Firearms possession and Med Pot - Page 4

**Frank Ettin** · November 13, 2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blume357

...so whether you answer the questions honestly or not is a mute point....

So go ahead and lie on a 4473 and get caught. Then you'll see how moot it is to falsify a 4473.

You may think that the whole 4473 thing is unconstitutional. But so what? It's the opinion of the courts that matters. The opinions of courts regarding points of law, like constitutionality, affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blume357

My personal belief is that it doesn't matter what drugs you do legal or not... you have the right to do them.....

Perhaps in your alternate universe. But here in the real world, if you use drugs illegally and get caught, you go to jail or otherwise suffer some form of penalty. That doesn't sound like much of a right to me.

If you want to fantasize about how things in your opinion ought to be, fine. Personally, I outgrew late night dorm room bull sessions over 40 years ago.

And if you think things should be different, our system provides several mechanisms whereby you can try to change the way things are. There's no guarantee that you'll succeed. It will depend on who's willing to go along with your notions. But you have the opportunity.

In the meantime, we live in the real world; and our acts have consequences under the laws as they are today.

amd6547 · November 13, 2009, 12:03 PM

Alcohol prohibition was ended via the general ignoring of a stupid law by most of the population. The side effects of that law turned out to be worse than the use of alcohol, with the creation of powerful gangs, and violent battles over turf (another side effect being some of the firearms laws we live with now)...the same as today. Today we have the Mexican drug cartels supplying the demand for their product, and fighting violent wars against rivals, with the possibility of new gun laws we will deal with aimed at them.
Are their possible consequences to disobeying a stupid, unconstitutional law? Of course. However, that is sometimes the only way to get laws changed.

**Frank Ettin** · November 13, 2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amd6547

Alcohol prohibition was ended via the general ignoring of a stupid law by most of the population....
Are their possible consequences to disobeying a stupid, unconstitutional law? Of course. However, that is sometimes the only way to get laws changed.

First, Prohibition may have been stupid, but it wasn't unconstitutional. In fact the Constitution was amended to allow it.

So are you now suggesting that a lot of people should be using illegal drugs to get the drug laws changed? A lot of people have been doing that for quite a while (longer than Prohibition was in place), with relatively little effect. Or are you suggesting that a lot of people should violate the gun laws to stimulate changing them?

Either way, you seem to be advocating illegal conduct. And that's something that really ought not be done here.

And in any case the politics of alcohol use, illegal drug use, and guns, are very different from each other, as are the broad social attitudes about each.

amd6547 · November 13, 2009, 01:11 PM

I advocate nothing, fiddletown, besides the notion that free Americans make their own decisions about their own conduct, and what aspects of their lives they are willing to cede to the nanny state.
The correlation between alcohol prohibition and drug laws is valid, and in fact many of the drug laws were instituted as job security for alcohol warriors at the end of prohibition.
As I stated, I am subject to frequent and random drug testing in my job, so for me, this discussion is more theoretical.
Do I advocate the illegal use or cultivation of pot? No.
Does it bother me that grown adults, with good jobs and happy families, who vote and pay taxes, and have served honorably their country in time of war, smoke an occaisional joint? No, not at all. Not my buisiness, and not the government's, either.
This country is falling apart while debates on nonsense like jailing pot user's is distracting people.
And, to get back to the firearms aspect, the drug laws are used again and again to restrict firearms rights.

orangello · November 13, 2009, 02:08 PM

Not to get tooooooo dramatic, but some of you might wish to review the history of Americans using Civil Disobedience. There was a lady named Rosa Parks who used it to great effect some time ago. Whether filling out a form (that i personally consider to be an over-reaching of government powers) in a less-than-completely-truthful manner could be equated with "civil disobedience" is a matter of opinion, in my opinion.

The "some of you" i refer to are those who appear willing to be serfs to the mandates of a government that was designed to act as directed by its citizens. I do not mean to sound mean or condesending.

HiBC · November 13, 2009, 03:55 PM

Speaking for myself only,I really do not care if anyone smokes pot.Yawn.Do whatever makes you happy.Most of us here own guns.OK.If you want to own guns and smoke pot,another big yawn.I do not care.

If it should occur that someone goes to jail and becomes a felon because they made choices,yawn,do not whine.

There are folks who choose to defy the income tax laws.OK.They stand up,and go to Federal Prison.I know one who spent years in Leavenworth.He can't own a gun now.If that is a good way to spend a life for you,go for it.

What put Scooter Libby in prison? He was convicted of making a false statement.

If you already know what you are doing,and don't care,I don't care.

Some folks are just uninformed,and really do not want to inadvertantly become felons,and document it for the feds to boot.They get to make an informed choice,and that is OK,right?

markj · November 13, 2009, 05:04 PM

Some see this as a changing of the times. Some belive the feds will completly de criminalize it.

I myself would rather see a pot head with a gun than a drunk with a gun, both are dangerous but the drunk will always do the unimaginable every time, pothead most likly will fall asleep or leave for some munchies.

Folks sign that paper every day and many I feel lie about the drug use thing.

Not gonna get my panties wadded up over it...

Not prudent at this juncture.....

**Tom Servo** · November 13, 2009, 05:16 PM

Quote:

There was a lady named Rosa Parks who used it to great effect some time ago. Whether filling out a form (that i personally consider to be an over-reaching of government powers) in a less-than-completely-truthful manner could be equated with "civil disobedience" is a matter of opinion, in my opinion.

Let's be careful with such comparisons. Some folks would consider them disingenuous at best, incredibly tasteless at worst.

I had a guy once tell me that Florida's requirement to conceal a gun was equal to Anne Frank hiding in the attic. Those sorts of things don't make us many friends in the mainstream arena.

Now, in Ms. Park's time, people were denied rights and had no real recourse. We do have recourse in matters related to the 4473. As I mentioned before, we can propose and support legislation, and we can bring court challenges.

Nothing on the 4473 says I can't use the same water fountain, ride the same bus or hold the same job as someone else.

**Frank Ettin** · November 13, 2009, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amd6547

I advocate nothing, fiddletown, besides the notion that free Americans make their own decisions about their own conduct,...

I agree that people should make their own decisions. But hopefully they will be making well considered and informed choices. Fanciful and false notions about the law and how the world works don't help.

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangello

...some of you might wish to review the history of Americans using Civil Disobedience. There was a lady named Rosa Parks who used it to great effect some time ago....

Anyone who thinks he can be the Rosa Parks of the RKBA movement by lying on a form 4473 is welcome to try, get caught and see what happens. It will be a pretty safe bet that some things won't happen. There will be no editorials of praise in the New York Times, no demonstrations of support on college campuses and no applause from public figures of the stature of a Martin Luther King.

The reality is that there aren't near enough ordinary folks who are going to get upset about felons, druggies or psychologically disturbed persons not being able to buy guns.

amd6547 · November 13, 2009, 07:18 PM

A person who consumes pot in a moderate manner is not a "druggie", any more than a person who consumes alcohol in a moderate manner is an "alcoholic". Name calling helps no one, and reduces individuals to a class of untermensch.
Really, the only fanciful and false ideas I have seen expressed here is the one which states that the law may only be changed by blind obedience till such time that courts and legislatures see fit to do so in answer to meek petition, and the idea that our rights under the constitution may be granted or taken away by the Supreme Court, whose rulings we are supposed to blindly accept.

Al Norris · November 13, 2009, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amd6547

Name calling helps no one, and reduces individuals to a class of untermensch.

The problem is that if someone is arrested for consumption of marijuana, then the majority of America will call them a "druggie." It's a label, like liberal and conservative, left or right.

It is not however, name-calling in the manner you have used.

As several have said, should you not like this label, then work to change the public perception. Change the perception and you are that much closer to getting the law changed.

SteelJM1 · November 13, 2009, 09:03 PM

+1 to Antipitas

Just as if the gunowners of this country don't want to be seen as "whackos" then we need to change public perception of gun ownership. It's the public you need to convince, not the government.

**Frank Ettin** · November 13, 2009, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amd6547

A person who consumes pot in a moderate manner is not a "druggie", any more than a person who consumes alcohol in a moderate manner is an "alcoholic"....

You may think so, and even I may think so. But try convincing Suzi Soccermom.

She's uncertain whether ordinary people should even be able to own guns. And in her world "nice" people don't use marijuana. She positively gets the vapors at the thought of people who smoke dope having guns. There are a lot of people like her, and they vote.

The reality is that in our world there are broad segments of society in which alcohol use is far more socially acceptable than drug use, even in moderation. Understanding how others view the world is essential to furthering our interests politically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by amd6547

...the only fanciful and false ideas I have seen expressed here is the one which states that the law may only be changed by blind obedience till such time that courts and legislatures see fit to do so in answer to meek petition, and the idea that our rights under the constitution may be granted or taken away by the Supreme Court, whose rulings we are supposed to blindly accept.

I don't recall anyone talking about blind obediance or blind acceptance. But it does remain the reality that breaking the law has consequences that most folks will find unpleasant. And the legal system is what it is.

There has been some discussion about how things are changed within the system. That appears to be unsatisfactory to you. If so, do have have a concrete alternative to suggest? And can you show that your alternative has some reasonable prospect for success?

And if you think that the system is not working the way the Founding Fathers thought it should, how about providing some evidence?

blume357 · November 14, 2009, 08:36 AM

they choose... with that said, should come education from the ground up...

It's pretty well ingrained in us that one should not drink and drive and if you do and get caught you are screwed.

Same should go for drinking and carrying or smoking pot or doing any other drug and carrying or going to a shooting range.

My gun club has a simple rule... you drink and you don't shoot... you do and it's hit the road for good.

Our society, government, just keeps trying to regulate personal vices... one day we will learn that it just don't work.

orangello · November 16, 2009, 05:25 PM

I think this thread has been enlightening regarding the differences of opinions on the use of marijuana. It also seems to have provided an answer on the legality of checking that block if one consumes medical pot with a prescription.

I have an additional question "who & how would they prosecute me for checking that block falsely?". Let's say a person purchased a handgun through a chain retailer & checked the box in such a false manner as to allow them to purchase a pistol even though they are technically not supposed to be able to purchase a firearm. Let's further assume that same person was later charged with possession of marijuana in some jurisdiction that does not recognize medical marijuana as legal. How will the court, the citing/arresting officer, or the federal government connect the dots and find that nasty lil druggie guilty of lying on the 4473? If the violation occured in my state (no medical pot) & was less than 1ounce, it would be a misdemeanor that looks much like a traffic citation and under likely circumstances (had legit ID & no outstanding warrants) wouldn't even merit a trip to the stationhouse, jail, or (if paid timely) even to court.

Note* If the moderators think this question comes to close to asking for an illegal solution to a theoretical scenario, please just delete this post rather than locking the thread. Thanks

dogtown tom · November 16, 2009, 06:39 PM

Quote:

orangello: ..."who & how would they prosecute me for checking that block falsely?"...

As far as who: Jurisdiction depends on what you get charged with.

As far as how: Federal charge for falsifying a Form 4473.

ATF routinely runs firearms traces for recovered guns. First through manufacturer, then wholesaler, then your local FFL. FFL is then required to submit the Form 4473 for that transaction.

orangello · November 16, 2009, 06:56 PM

I appreciate the response Dogtown, but i think you may have misunderstood.

If a person is cited or arrested for medicinal (or not) pot by a county sheriff or city policeman, how is that connected to a firearm?

If the firearm were present at the time of the citation or arrest, i suppose i could see the LEO sending a notification to the ATF. If the firearm isn't present at the time or isn't confiscated, how will the people with jurisdiction for form 4473 violations become aware?

(not trying to dicker, just not sure i'm getting through)

dogtown tom · November 16, 2009, 07:19 PM

Quote:

orangello:...If a person is cited or arrested for medicinal (or not) pot by a county sheriff or city policeman, how is that connected to a firearm?

ATF knows everything about you already.

Seriously, ATF would only get involved if during a traffic stop they discovered a firearm and asked ATF for a trace.

I do not know how California or those other states who require firearm registration would connect you to ownership of guns. Here in Texas if you get pulled over by a police officer he can tell pretty quick if you have been issued a Concealed Handgun License.

I would bet that in California their firearm registration information is available to any police officer during a traffic stop.

**Frank Ettin** · November 16, 2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangello

...How will the court, the citing/arresting officer, or the federal government connect the dots and find that nasty lil druggie guilty of lying on the 4473?...

Beats me, but there are all kinds of ways in which people who do illegal things get found out. How lucky does the guy feel? People who do illegal things never expect to get caught, but from time to time they are.

So maybe after our marijuana user is found illegally possessing weed, the police decide to get a warrant and search his house for more contraband. They find some guns and ammunition and something (a receipt or business card, perhaps) connecting him to an FFL. So the local police tip BATF, and now the BATF decides to lean on the FFL about why he's selling guns and ammunition to a drug user. And now things begin to unravel, because the FFL isn't going to fall on his sword for our subject. The FFL pulls out his file copies of some 4473s to show that the subject denied being an illegal drug user.

Why would the local cop tip BATF? Again, who knows? There could be any number of reasons -- a spirit of mutual cooperation, a local cop who owes a BATF agent a favor, a police office angling for a BATF job, etc. Things happen.

You might protest that the cops aren't going to go to such lengths, and maybe sometimes they won't. But maybe sometimes they will. Maybe something else piques their interest. Who can say?

Whenever someone does something illegal, he is, in effect, betting his freedom and his future on his being lucky enough to escape being found out. Sometime he's just not lucky enough.

**Tom Servo** · November 16, 2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

I think this thread has been enlightening regarding the differences of opinions on the use of marijuana.

Perhaps, but this is a board about firearms-related law and civil rights. Debates over the ethics or practicability of drug laws have, at best, a tangential place here.

Quote:

It also seems to have provided an answer on the legality of checking that block if one consumes medical pot with a prescription.

Yep. It's illegal. Talk about it enough, and it could be construed as conspiracy. Is it right? Probably not, but that's the way the law is at the moment.

I'd like to see what proposals some of the complainers have about actually changing the situation.

Quote:

I have an additional question "who & how would they prosecute me for checking that block falsely?". Let's say a person purchased a handgun through a chain retailer & checked the box in such a false manner as to allow them to purchase a pistol even though they are technically not supposed to be able to purchase a firearm.

If I were the retailer, and I found out someone lied on the 4473, I'd do everything in my power to make sure that person was prosecuted. The last thing Mr. Retailer needs is the ATF breathing down his neck, and I doubt the person responsible for bringing this sort of heat would (or should) receive any sympathy.

I've reported people for attempted straw purchases, and I'd report someone for this. Regardless of any feelings I might have about the ethics of the situation, lying on the form is still a criminal act.

orangello · November 16, 2009, 09:19 PM

Well, having spent a decade working for a state agency, and having seen the lack of cooperation throughout that agency, not to mention the difficulties encountered when trying to obtain cooperation from other agencies within that same state, not to even mention the flaming hoops of poo that had to be jumped to get federal cooperation, i have my doubts as to whether or not such a prosecution would forseeably take place under any normally occuring circumstances. It seems about as likely as me waking up to see Obama with his hand out asking for my guns, in person & with my favorite McBreakfast.

I do appreciate the various views presented.

**Frank Ettin** · November 16, 2009, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangello

...i have my doubts as to whether or not such a prosecution would forseeably take place....

Of course you have. But on the other hand, it seems that your perspective reduces to "it's illegal, but you're unlikely to get caught, so don't worry." I guess you're more clairvoyant than I am.

In any case, the potential downside of getting caught lying on a 4473 is substantial, even if you're right about the risk being slight. So anyone considering your strategy needs to decide if the upside is significant enough to warrant even a small risk of an enormous downside and a potentially ruined life.

Whenever one commits a seriously illegal act, he is betting his freedom and future that he will be lucky enough to avoid getting caught. Is it worth those stakes?

HiBC · November 17, 2009, 03:15 AM

I started this out with the idea that a person who gets a medpot card has documented themselves a user.

Things are loose now.That can change over night.

Suppose a health care bill passes,and it occurs that the feds take/create a database of all medical records,including your medpot records.

Somehow,it seems,if the Fed government is who we get our care from,the old Dr/patient confidentiality routine will be a casualty.

Now,was the nut jobs name Chu? at Virginia Tech? There was a big push to make sure folks wth a mental histoy could not have guns.

Like it or not,just to pick up the guns,there would be those who would label armed potsmokers as a threat.

For now,nonenforcement is politically an expedient thing to do.Folks who like to smoke think it is way cool.

But realize,with information technology and a "Oh,yes we can" administration,doggone,being real naive seems like a bad idea.Things can change overnight.

alloy · November 17, 2009, 08:11 AM

Can I use my medical marijuana card as an ID?
Dude, where's my car?

It's seems like a bad idea in general to lie on the form 4473 or to mix firearm handling with intoxicants.

orangello · November 17, 2009, 08:34 AM

It seems like the smart thing for any legal medical pot user to do would be to simply avoid the problem/conflict by making their firearms purchases from individuals rather than FFL's whenever legally possible. If they've deemed it wiser to document their pot use for potential governmental review through federal oversight of health services, those users must either keep their firearms purchases more private (as allowed legally, individual to individual sale).

If that crap isn't an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, then maybe the second amendment was very appropriately numbered as the big deuce. :barf:

November 13, 2009, 12:03 PM	#77
amd6547 Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2006 Posts: 2,313	Alcohol prohibition was ended via the general ignoring of a stupid law by most of the population. The side effects of that law turned out to be worse than the use of alcohol, with the creation of powerful gangs, and violent battles over turf (another side effect being some of the firearms laws we live with now)...the same as today. Today we have the Mexican drug cartels supplying the demand for their product, and fighting violent wars against rivals, with the possibility of new gun laws we will deal with aimed at them. Are their possible consequences to disobeying a stupid, unconstitutional law? Of course. However, that is sometimes the only way to get laws changed. __________________ The past is gone...the future may never happen. Be Here Now.

November 13, 2009, 01:11 PM	#79
amd6547 Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2006 Posts: 2,313	I advocate nothing, fiddletown, besides the notion that free Americans make their own decisions about their own conduct, and what aspects of their lives they are willing to cede to the nanny state. The correlation between alcohol prohibition and drug laws is valid, and in fact many of the drug laws were instituted as job security for alcohol warriors at the end of prohibition. As I stated, I am subject to frequent and random drug testing in my job, so for me, this discussion is more theoretical. Do I advocate the illegal use or cultivation of pot? No. Does it bother me that grown adults, with good jobs and happy families, who vote and pay taxes, and have served honorably their country in time of war, smoke an occaisional joint? No, not at all. Not my buisiness, and not the government's, either. This country is falling apart while debates on nonsense like jailing pot user's is distracting people. And, to get back to the firearms aspect, the drug laws are used again and again to restrict firearms rights. __________________ The past is gone...the future may never happen. Be Here Now.

November 13, 2009, 07:18 PM	#85
amd6547 Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2006 Posts: 2,313	A person who consumes pot in a moderate manner is not a "druggie", any more than a person who consumes alcohol in a moderate manner is an "alcoholic". Name calling helps no one, and reduces individuals to a class of untermensch. Really, the only fanciful and false ideas I have seen expressed here is the one which states that the law may only be changed by blind obedience till such time that courts and legislatures see fit to do so in answer to meek petition, and the idea that our rights under the constitution may be granted or taken away by the Supreme Court, whose rulings we are supposed to blindly accept. __________________ The past is gone...the future may never happen. Be Here Now. Last edited by amd6547; November 13, 2009 at 07:29 PM.

November 14, 2009, 08:36 AM	#89
blume357 Senior Member Join Date: August 2, 2005 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 3,943	first, I'm all in favor of the people being able to smoke dope, drink or what ever they choose... with that said, should come education from the ground up... It's pretty well ingrained in us that one should not drink and drive and if you do and get caught you are screwed. Same should go for drinking and carrying or smoking pot or doing any other drug and carrying or going to a shooting range. My gun club has a simple rule... you drink and you don't shoot... you do and it's hit the road for good. Our society, government, just keeps trying to regulate personal vices... one day we will learn that it just don't work.

November 13, 2009, 02:08 PM	#80
orangello Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Posts: 566	Not to get tooooooo dramatic, but some of you might wish to review the history of Americans using Civil Disobedience. There was a lady named Rosa Parks who used it to great effect some time ago. Whether filling out a form (that i personally consider to be an over-reaching of government powers) in a less-than-completely-truthful manner could be equated with "civil disobedience" is a matter of opinion, in my opinion. The "some of you" i refer to are those who appear willing to be serfs to the mandates of a government that was designed to act as directed by its citizens. I do not mean to sound mean or condesending.

November 13, 2009, 03:55 PM	#81
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,289	Speaking for myself only,I really do not care if anyone smokes pot.Yawn.Do whatever makes you happy.Most of us here own guns.OK.If you want to own guns and smoke pot,another big yawn.I do not care. If it should occur that someone goes to jail and becomes a felon because they made choices,yawn,do not whine. There are folks who choose to defy the income tax laws.OK.They stand up,and go to Federal Prison.I know one who spent years in Leavenworth.He can't own a gun now.If that is a good way to spend a life for you,go for it. What put Scooter Libby in prison? He was convicted of making a false statement. If you already know what you are doing,and don't care,I don't care. Some folks are just uninformed,and really do not want to inadvertantly become felons,and document it for the feds to boot.They get to make an informed choice,and that is OK,right?

November 13, 2009, 05:04 PM	#82
markj Senior Member Join Date: October 27, 2005 Location: Crescent Iowa Posts: 2,971	Some see this as a changing of the times. Some belive the feds will completly de criminalize it. I myself would rather see a pot head with a gun than a drunk with a gun, both are dangerous but the drunk will always do the unimaginable every time, pothead most likly will fall asleep or leave for some munchies. Folks sign that paper every day and many I feel lie about the drug use thing. Not gonna get my panties wadded up over it... Not prudent at this juncture.....

November 13, 2009, 09:03 PM	#87
SteelJM1 Senior Member Join Date: April 1, 2007 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 496	+1 to Antipitas Just as if the gunowners of this country don't want to be seen as "whackos" then we need to change public perception of gun ownership. It's the public you need to convince, not the government.

November 16, 2009, 05:25 PM	#90
orangello Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Posts: 566	I think this thread has been enlightening regarding the differences of opinions on the use of marijuana. It also seems to have provided an answer on the legality of checking that block if one consumes medical pot with a prescription. I have an additional question "who & how would they prosecute me for checking that block falsely?". Let's say a person purchased a handgun through a chain retailer & checked the box in such a false manner as to allow them to purchase a pistol even though they are technically not supposed to be able to purchase a firearm. Let's further assume that same person was later charged with possession of marijuana in some jurisdiction that does not recognize medical marijuana as legal. How will the court, the citing/arresting officer, or the federal government connect the dots and find that nasty lil druggie guilty of lying on the 4473? If the violation occured in my state (no medical pot) & was less than 1ounce, it would be a misdemeanor that looks much like a traffic citation and under likely circumstances (had legit ID & no outstanding warrants) wouldn't even merit a trip to the stationhouse, jail, or (if paid timely) even to court. Note* If the moderators think this question comes to close to asking for an illegal solution to a theoretical scenario, please just delete this post rather than locking the thread. Thanks

November 16, 2009, 06:56 PM	#92
orangello Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Posts: 566	I appreciate the response Dogtown, but i think you may have misunderstood. If a person is cited or arrested for medicinal (or not) pot by a county sheriff or city policeman, how is that connected to a firearm? If the firearm were present at the time of the citation or arrest, i suppose i could see the LEO sending a notification to the ATF. If the firearm isn't present at the time or isn't confiscated, how will the people with jurisdiction for form 4473 violations become aware? (not trying to dicker, just not sure i'm getting through)

November 16, 2009, 09:19 PM	#96
orangello Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Posts: 566	Well, having spent a decade working for a state agency, and having seen the lack of cooperation throughout that agency, not to mention the difficulties encountered when trying to obtain cooperation from other agencies within that same state, not to even mention the flaming hoops of poo that had to be jumped to get federal cooperation, i have my doubts as to whether or not such a prosecution would forseeably take place under any normally occuring circumstances. It seems about as likely as me waking up to see Obama with his hand out asking for my guns, in person & with my favorite McBreakfast. I do appreciate the various views presented.

November 17, 2009, 03:15 AM	#98
HiBC Senior Member Join Date: November 13, 2006 Posts: 8,289	I started this out with the idea that a person who gets a medpot card has documented themselves a user. Things are loose now.That can change over night. Suppose a health care bill passes,and it occurs that the feds take/create a database of all medical records,including your medpot records. Somehow,it seems,if the Fed government is who we get our care from,the old Dr/patient confidentiality routine will be a casualty. Now,was the nut jobs name Chu? at Virginia Tech? There was a big push to make sure folks wth a mental histoy could not have guns. Like it or not,just to pick up the guns,there would be those who would label armed potsmokers as a threat. For now,nonenforcement is politically an expedient thing to do.Folks who like to smoke think it is way cool. But realize,with information technology and a "Oh,yes we can" administration,doggone,being real naive seems like a bad idea.Things can change overnight.

November 17, 2009, 08:34 AM	#100
orangello Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Posts: 566	It seems like the smart thing for any legal medical pot user to do would be to simply avoid the problem/conflict by making their firearms purchases from individuals rather than FFL's whenever legally possible. If they've deemed it wiser to document their pot use for potential governmental review through federal oversight of health services, those users must either keep their firearms purchases more private (as allowed legally, individual to individual sale). If that crap isn't an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, then maybe the second amendment was very appropriately numbered as the big deuce. :barf: