|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 4, 2014, 12:41 AM | #1 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
"Legal" Marijuana and Guns
Colorado has made it legal to buy, own, and possess marijuana for recreational purposes. Before anybody rushes to spark up the bong and crank up their Dave Matthews records, read on.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), Quote:
Colorado can pass all the laws they want. As per just about every recent court's reading of the Commerce Clause, federal law trumps state law when there's a conflict along these lines. There is some overlap between gun owners and proponents of marijuana legalization. The latter can get themselves in real trouble if law enforcement decides to look into their lives, so get the word out.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 4, 2014, 03:33 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2013
Posts: 1,037
|
Why don't they have the same laws for alcohol and prescription drugs? All or none IMO.
|
January 4, 2014, 05:05 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,286
|
In addition to the problem of possession of a firearm by a prohibited (pot using) person,(which,if I am not mistaken,is felony )
When you fill out a form 4473,the federal firearms purchase form,you swear before a witness on a Federal affidavit"I am not an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana or any other controlled substance" It is a second felony to lie on that affidavit. Now,since Obamacare federalizes your med records,do you suppose the feds could at some point cross reference medpot cards and 4473's? Think about all this NSA data gathering. By accident or design,this Federal grey area,pot is still federally unlawful,and connected to firearm law,is a 2nd amendment trap. A lot of younger folks who were totally disinterested in politics turned out to vote in Colorado in order to legalize pot.I will leave it to your imagination to figure out who else they voted for. Our President and Attorney General may not care about pot,but they do not like your guns or your RTKBA.Ends justify means. A large percentage of young folks will go for getting high.Many are proud to be part of the history of being there,part of it,yeah,man,we got it done!! So,we are kool like hippies and Woodstock and stuff,yeah!Dylan,dude!Got Cheetos? As they throw away one of the Civil Rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. And as this goes on,this trap,hundreds of thousands,maybe millions,as other states legalize(Washington) will toke up.Show ID,maybe pay with Visa,document themselves with the NSA. When the trap is sprung,and it is ruled none of these folks pass NICS and maybe they have to give up their guns How will these folks support the 2nd Ammendment they no longer have? "Well dude,if I can't have a gun,like you shouldn't have one,because its not fair...we all have to be equal...man...I can't find my lighter...hey,you got a lighter? Yeah,that ain't right,man.Aww,dude,are those Cheetos? Oh,one more thing,a lot of Federal land in Colorado...The guy in the pickup with the government plates will enforce pot and gun laws...you are in the National Forest or Pawnee National Grasslands or Bureau of Land Management lands... Hunting or plinking with 22's or just a gun along and Mr Ranger checks you out,and he either has a nose or a dog... Gee,Yogi,I don't think Mr Ranger is going to like this...dude,ask him if he like Cheetos...Oh,wrong,dude,you ate them all... THE POINT Make good choices,take care of yourself.It is your RTKBA. Another point to ponder....1)Pot and driving is going to be like alchohol and driving2)I have read in 2014 a new DUI law goes into effect in Colorado.If you are pulled over suspected of DUI,currently you can decline BAC testing but,under Implied Consent,you will suffer the penalties of DUI.In 2014,they will be able to get a warrant and take your blood.I assume,if they can take blood,they can take hair.Either will prove you use pot.And,just for fun,they have a DNA sample you donated.Given THC in the blood,recall possessing ammo is prohibited,a 22 casing in your car might be probable cause to get a warrant to search your home for firearms. This is the direction we are headed,folks. So,how IS that hopey changy stuff working out?(Yes,George and the Patriot Act etc...both sides of the aisle,bi-partisan problem) Last edited by HiBC; January 4, 2014 at 05:42 AM. |
January 4, 2014, 05:44 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,969
|
a resident of a state that does not outlaw marijuana use would not be an "unlawful user".
|
January 4, 2014, 06:05 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2004
Location: Minden , Nebraska
Posts: 1,407
|
he would be an "unlawful" user in the eyes of the federal government since pot is an illegal substance and the 4473 is a federal form. the state has nothing to do with it
|
January 4, 2014, 07:52 AM | #6 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,990
|
Quote:
State law may or may not back up federal law, but it doesn't matter. If federal law says it's illegal then it is illegal--REGARDLESS of what state law says. For example. TX law says that a machinegun is a firearm that fires MORE than 2 shots for each pull of the trigger. Federal law says that a machinegun is a firearm that fires more than 1 shot for each pull of the trigger. So, as a TX resident, if I make a gun that fires 2 shots for each pull of the trigger, I haven't violated TX law. BUT I have certainly violated federal law and although I am guiltless under TX state law, I am still liable to federal prosecution and conviction. Don't be confused about this issue and don't let your fellow gun owners remain confused. The fact that a particular state doesn't criminalize the use of marijuana does NOT make the use of marijuana legal in that state. It just means that if you are caught and prosecuted, it will be by the federal authorities, not state law enforcement.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
January 4, 2014, 08:05 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,969
|
so sad.
I'm not condoning smoking weed. I'm saddened by the over reaching authority and stretching of powers the federal government has given itself by virtue of an apathetic electorate. |
January 4, 2014, 08:25 AM | #8 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Let's avoid broader discussions of drug policy, as they're outside the scope of this forum.
It's unclear whether the current administration will take action on the conflict between state and federal law on the possession and usage of marijuana, but the possibility of prosecution is still there. The ATF has made it clear that it remains a crime to possess a firearm if one uses it. A couple of years ago, several states passed "firearms freedom" laws that conflicted with federal law. We still haven't seen any fallout from those, and the issue seems to have fizzled out.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
January 4, 2014, 12:26 PM | #9 |
Member
Join Date: December 15, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 69
|
With the legalization of recreational pot use, the only requirement for an ID is a state (any) issued ID card. Therefore there is no way to cross reference the buyer against any data base.
|
January 4, 2014, 01:00 PM | #10 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here's the bottom line:
And so, for all of you folks thumping your chests about how wrong this is:
__________________
"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 4, 2014, 01:01 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,969
|
two shea.
|
January 4, 2014, 01:23 PM | #12 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
In fact, looking at my state's laws, Regulatory Code of Washington 9.41 Firearms and Dangerous Weapons I'll quote the exact phrasing I'm talking about: Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
January 4, 2014, 01:29 PM | #13 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The specific condition disqualifying one from possessing firearms is (18 USC 922(g)(3)): And a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC 802(6), emphasis added) is: So alcohol is not a controlled substance for the purposes of 18 USC 922(g)(3), and therefore alcohol addiction is not a disqualifying condition.
__________________
"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 4, 2014, 03:03 PM | #14 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
But we're not discussing "firearm freedom" laws.
__________________
"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 4, 2014, 07:08 PM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
You're comparing apples to turnips. |
|
January 4, 2014, 07:10 PM | #16 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
January 4, 2014, 08:16 PM | #17 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
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 4, 2014, 10:32 PM | #18 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Apparently, Colorado recognizes the dissonance. Residents with medical marijuana permits are barred from getting carry permits: Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
January 4, 2014, 10:46 PM | #19 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
I just wanted to head off a side trip down that road.
__________________
"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 4, 2014, 11:05 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
It's been well over 30 years since I last toked on the evil weed, but if I still lived in Colorado and wanted to legally purchase and smoke some, I'd still answer "No" to 11e, since I'm not an "unlawful" user.
And since the federal government would have to arrest, try and convict me of something that it's entirely legal to do in Colorado, I'd say the odds are very much in my favor. |
January 4, 2014, 11:30 PM | #21 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Under the legal situation we have now, Colorado has no say in the matter. They can't contravene federal law with one of their own.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 5, 2014, 12:00 AM | #22 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,990
|
Quote:
That absolutely includes Colorado since Colorado is in the U.S. and is therefore under federal jurisdiction. The only thing that's different in Colorado vs. most other states is that in CO, there is no state law against it. So the state authorities probably won't be coming after you, but the feds will still have every right to arrest and prosecute you for violating federal law. If federal law says it's illegal, then it's illegal everywhere in the U.S. regardless of what state, county or municipal laws/codes say. The absence of a state, county, or municipal/law/code against an action can NOT nullify an existing federal law against that action. A state, country, or municipal/law/code specifically stating that an action is legal can NOT nullify an existing federal law against that action. To use an obvious example, let's say that there's a city in your state that has a city ordinance stating that murder is legal within the city limits. Would you believe that you could legally kill someone inside city limits? I hope not! There are still state and federal laws against murder, and those state and federal laws still apply within city limits. The city ordinance can not eliminate or nullify those laws. If you were to commit murder in this hypothetical city, you might reasonably expect that the CITY would not attempt to prosecute you for murder, but you should certainly expect to be subject to STATE and FEDERAL prosecution. In the same way, Colorado does not criminalize the use/sale/purchase of marijuana, but that is irrelevant because there is FEDERAL LAW which criminalizes the use/sale/purchase of marijuana. Therefore, even in Colorado, anyone who uses marijuana is an illegal user. That is because federal law applies in Colorado and federal law criminalizes the use of marijuana. Quote:
This isn't some abstract discussion about semantics and the fine nuances of legalese, this is about avoiding the commission of federal felonies. We need to get this straight in our minds and make sure that all our fellow gun owners understand it.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
January 5, 2014, 12:58 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 21, 2004
Posts: 529
|
What about those legally using marijuana per federal program. Dont recall how many are doing it not many I met one at one time. Last I heard the program was no longer accepting new patients but is doling out marijuana to the few who are still alive and approved.
__________________
Divided and conquered, Gripped by fear Wishful thinking that it can't happen here It's well underways but nobody knows A repeat of history, That's how it goes |
January 5, 2014, 01:08 AM | #24 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,990
|
This source indicates that there are only 4 persons still in the program.
http://www.medicalcannabis.com/patie...-ind-patients/ "To date, only four patients, Barbara Douglass (IA), George McMahon (IA), Irving Rosenfeld (FL) and Elvy Musikka (OR) continue to receive their medication from the federal government..."Since these 4 persons appear to be using marijuana legally per the federal government, I believe they could answer the 4473 question in the negative without fear of prosecution, assuming that they aren't illegally using any other controlled substances.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
January 5, 2014, 01:12 AM | #25 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
I just did a search of a legal data base to which I subscribe. Looking only at cases within the last ten years I found 11 appeals in federal court from convictions for being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a gun (with 18 within the last 15 years). Those of course were just appeals and would not include cases disposed of without the matter going to the appellate court. Quote:
Some years ago there was a formal clinical trial conducted with marijuana. The clinical trial has long been over, and there will be no new participants. However, the last time I looked into the question there were still four participants alive and continuing to receive marijuana on the theory that it would be medically inappropriate to discontinue a treatment regimen once begun under the trial. Any of those four still alive and using marijuana today are the only lawful users of marijuana in the United States. No one else ever will be unless the law is changed.
__________________
"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 |
|||
|
|