|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 6, 2014, 04:43 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Don't rule out Washington Tom. We were stupid enough to legalize it too. And our local LEO's are being reined in from enforcing even what is still illegal. Top that off with Washington being more firearms friendly than Colorado, and I think the tension in the laws is slightly more likely here.
ETA: Colorado has about 1 in 36 Concealed Carriers, Washington has about 1 in 18. While that's not definitive evidence more people in Washington own, it's certainly suggestive. Last edited by JimDandy; January 6, 2014 at 04:53 PM. |
January 6, 2014, 05:17 PM | #52 |
Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 39
|
I recall my last purchase in California the form asked if you were addicted to or using any legal or illegal substances with an exception for marajuana. The state DOJ does not consider pot use as a disqualifier. This is ironic seeing as how California has the most strict regulations on firearm purchases/ownership in the country.
|
January 6, 2014, 06:10 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
|
I'm just playing the devil's advocate here:
"It shall be unlawful for any person (...) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 802) (...) to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce." This specifically says, "interstate" not "intrastate." I'll also point out that on the federal form the question regarding use of drugs is meaningless. One can be totally "drug free" at the time the form is filled out and the firearm is purchased. Unless of course the government feels that someone who smoked a joint 20 years previous to filling the ATF form for the firearm purchase (is considered to be by the federal government currently) using illegal substances or is addicted to prohibited substances at the time the form was submitted. This is of course preposterous. It is stated somewhere within this thread that the state of Colorado doesn't allow medical marijuana users to obtain concealed carry licenses. Although I'm not in Colorado, Oregon has mandated that medical marijuana users cannot be denied an Oregon State concealed handgun license based on that fact and licenses are indeed issued to people within the OMMP. So at least the state of Oregon has determined that an individual can safely use marijuana and possess firearms used for self defense. |
January 6, 2014, 06:17 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
First, try finding a firearm that is not in Interstate Commerce.
As for the time frame, it's been pointed out already that the Federal Government has defined the time period that counts. I don't remember where or how long, but my memory says it's about five years. As for Oregon, they can decide just about anything they want at the State level. Their Medical Marijuana recipients are still probably federally barred from firearms, concealed or otherwise. Just like the Federal Government can choose to enforce such a prohibition or not based on the (political) expediency or lack thereof in a prosecution. A strongly anti-marijuana Chief Executive could theoretically change policy, and cause headaches for a lot of people. |
January 6, 2014, 06:18 PM | #55 | |||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|||
January 6, 2014, 09:30 PM | #56 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The Oregon Supreme Court, in Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011), ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. The Court concluded that Ms. Willis had satisfied the statutory requirements under Oregon's "shall issue" conceal handgun license (CHL) law, notwithstanding that the use of marijuana violated federal law. So the Oregon sheriff was obliged under the applicable Oregon statute to issue a CHL to Ms. Willis. The case did not substantively address the federal law issue. In fact, the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added): And thus the Oregon Supreme Court specifically acknowledged that while Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun, she could still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3). Quote:
Again you are wrong. The cases you cite are cases in which the person's sole choices are, essentially, to commit a crime by failing to register or file something or admit a crime by registering or filing something. But if you don't have a gun and can't lawfully possess one, not having a gun is not a crime. So you have the legal choice to go without a gun. I've tried explaining to you several ways why requiring someone to truthfully complete the 4473 and prosecuting him if he doesn't answer truthfully does not violate one's right against self incrimination. You apparently can not or will not understand what I've been explaining to you and why the 4473 issue is different from the registration or tax filing cases. The bottom line is that I have not found a case in which a federal court has let someone charged with violating 18 USC 922(a)(6), making a false statement on a 4473, based on a defense that requiring a truthful answer would violate one's privilege against self-incrimination. Can you cite such a case? And on the contrary, a quick search found more than 50 appeals from convictions for violation of 18 USC 922(a)(6). In not a single one did the defendant even raise an objection to the conviction on the grounds that requiring a truthful answer violated his right not to incriminate himself.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
January 6, 2014, 10:22 PM | #57 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
And my point is more than that the question should provide immunity from prosecution for perjury. My point is that the question is, even by itself, asking for self incrimination. Oreste Fulminante could have stayed silent and broken no law, but he confessed to an informant for protection while in prison. Are you suggesting that if a plain clothed police officer looks over my shoulder when I check yes on this government form, and uses that as probable cause, I wouldn't have incriminated myself? The fact is the form specifically, directly asks if you have committed a crime. |
|
January 6, 2014, 10:35 PM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
Originally Posted by cal10 :
Quote:
When you refer to 'the form' in your above statement are you referring to the 4473 form? |
|
January 6, 2014, 11:00 PM | #59 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
You have incriminated yourself because you have admitted committing a crime. But the use of your admission does not violate your Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to testify against yourself. You have the right not to answer the question because you had the right not to buy the gun. Your choice to buy the gun was voluntary, and once you have made that choice you may be required to disclose your record on the 4473. Incriminating answers may be used against you, and you may be prosecuted for giving false answers. In effect, by choosing to buy a gun you have waived your Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to testify against yourself. If you want to preserve that right, don't buy the gun. You can not go to jail for not buying a gun. It's similar to how things work if you're on trial on a criminal charge and testifying on your own behalf.
And understand that while it's an important personal right the Fifth Amendment privilege against being compelled to testify against yourself has limits. It, like other evidentiary privileges allowing one to resist disclosure, hampers discovering the truth; so they tend to be narrowly applied. For example, see this thread discussing a recent Supreme Court decision narrowing the "right to remain silent." Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
January 6, 2014, 11:08 PM | #60 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
|
Quote:
A new administration could change that in a heartbeat. Quote:
The fifth amendment doesn't protect you from VOLUNTARILY self-incriminating. It prevents you from being COMPELLED to self-incriminate and/or prevents any information obtained in such fashion from being used against you. You are not compelled to be in a gun shop like a defendant is compelled to be in court, or an arrestee is compelled to be temporarily incarcerated. You are not compelled to fill out a 4473 like a witness is forced to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or like a person who is being beaten is forced to confess to stop the beating. You have the choice to not be in the shop. You have a choice to not fill out a 4473. If you CHOOSE to go to a gun shop and CHOOSE to fill out the 4473 and CHOOSE to self-incriminate yourself on the form, then your application will be rejected and you may be subject to prosecution. If someone detains or abducts you and forces you to fill out a 4473, then you would not be liable for anything you put down on the form since you were forced to self-incriminate. Otherwise you haven't been compelled to do anything. At any time in the process, you are totally free to stop and walk away.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
January 6, 2014, 11:11 PM | #61 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
In California one fills out two forms: the federal 4473 and the California Dealer Record of Sale (DROS). This form of the DROS has no such question. And I've bought many guns in California and have answered no such question on the DROS. And we've discussed the question on the 4473.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
January 7, 2014, 12:42 AM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 27, 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 525
|
I found an article explaining the current administration's view on Colorado's recent legalization of marijuana.
Article It appears as though the federal government plans to overlook Colorado legalizing weed for now as they have more important issues to focus on currently. It doesn't appear as though they will overlook it for long though, the president has expressed his views against widespread legalization of the drug.
__________________
I don't always go to the range, but when I do, I prefer dosAKs. They say 5 out of 4 people are bad at math. |
January 7, 2014, 09:48 AM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
His views against it, or his views placating the older population with opposition t widespread legalization? Someone who partakes of something is not going to be particularly opposed to it's legalisation.
Last edited by Frank Ettin; January 7, 2014 at 10:05 AM. Reason: Deleted off-topic material |
January 7, 2014, 12:30 PM | #64 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
|
From post #48:
"This statement: Quote: Quote:
Quote: Quote:
No. I stated what I intended, the current lack of legality of combining cannabis and firearms ownership/transfers under current federal law and the solution that seems to be the most logical/straightforward. No purpose other than to state our position and a logical course to a less complicated/conflicted position (though not one completely free of issues). |
||
January 7, 2014, 04:14 PM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
|
"And thus the Oregon Supreme Court specifically acknowledged that while Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun, she could still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3)."
Granted Ms. Willis could be prosecuted under federal law in violation of 18 USC 922(g) (3). The point is that she hasn't been, and it seems that at this time the federal government isn't going to push the issue. The last time I renewed my concealed carry license I had a rather spirited conversation with a sheriff's department employee about this very issue. Our county sheriff was issuing licenses to Oregon Medical Marijuana Program enrollees. So this leaves the question, how can the federal government not view this as a total violation of federal law? And why aren't they acting on it? |
January 7, 2014, 05:11 PM | #66 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
Quote:
Law enforcement officials at all levels prioritize the laws they actively enforce, others which they passively enforce, and others which are ignored entirely. |
||
January 7, 2014, 05:19 PM | #67 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 29, 2013
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Posts: 569
|
The federal goverment does enforce marijuana laws. Here at the ski areas in California many people smoke pot, most of them have CA medical cards, but ski areas are on federal land and many, many people have gotten busted this way!
Also, the bigger problem is many states have severe penalties for possessing a gun while carrying drugs (automatic 10yrs in CA for having a gun with drugs) That, and there is still a very big black market for marijuana and it leads to gun crimes. Case in point, a couple years ago a nor-cal medical pot growers home was broken into late at night, his wife called 911. On The tape of the call she said a robber broke into their house and she needed the police, then suddenly she screams, 'he's got a gun!' Then many gun shots. When she spotted the robbers gun, he husband (the grower) unloaded his 45ACP into the robber. Here's the problem: the man was protecting his home from the robber, the robber was there to steal pot, when the man shot the robber he was effectively protecting his pot. I believe the guy wasn't charged, but vice (in this case pot) leads to crime! |
January 7, 2014, 06:46 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2,313
|
"...the robber was there to steal pot, when the man shot the robber he was effectively protecting his pot. I believe the guy wasn't charged, but vice (in this case pot) leads to crime!..."
Which is pretty much the same as a liquor store being robbed, or a convenience store having its cartons of cigarettes taken at the point of a gun.
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen. Be Here Now. |
January 7, 2014, 06:59 PM | #69 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2013
Posts: 1,037
|
Quote:
I know of a medical co-op which was robbed, and the police not only returned about 2 lbs, that they had found in the road, but they filed a complete police report. There was a legally obtained shotgun in the house that the police were informed about, which they had no problem with, either. They were state police, so they were following state law, AFAIK. Last edited by JD0x0; January 7, 2014 at 07:08 PM. |
|
January 7, 2014, 07:31 PM | #70 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 29, 2013
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Posts: 569
|
I guess the point I was trying to make, was that while federal law prohibits it, it doesn't seem as though there have been any cases of a cannabis user losing their 2A rights because of it. Unless someone can think of a specific case of this happening, there are many examples of legal cannabis users owning firearms. Hell, every medical marijuana card holder I know owns guns!
|
January 7, 2014, 07:54 PM | #71 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 7, 2014, 08:44 PM | #72 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
So much heat and so little light. It's really very simple: A user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, commits a federal felony by possessing a gun or ammunition; and a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, commits a federal felony if he answers "no" to question 11e on the 4473.
That's it. That's really all there is to it. That's the whole story. It's not a gray area. Perhaps the only issue is how much use and how recent the use must be to be a "user of marijuana" for the purposes of 18 USC 922(g)(3). Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
January 8, 2014, 07:51 AM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,272
|
Think about who you are trusting to "not enforce." Eric Holder?I do not know his attitude toward pot,but ponder Fast and Furious a while.
I do not think it is any secret,they do not like your guns. The pot vote brought a lot of useful tools to the polls. The politics will be carefully played. Why pull in a net while the fish are still eagerly filling it? Data is being generated and stored.Security cams,facial recognition,your Visa card,etc. When the time is right,they probably won't need many resources.Go back and watch the Ruby Ridge/Randy Weaver vids on You tube to see what has been done over a hacksaw job and a $200 tax stamp. "Well,Cheech,you are in a whole lot of trouble..but maybe we can cut a plea deal here.You give us some names,we get all your guns,you will never own a gun again,but,no jail and only a $5000 fine,how about it? Then there is the SD shoot and testing positive... |
January 9, 2014, 11:19 AM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,592
|
Quote:
Even though, as has been pointed out many times, it is still illegal to check the 'NO' box on the 4473, very few people are being prosecuted, as mentioned out in the below article. http://www.politifact.com/new-hampsh...us-senator-ke/ Even though the current administration has no plans, or very few, to crack down on the issue of state allowed marijuana laws and guns, nothing is going to preclude another administration at another time to begin the crackdown. A side note: Folks, I love the discussion and would like to be a fly on the wall if all of you ever got together in one room.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen. Last edited by Uncle Buck; January 9, 2014 at 11:47 AM. |
|
January 10, 2014, 10:42 AM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,949
|
So, if I am a user of Pot living in Colorado, I purchase my pot from a "Legal" grower/vender and the State of Colorado collects a Sales Tax from my Purchase, would I not be considered a legal user?
Basically, how can the State collect a Tax on an Illegal Controlled Substance? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|