Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by DMax, Apr 27, 2013.
Marijuana laws new tool to ban gun ownership
Glad they got the budget deficit and 17+ trillion of debt figured out.
SO the Fed are now going to be what Busting individuals for smoking pot? Will they be conducting traffic stops? Visiting homes? Sneeking around the bushes during hunting season? Sniffing people at the gun range.
Saying its a way to ban gun ownership and actually having some sort of method to do that would appear to me two very different things.
They can't get us out of Afghanistan where one of my home-town kids was recently killed. But they can take time to tell us all that ingestion of a natural plant that si specifically allowed by state law somehow invalidates a presumption of natural law that predates the United States.
They keep pushing. Sooner or later, the good guys are gonna start pushing back. -And it won't be with policy statements.
Finally, an instant cure for Glaucoma.
I posted a response to a thread awhile back with a link to the letter of determination from the BATFE on this exact subject. The letter has been in place for quit some time. It stemmed from people with state issued medical marijuana cards using their cards as identification when filling out their form 4473;Then clarification was sought. So the part about marijuana effecting the brain long term must be true; otherwise what kind of idiot would use a medical marijuana card as id when buying a firearm. I guess the old saying is true, you can't fix stupid.
0nce again, we're discussing an old worn out argument. Hundreds of prescription drugs with mind altering capabilities, as well as alcohol being freely available, and no cry about the dangers of those. It all boils down to personal responsibility and government involvement. Responsible gun owners are furious, and rightly so, when government puts us in the same category as gangbangers with guns. Yet some of those same people are still putting medical marijuana patients in the same category as full time stoners. As a caregiver, I'm very much aware of the different strains of marijuana that have little of the component that gives a high while still providing relief of symptoms. We don't discriminate against those who have a prescription for narcotic pain relievers, anti-depressents, or sleep aids. Why are we descriminating against those with a prescription for medical marijuana?
There is nothing new here.
The law prohibiting users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms has been around for decades.
There is no place in the U.S. where marijuana use is legal. The closest that we have come is two states (Washington and Colorado) that have removed state law sanctions against use. However, so long as marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act, it remains illegal in those two states.
The trend toward legalization is becoming clear and is developing some momentum, but it still isn't legal.
i cant help but think you support this idea. the feds are still over stepping their authority by using this against people in those two states. the key word there is "state", because all of the states were arranged to be their own sovereign states. the federal government was meant for regulating interstate commerce, not effecting the people in those states because of the laws that each state chooses to pass. it would be like the FBI coming to arrest you for using bottle rockets on the 4th in Washington because they deem it federally unlawful, while the local sheriff was enjoying the show you put on.
I'm actually rather conflicted on this one. While I don't personally approve of marijuana use, I very much believe in the rights of the individual states to determine the content of their criminal statutes.
States rights have taken a beating lately. I was troubled by the U.S Supreme Court's ruling in Gonzales v Raich (testing California's "medical" marijuana statutes), but was also impressed by Justice Thomas' dissent in that case.
It's obvious to anyone that has tried both, that alcohol is the more dangerous drug to combine with firearms. Obviously intoxicants and firearms together are never a great idea, but we all know there are people here drinking beer and shooting clays out in the woods.
It just says a lot that alcohol or alcoholism is not even within earshot of the questions asked on the 4473, but marijuana is specifically mentioned.
Keep in mind that the government still places marijuana in the same classification as heroin, cocaine, PCP, etc. Until that changes, they'll keep treating it legally as such.
All in all though, I'm really enjoying the fed getting major pushback from the states on a lot of major issues in the last few years. Seriously, it makes me simultaneously giddy and furious when we have the AG coming at states for passing their own contradictory laws on pot, guns, etc..
I'm going to burn a bowl in honor of this thread and the stupidity of the federal government.
If, at the time you fill in the form, you are not actively using drugs, simply answer "NO". After all, you just quit didn't you? -- Right after that last joint 2 days ago.
But seriously: If there is no defined way to QUIT (time expired since last joint), then you can create your own criteria. (One day, one hour, one year, since the last joint).
On the 4473 it asks if you were an unlawful user "within the last year", IIRC.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
So wait, that's a good thing right? Clear up the Glaucoma so you can better see what you're shooting at!!
Nope, question says ARE you. Not HAVE you ever, or have you in the last year, or have you in the last 10 minutes. Is says ARE you. So if your ARE NOT currently using and ARE NOT currently addicted, then you answer "NO".
None of their damn business.
Isn't alcohol a controled substance?
There are many people that will disagree with you on this. It IS legal in WA and CO. Look carefully at the wording of the NFA and the GCA..and you will find the infamous "commerce" clause. The same goes with what goes on in state. If it has not been in interstate commerce, the feds have no say, it is strictly a state thing.
As MJ cannot be traded interstate, it cannot influence interstate trade, and therefore the feds can just butt out. Ever wonder why the Feds did not directly attack CO and WA on this question? Because there was a good chance they would loose in court is why.
Only distilled spirits. And then, only if you buy it from a liquor store.
Separate names with a comma.