likely to get high by handling hemp rope as by having some cannabis cream on your skin. Yet federal employees technically are barred from using the cream because it's a cannabis "product."


I was able to look back at earlier editions of the 4473. Yes, the marijuana question was right there. It wasn't until the 2016 edition that it was printed in bold type and emphasized the juxtaposition of state vs. federal differences.

I turned 18 in 1968, so I wasn't legally able to buy a firearm before the 4473 was used. But a few times, older friends bought stuff for me. As I recall, the sale was simply made on a receipt, they didn't have to fill out a federal form making any declarations. It had been a law since 1938 that drug users weren't allowed to buy guns but if there was some way to try to pin buyers down about this I'm not aware of it. What I'm saying here is, before the 4473, how was the alleged racism of asking about marijuana use carried out?

I still question the intersection of pot laws and firearms ownership as being racist. Being truthful in answering the question about marijuana use doesn't have to be about race. Meaning, a white or someone of color are equally on their honor in answering the question. So long as they say "no," they won't be disallowed regardless of color.

There are a great many white people who've been using marijuana since the 1970's, anyway. Surely any functional / practical racism no longer attaches to the question on the Form 4473? Saying it another way, I'm white -- if I answer "yes" to the question, I'm going to be denied just as any person of color who answers "yes." And if they answer "no," they will get the gun and I won't.


Pot is legal in almost half the states. I don't think any element of racial connection is the reason for federal inaction on the subject now. I think decriminalization of it on a federal basis will come in the future some time. Look how long it takes Congress to get things done. It's a thorny issue, lots of opinions on how it should be done, not a lot of agreement so far.

It's only my opinion, but using marijuana is probably no worse than using alcohol. You shouldn't drive cars or use firearms when using either one.

Re. cannabis topical cream, (somebody told me) you are as likely to get high by handling hemp rope as by having some cannabis cream on your skin. Yet federal employees technically are barred from using the cream because it's a cannabis "product."


I was able to look back at earlier editions of the 4473. Yes, the marijuana question was right there. It wasn't until the 2016 edition that it was printed in bold type and emphasized the juxtaposition of state vs. federal differences.

I turned 18 in 1968, so I wasn't legally able to buy a firearm before the 4473 was used. But a few times, older friends bought stuff for me. As I recall, the sale was simply made on a receipt, they didn't have to fill out a federal form making any declarations. It had been a law since 1938 that drug users weren't allowed to buy guns but if there was some way to try to pin buyers down about this I'm not aware of it. What I'm saying here is, before the 4473, how was the alleged racism of asking about marijuana use carried out?

Havent spent much time in the south I take it.Jim Crow wasnt all about drinking from water fountains and sitting in the back of the bus and going to a different school. Pretend for a second that you are a US senator in the early to mid 20th century from Florida or Georgia or Texas or pick any state in the eastern part of the US south of Ohio. Throw Ohio in too. You are a fat cat good old boy. You are the dictionary definition of corruption. Some of your primary jobs are to a. make sure that blacks dont vote and b. make sure that blacks don't own guns and c. make sure that the prison system is full of blacks. Mexicans too if you're in Texas. One way to do that is tie basic citizenship rights like owning guns and voting to marijuana possession. Other stuff too to be sure but marijuana was an easy one. Why did the prisons need to be full? Because thats where free labor came from in the form of prison work crews before machinery to do it became prevalent. Keeps the PWT , the greasers and the blacks in the prison system , strips voting rights and keeps them from owning guns. ezpz. A pot seed would get you 5 years of hard labor back int he day. Anyway you Mr. Senator are who makes the nations laws.

 

[gmerkt]

Havent spent much time in the south I take it.

That's a fact. But I have been aware of some of what you describe. I just find the connection between guns, marijuana and racism somewhat tenuous in today's reality. It's no longer the early to mid 20th Century.

I do have my own experiences with racism in the 1960's. The major civil rights legislative efforts of 1964 and 65 didn't have immediate, universal effect. Defacto segregation was still going on in the US Army when I was in, and the army had been nominally desegregated way back in 1948 by Harry Truman. Yet in 1969 when I arrived at my first permanent duty station in Missouri, I was in for some unexpected experiences. On the way to my ultimate assignment, I went down the chain of personnel offices. When I got to a certain battalion, I was sent over to the S-1. There was a mean master sergeant in charge there. He looked at my papers, and with a drawl, he said, "Boy, we gonna send you to the (N-word) company." Sure enough, somehow or other, they had concentrated most of the cadre in the battalion who were black in that one company. The company commander, the first sergeant, the field first sergeant, and the training NCO all were black, and most of the mess personnel were as well. A black company commander was still a kinda rare thing. I got along fine in that unit, did my job well and got along with everyone. The mean master sergeant at battalion S-1 tried everything he could to sabotage the reputation of the company, which made me work all the harder at administrative perfection to confound him.

The subject of prison labor is a pretty big kettle of fish. There are still four states in the South that do not compensate inmate workers for labor performed. The justification for non-payment is that the labor performed reimburses the state for the costs incurred from confinement. It doesn't matter what race the inmate may be, he isn't going to get paid. There are states not in the South where inmates are expected to reimburse the "system" for room, board and medical during their time of confinement, whether they work or not. Which in my opinion isn't right; once you are confined, it's the responsibility of the state to provide for your basic needs. There is a lot more to this subject, but we're getting off the track here.

 

[wired]

That's a fact. But I have been aware of some of what you describe. I just find the connection between guns, marijuana and racism somewhat tenuous in today's reality. It's no longer the early to mid 20th Century.

I do have my own experiences with racism in the 1960's. The major civil rights legislative efforts of 1964 and 65 didn't have immediate, universal effect. Defacto segregation was still going on in the US Army when I was in, and the army had been nominally desegregated way back in 1948 by Harry Truman. Yet in 1969 when I arrived at my first permanent duty station in Missouri, I was in for some unexpected experiences. On the way to my ultimate assignment, I went down the chain of personnel offices. When I got to a certain battalion, I was sent over to the S-1. There was a mean master sergeant in charge there. He looked at my papers, and with a drawl, he said, "Boy, we gonna send you to the (N-word) company." Sure enough, somehow or other, they had concentrated most of the cadre in the battalion who were black in that one company. The company commander, the first sergeant, the field first sergeant, and the training NCO all were black, and most of the mess personnel were as well. A black company commander was still a kinda rare thing. I got along fine in that unit, did my job well and got along with everyone. The mean master sergeant at battalion S-1 tried everything he could to sabotage the reputation of the company, which made me work all the harder at administrative perfection to confound him.

The subject of prison labor is a pretty big kettle of fish. There are still four states in the South that do not compensate inmate workers for labor performed. The justification for non-payment is that the labor performed reimburses the state for the costs incurred from confinement. It doesn't matter what race the inmate may be, he isn't going to get paid. There are states not in the South where inmates are expected to reimburse the "system" for room, board and medical during their time of confinement, whether they work or not. Which in my opinion isn't right; once you are confined, it's the responsibility of the state to provide for your basic needs. There is a lot more to this subject, but we're getting off the track here.

Those laws just morphed into what we have today during Nixons anti drug crusade and have been largely untouched ever since. The effects of alcohol on the body and family are far worse than marijuana yet social drinking isn't going to keep you from owning guns if you are honest about it on a 4473 and quite frankly why would you be?

 

[ODG_Chad]

Yeah, the evidence is extensive that marijuana laws were targeted at minorities and were one of the tools helping to fill prisons when prison labor camps were in vogue up through the 1950's. Got rid of slavery , had to get cheap labor somewhere.

Even the term 'marijuana' is a term that was popularized because of an anti-hispanic bias at the time. It's partly why people in that industry insist so much on the term 'cannabis' instead.

 

[duldej]

Just trying to disarm the population with an incentive-based reason. Some like to get high, and woops now you can't fight the power.

It's convenient for govts in states like OR where it's legal, statewide, and illegal, federally, and yields oodles of data on whomsoever frequents pot shops.

We are in the middle of a data-hungry game. The BLM protests in Portland and any other catch-and-release criminals are now in the books so as to make law enforcement easy, going forward.

I do not believe the beat cops are sufficiently briefed on all of this, as it has yet to get to that level.

 

[GWS]

Geez. You'd think that with the prospect of so much tax revenue from pot, those knotheads in DC would have legalized it years ago.

 

[JTK1791]

Geez. You'd think that with the prospect of so much tax revenue from pot, those knotheads in DC would have legalized it years ago.

Unfortunately the privatization of prisons has made it harder for it to be legal because they put big money towards keeping it illegal to keep their jails full. Also gives the government more reasons to make felons (which they love because they have no rights). bubblegum my old tattoo artist is a felon because he got popped with a half gram in Idaho years ago. There was a case recently that may set a precedent on firearms ownership and cannabis possession though.

Drug user cannot be barred from owning guns, US court rules

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that a decades-old law prohibiting users of illegal drugs from owning firearms was unconstitutional as applied to the case of a marijuana user, the latest fallout from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights.

www.reuters.com

 

[billdeserthills]

Geez. You'd think that with the prospect of so much tax revenue from pot, those knotheads in DC would have legalized it years ago.

That's what I thought about prostitution, but no...

 

[wired]

That's what I thought about prostitution, but no...

What did state sanctioned sales and taxation of marijuana do to sales in Oregon? Last I heard the price had dropped so low the state regulated stores weren't making enough to cover expenses.

 

[Flopsweat]

What did state sanctioned sales and taxation of marijuana do to sales in Oregon? Last I heard the price had dropped so low the state regulated stores weren't making enough to cover expenses.

Is illegal drug trade still cheaper than legal drug trade? That could be a problem. If only our "leaders" had thought of that.