"Legal" Marijuana and Guns

[Dragline45]

What doesn't make sense to me is this.

If each state handles firearms licensing on their own, and if a state legalizes marijuana for recreational use, which would put it up there with alcohol, then how could it be a felony to smoke marijuana and own a gun. As long as you are not toking while carrying, just like you cant drink and carry, it shouldn't be any different.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Dragline45

What doesn't make sense to me is this.

If each state handles firearms licensing on their own, and if a state legalizes marijuana for recreational use, which would put it up there with alcohol, then how could it be a felony to smoke marijuana and own a gun....

It's all a matter of federal law.

It's all been explained extensively in this thread. See posts 1, 6, 10, 22, 56, 72, 81, 82, 88, 97, and 98.

[Tom Servo]

Also, do you think people haven't been doing both forever, whether the substance is legal or not, lol.

I've heard a lot of the "it doesn't matter if you don't get caught" justifications. Aside from being childish, they are irresponsible. It certainly does matter if one gets caught.

Furthermore, we do not condone or advocate breaking the law here. Full stop.

Sometimes the ignorance on this subject is comical. Everyone is freaking out over nothing at all.

Please tell me how Frank, Brian, myself, and numerous other people are ignorant on this subject. If we've missed something, by all means correct our misconceptions.

This isn't a matter of "freaking out over nothing at all." There's a great deal of bad information out there, some of it in this thread. If someone accepts that information as legal fact, they could very quickly find their life ruined. You don't get a slap on the wrist for breaking 922(g)(3), you get a felony charge.

[Aguila Blanca]

Also the requirement that a person answer the questions on form 4473 section 11 is potentially a violation of the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination.

Another incorrect and ignorant pronouncement.

Nobody is forced to "testify" against himself by filling out a Form 4473. First off, doing so isn't testifying. It's not in court, and it's not a statement made under oath. By signing it you do "certify" that the statements made therein are accurate and true, but it's not testimony.

More importantly, nobody forces you to sign it. If someone knows he/she is a prohibited person, all he/she needs to do to avoid "testifying" against him/herself is ... not buy a gun. Filling out and signing a 4473 is a completely voluntary act.

[shortwave]

If each state handles firearms licensing on their own, and if a state legalizes marijuana for recreational use, which would put it up there with alcohol, then how could it be a felony to smoke marijuana and own a gun. As long as you are not toking while carrying, just like you cant drink and carry, it shouldn't be any different

There are a lot of laws(State and Fed) that don't make sense to me and ones that we may not agree with but the bottom line is...they are the laws.

We can choose to break them if we want. That's our choice. We can then stand before the judge and explain to him why we don't agree with the law we've broken. And the judge is gonna sentence us just the same all the while explaining to us that if we don't like the way the laws are, lobby to get them changed. But in the mean time, follow the law the way it's written or plan on paying the consequences.

One thing about living in a free society. You are also free to break the law as well... till you get caught.

[Rat Robb]

I wasn't arguing the punishment whatsoever. No where in my post did I say anything about not getting in trouble for breaking the way the current law is setup. Thats what happens when you break the law. Not sure why you would care if someone gets caught, more work for you guys ;-)

I was making a general observation to the original post. The ignorance I was referring to is the thinking that people don't do it everyday. Not condoning at all, just calling it as it is. Full go.

Also, I'm not about to get into a debate/discussion over federal and state rights with people citing Marbury v Madison as precedent.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Rat Robb

...The ignorance I was referring to is the thinking that people don't do it everyday...

People do all kinds of things every day. People violate all kinds of laws every day. Whether or not people violate laws is beside the point. Here we try to help people avoid violating laws related to firearms. Violating laws can have all sorts of undesirable consequences. So the first step to to help folks understand what the law is and how it applies so that they can make some intelligent choices.

And no doubt there are plenty of folks now in prison who never expected to get caught.

Originally Posted by Rat Robb

...I'm not about to get into a debate/discussion over federal and state rights with people citing Marbury v Madison as precedent.

Just as well, because whether you like it or not, Marbury v. Madison is precedent. That might not suit your view of the way the world should be, but that's how the courts see things; and their opinions trump yours.

[wayneinFL]

I'm a little surprised this thread has gone on this long. It's pretty clear the federal government has jurisdiction over the states, and that concept has expanded almost since the birth of the republic. We've literally fought a war over state's rights, and the states lost. You can't legally smoke pot under federal law at this time. Period.

[publius42]

Have we had a link to the federal law lately?

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
...
(3) 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.

There are only a few lawful users of marijuana under section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802). For the rest of us, that's the federal law.

State and local laws, customs, and practices may differ.

[Gaerek]

From my understanding, around 50% of Alaskans smoke in some capacity and 90% of own firearms. You don't have to be a rocket science to know that the 2 circles overlap.

Your understanding is wrong. Unless you can find where you found these "statistics?" I lived in Alaska for over 20 years, and even without finding the statistics (which I did) I can tell you that your numbers are WAY off.

Let me educate you. According to this slideshow, Alaska leads in pot use....at just over 16% of the population. A far cry from your 50%. Stoner capital of the US? Sure, but it's certainly not the "Baked Alaska" you think it is.

And as far as guns are concerned, it's closer to about 60% of households have at least one gun. (Source here...also a good article to read anyway.)

So these two groups ever match up in the Venn diagram? Certainly, but those that do are in the distinct minority and are committing a felony, as has been already stated.

I'm a stickler for people who use statistics. At least attempt to back up what you post.

As for this:

Sometimes the ignorance on this subject is comical.

This comment you made is listed as an example under the definition for "irony".

[dajowi]

We have a federal law which states that an individual cannot purchase a firearm if they also consume legal marijuana.

Yet the government will be collecting federal taxes on the income that is generated by legal marijuana sales in the states of Colorado and Washington.

How can the feds expect the citizens to respect the law, when the federal government itself profits from that which it deems illegal?

[Tom Servo]

Yet the government will be collecting federal taxes on the income that is generated by legal marijuana sales in the states of Colorado and Washington

I was unaware of this. It creates a huge conflict of interest. Do you have a source?

[Chaz88]

I was unaware of this. It creates a huge conflict of interest. Do you have a source?

I think it would be reasonable to assume that the businesses would have to pay federal income tax, social security, and such just like any other business. If not then I want a federal exemption on my schedule C.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by dajowi

...Yet the government will be collecting federal taxes on the income that is generated by legal marijuana sales in the states of Colorado and Washington.

How can the feds expect the citizens to respect the law, when the federal government itself profits from that which it deems illegal?...

The federal government has long claimed tax on income derived from illegal activities. Al Capone was successfully prosecuted and sent to prison for tax evasion for failing to report and pay tax on income derived from illegal activities.

[Spats McGee]

IIRC from my law school days, the IRS does not care whether income is generated legally or illegally. It's still income to the IRS. I seem to recall some case about whether the owner of an illegal casino could claim depreciation on his slot machines......

[Tom Servo]

I think it would be reasonable to assume that the businesses would have to pay federal income tax, social security, and such just like any other business.

Ah, but not a tax specific to marijuana.

[CowTowner]

Ah, but not a tax specific to marijuana.

Has the federal marijuana tax been repealed? I recall SCOTUS determined it was legal/constitutional.
TAX Stamps were printed for it.
Just wondering out loud, sort of.

[Don P]

Well if booze and guns don't mix, safe to say stupid sticks and guns won't mix either.
Another can of worms for Big Brother to get involved in and try to clean up.

[markj]

Didnt they have this case in court in OR? or Wash a few yars ago and the medical pot user got his permits?

Time will tell if it becomes fed law, they di allow 10 states to grow hemp now sincewe spend over 50 mil buying it from china. (hemp is not pot)

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by markj

Didnt they have this case in court in OR? or Wash a few yars ago and the medical pot user got his permits? ...

Jeeze -- doesn't anyone bother to read the thread before posting?

See posts 56 and 88.

[Rat Robb]

Gaerek, those numbers I used were on an episode of Alaskan State Troopers, probably not the best source to site for the numbers. I've also conversed with several Alaskan natives and transplants and they made it seem like a very hungry and happy state. Good articles you posted.

The interesting part of the episode I was referring to was a traffic stop that occurred. The trooper pulled over a car for a bad taillight. Passenger had a small amount of substance on him (within the legal limits of Alaskan law) and a GLOCK 22, loaded under the seat. The trooper wrote him a ticket for the taillight and gave him back his property. After the stop, the trooper was talking to the camera and said the numbers I used, inflated for TV is a possibility. He then added if they locked up people for what he had just seen the jails would be too crowded for real criminals.

I would like to point out that I have, in no way, argued that one wouldn't get in trouble for lying on the form or think they wouldnt for doing so, no matter if you live in one of the 2 states.

The interesting thing I have seen is that the states are finally realizing they do have the power. Everyday I read of legislation being proposed where a state would nullify federal laws, whether they are gun laws or drug laws. Great for the states because they can use their resources for things they see fit. Obviously, the feds fight against this by pulling funding and threaten legal action. I thought the 10th amendment protected that but Im just an electrician, so I could be wrong.

Again, those articles were good reads.

-Robb

ps how do you quote a post, have no problems on other forums just can't seem to figure it out here, lol

[JohnKSa]

Information on Quoting.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323215

[markj]

Jeeze -- doesn't anyone bother to read the thread before posting?

I am sorry,but I did not read the whole thing. When I have more time this weekend I will. If that is the answer to my question.

[markj]

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).

So no one in OR has yet to be arrested for this. Do you see a time when they would? Maybe if the political climate swings to folks that are against it?

How does this new farm bill tie into this? It allows 10 states to legally grow hemp. ISnt that a federal law? just wondering, dont beat me over the head.

[Al Norris]

No markj, the answer was the next line in Franks reply:

See posts 56 and 88.