PDA

View Full Version : Form 4473 Question 12(e) and the Impact of Legalized (Decriminalized) Marijuana in CA


Blood Ocean
02-02-2010, 1:44 PM
So we all know that you answer yes to (a) and then no all the way to the bottom of Q12 (in most cases) but I'm wondering what could happen depending on the election in November. Q12(e) asks:

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

So if the hippies get their way and put a ballot initiative for the complete decriminalization of Marijuana in the state of CA and get it passed what will be the impact for the gun-buying public?

I'm no expert but I don't think you can get addicted to Marijuana. If it's decriminalized then you're no longer an unlawful user of.

How will the Feds react to this? I envision this Brady Campaign response "You can't sell guns to people who are smoking weed legally." In the most draconian world (liberals in power) I could see them reaching for as close to a full ban of all gun sales in CA. Federally the marijuana is still felony-level illegal, and I don't see any anti-gun nuts missing this key part of the approval to purchase process and having something to say about it.

Yes I know I'm speculating about something that might not even happen (I sure hope they don't find any new sources of tax revenue) but I'm concerned of the ramifications if they do pass this garbage. I love buying guns, I don't want hippies to be getting high legally and not be able to defend myself from them. If you or someone you know/love is a hippie please get them help.

kf6tac
02-02-2010, 1:49 PM
Form 4473 is a federal form, and regardless of what happens with CA state law, marijuana is still an illegal drug under federal law. As far as federal firearms law is concerned, one would still be an "unlawful user of" marijuana and therefore prohibited from owning a firearm.

bigcalidave
02-02-2010, 1:51 PM
It will no longer be "unlawful" consumption in this state, although federal law would still be against it. (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 811) would have to be changed to not include marijuana before the feds would change their forms.

However, I believe that you would just answer NO to the question, as it is not illegal in CA to use it.

Pyr0
02-02-2010, 2:07 PM
Semi-related, can you own a firearm if you have a medical marijuana reccomendation?

stan
02-02-2010, 2:15 PM
Semi-related, can you own a firearm if you have a medical marijuana reccomendation?

do you have drug convictions on your record, or are listed as being addicted to drugs in the court system?


i'm sure the right people will pop their heads in, and likely tell you that if you have a doctor's rec., you're probably OK so long as you are not using a firearm while impaired, and probably shouldn't get into trouble. similar to if you had to take oxycontin for your back.

GaryV
02-02-2010, 2:16 PM
Semi-related, can you own a firearm if you have a medical marijuana reccomendation?

You can own one, you just can't legally purchase one - like 18 year olds and handguns. Federal law says that marijuana possession and use are illegal, period, so it doesn't matter what California says, it's still "unlawful".

Blood Ocean
02-02-2010, 2:39 PM
I agree that the feds disregard state law when determining the legality of Marijuana, that is not the issue here. I'm wondering if the fact that the state is so obviously going against the federal law on this issue what their retaliation will be since the ability to purchase firearms is contingent upon following the federal law. They could in theory disapprove of every potential sale in CA since you could never verify who was/was not consuming CA legal but US illegal substances.

JBird33
02-02-2010, 2:43 PM
I say just ask Tommy Chong if you are good to go or not. I'm sure he would have a lot to say about it.

SgtDinosaur
02-02-2010, 2:48 PM
Just answer "no" like everyone always has. If you have a card there's a slight chance you might show up in a database, though. If this initiative passes you won't need a card.

Lagduf
02-02-2010, 2:57 PM
How would the ATF even know if you were a CA legal user of marijuana?

Blood Ocean
02-02-2010, 3:02 PM
I'm wondering if there will be a prospective change in policy for exactly this scenario. If it's legal for everyone over 18 (or 21) and there's no way to actually verify whether the purchaser is in accordance with federal law will they even allow firearms sales in CA?

How would the ATF even know if you were a CA legal user of marijuana?

MasterYong
02-02-2010, 3:02 PM
And earlier today you were referencing the use of Salvia while shooting.

...a little obvious...

:rolleyes:

dantodd
02-02-2010, 3:05 PM
Such questions are put on the form so that WHEN you are caught committing a federal drug crime while carrying a firearm you purchased on a form 4473 they can tack on Federal Perjury charges if they so choose.

professorhard
02-02-2010, 3:18 PM
So it's all good if you smoke some dope. Stop for a day to fill out the 4473 and then decide after that you wana smoke again?

professorhard
02-02-2010, 3:29 PM
Just answer "no" like everyone always has. If you have a card there's a slight chance you might show up in a database, though. If this initiative passes you won't need a card.

Nope. No problems buying guns if you have a card. I use my MJ card as secondary proof of residence when buying handguns.

Sgt Raven
02-02-2010, 3:33 PM
I don't want hippies to be getting high legally and not be able to defend myself from them. If you or someone you know/love is a hippie please get them help.

So why don't you define what is a Hippie? Does a male with long hair and a ponytail make them a Hippie? What exactly is a Hippie? :TFH:

Hopi
02-02-2010, 3:36 PM
So why don't you define what is a Hippie? Does a male with long hair and a ponytail make them a Hippie? What exactly is a Hippie? :TFH:

If he has to defend himself from pot-smoking hippies, he has bigger problems. :D

wildhawker
02-02-2010, 3:39 PM
Such questions are put on the form so that WHEN you are caught committing a federal drug crime while carrying a firearm you purchased on a form 4473 they can tack on Federal Perjury charges if they so choose.

How would they prove perjury as to 12e without contemporaneous evidence of it?

Further, 12e really goes far beyond illicit drugs to many things available over-the-counter and Rx. If you take one pill per month of a prescribed medicine (of a nature as described in 12e) more than as directed by the doctor you would be unable to receive a firearm. This could be checked pretty easily against your medical/pharmacy records and refill timing; circumstantial, yes, but trial fodder for those uber-aggressive prosecutors working must-win cases.

leelaw
02-02-2010, 3:47 PM
It will no longer be "unlawful" consumption in this state, although federal law would still be against it. (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 811) would have to be changed to not include marijuana before the feds would change their forms.

However, I believe that you would just answer NO to the question, as it is not illegal in CA to use it.

It will still be illegal to use it in California. Keep in mind that California is still within the Union, and falls under federal law, one of wihch includes marijuana as an illegal drug.

Hence, until the federal law is changed, marijuana use in California will always be unlawful.

Lagduf
02-02-2010, 6:05 PM
It will still be illegal to use it in California. Keep in mind that California is still within the Union, and falls under federal law, one of wihch includes marijuana as an illegal drug.

Hence, until the federal law is changed, marijuana use in California will always be unlawful.

To date has anyone using marijuana in a fashion legal under CA state law been charged with a crime related to that drug use in a Federal Court?

rabagley
02-02-2010, 6:12 PM
I don't want hippies to be getting high legally and not be able to defend myself from them. If you or someone you know/love is a hippie please get them help.

I'm not being sarcastic here: have you ever been around anyone high on pot? Ever been high yourself?

It doesn't sound like it. Speculating that people might attack you after getting high legally is just odd.

Unlike alcohol, THC tends to defuse aggressive impulses.

loather
02-02-2010, 6:20 PM
... I don't want hippies to be getting high legally and not be able to defend myself from them.

The only time you'd need to defend yourself from a bunch of pot smoking hippies is if you suddenly found yourself metamorphosed into a bag of funyuns (or other random junk food product). 'Cause seriously, that's all a stoned hippy is going to attack :)

Codelphious
02-02-2010, 6:24 PM
It will still be illegal to use it in California. Keep in mind that California is still within the Union, and falls under federal law, one of wihch includes marijuana as an illegal drug.

Hence, until the federal law is changed, marijuana use in California will always be unlawful.

You're under the impression that the Federal Government has the authority to ban things.

THEY DO NOT. That is exactly why the needed the 18th amendment to prohibit alcohol.

Any law passed by Congress in violation of the US Constitution is null and void. And if you're ever a juror, be sure you know about jury nullification. It's our last defense against tyranny.

dfletcher
02-02-2010, 6:29 PM
Such questions are put on the form so that WHEN you are caught committing a federal drug crime while carrying a firearm you purchased on a form 4473 they can tack on Federal Perjury charges if they so choose.

Yep - I think folks often miss that point. I've worked in gun stores when ATF showed up gathering 4473s for evidence against a person, building their case. The 4473 can reach back a few years and bite one in the fanny.

dfletcher
02-02-2010, 6:34 PM
Semi-related, can you own a firearm if you have a medical marijuana reccomendation?

Can an able person who doesn't use pot get a card to buy for someone who is not physically able to go to a pot store and buy? Bit of a stretch, but a plausible reason?

wildhawker
02-02-2010, 6:35 PM
You're under the impression that the Federal Government has the authority to ban things.

THEY DO NOT. That is exactly why the needed the 18th amendment to prohibit alcohol.

Any law passed by Congress in violation of the US Constitution is null and void. And if you're ever a juror, be sure you know about jury nullification. It's our last defense against tyranny.

Have you read much on Commerce Clause powers and how the SCOTUS feels about them? Are you saying that any law that violates *your* interpretation of the Constitution is null and void? Good luck with that defense.

Jury nullification isn't even worth talking about.

And our "last defense against tyranny" isn't the jury box.

GaryV
02-02-2010, 6:55 PM
I'm wondering if there will be a prospective change in policy for exactly this scenario. If it's legal for everyone over 18 (or 21) and there's no way to actually verify whether the purchaser is in accordance with federal law will they even allow firearms sales in CA?

This assumes that they ever verify any of this at all against anyone, which they don't (except what's on the NICS check, and if you pop up there, you're not charged with trying to illegally purchase a gun, they simply deny you). These are like the questions on the forms you have to fill out when coming back into the country after traveling overseas that ask whether you're a terrorist. If they don't already know, they're not going to, because anyone who was wouldn't usually be stupid enough to answer "yes". It's just a bunch of window dressing, like airport security; something they can point to in order to make people who don't know any better think they've actually done something about an issue, when in fact they really haven't done anything. That way, if it turns out later that you lied, and you do something stupid or criminal with a gun while high, they can say, "Hey, we asked and he said he didn't do drugs." Have you ever been required to whiz in a cup when filling out a 4473? If not, they have no way of knowing whether you're telling the truth or not, and they never will.

Now, whether you CAN buy a gun if you smoke pot is a whole other question. Even though anyone can simply by answering "no" to the question, without any chance of it being an issue, it still doesn't change the fact that it is still technically illegal, even if unenforceable.

haodoken
02-02-2010, 7:19 PM
Off topic a bit, has anyone seen if smoking pot helps people with A.D.D. or other chronic medical conditions shoot better? Like taking a hit just before getting to burro or angeles?

garandguy10
02-02-2010, 7:30 PM
I am not an attorney, and I did not stay in the Holiday Inn last night, however I do believe that a citizen is never under any obligation to incriminate himself on any government document or to any government agency or official. If useing something, such as a controlled substance is illegal, then you are not obligated to admit such illegal behavior to any government agency or officer of any agency.

Just my opinion, I am not an attorney and I am very sure others will have differing opinions. Use your own judgement, but imagine that there are a lot of 4473's out there that say "NO" to that question irregardless of the facts in question.

GaryV
02-02-2010, 7:44 PM
I am not an attorney, and I did not stay in the Holiday Inn last night, however I do believe that a citizen is never under any obligation to incriminate himself on any government document or to any government agency or official. If useing something, such as a controlled substance is illegal, then you are not obligated to admit such illegal behavior to any government agency or officer of any agency.

Just my opinion, I am not an attorney and I am very sure others will have differing opinions. Use your own judgement, but imagine that there are a lot of 4473's out there that say "NO" to that question irregardless of the facts in question.

You're right, you're not obligated to incriminate yourself, but you could be prosecuted if you lie. Your only LEGAL option to telling the truth is to not answer at all. But then they won't sell you a gun.

wash
02-02-2010, 7:54 PM
Pick one, dope or guns.

Don't look for support around here if you want both.

I think marijuana prohibition is dumb and it's wasting a perfectly good tax source but if weed is your thing, ditch your guns and you've got plenty of pot smokers that will support you if you get busted.

If guns are your thing, ditch the dope and be a good citizen and you'll have plenty of gun owners supporting you if you get busted (just as long as you are otherwise ~clean).

If you combine the two, you better expect that gun owners will turn their back and probably curse you under their breath.

Now if there was a change at the federal level, marijuana was legalized and the 4473 is changed, then you might be able to get support from both sides but that's not the world we live in.

xxdabroxx
02-02-2010, 8:33 PM
do you have drug convictions on your record, or are listed as being addicted to drugs in the court system?


i'm sure the right people will pop their heads in, and likely tell you that if you have a doctor's rec., you're probably OK so long as you are not using a firearm while impaired, and probably shouldn't get into trouble. similar to if you had to take oxycontin for your back.

misdemeanor drug convictions are not on the list of prohibiting misdemeanors.

I would not possess both at the same time for safeties sake. Otherwise i do not think it has been addressed in court, the only place that will provide a definitive answer.

Anyone care to be the test case?

CalNRA
02-03-2010, 12:30 AM
Don't forget that the question on 4473 comes from the language in the 68 GCA.

So it is correct to say, that theoretically as long as your are smoking weed without a federal marijuana permit, you are a prohibited person?

I remember reading the new story on the few people who still hold valid marijuana permits from the federal government, so aside from those people, I guess all marijuana smokers who are in possession of guns are breaking federal law, constitutional or not.

dfletcher
02-03-2010, 8:43 AM
Don't forget that the question on 4473 comes from the language in the 68 GCA.

So it is correct to say, that theoretically as long as your are smoking weed without a federal marijuana permit, you are a prohibited person?

I remember reading the new story on the few people who still hold valid marijuana permits from the federal government, so aside from those people, I guess all marijuana smokers who are in possession of guns are breaking federal law, constitutional or not.

But the catch phrase is, are you an unlawful user of "or addicted to" the stuff? If you are a lawful user with a federal permit but in addition you state you are addicted to MJ you would still have to answer "yes" and be excluded from buying the gun. I think that's quite a catch - using MJ is legal, but if you are by your own admission "addicted" you can not buy the gun. An alcoholic is not prohibited from buying a gun, perhaps they should be but they are not. That would be quite the little catch 22.

B yond
02-03-2010, 8:49 AM
The only time you'd need to defend yourself from a bunch of pot smoking hippies is if you suddenly found yourself metamorphosed into a bag of funyuns (or other random junk food product). 'Cause seriously, that's all a stoned hippy is going to attack

I don't know about that. What if you live in a tree house? You might have some home invasion concerns from the tree-sitting hippies.

darkshier
02-03-2010, 9:05 AM
Don't forget that the question on 4473 comes from the language in the 68 GCA.

So it is correct to say, that theoretically as long as your are smoking weed without a federal marijuana permit, you are a prohibited person?

I remember reading the new story on the few people who still hold valid marijuana permits from the federal government, so aside from those people, I guess all marijuana smokers who are in possession of guns are breaking federal law, constitutional or not.
This has been and will always be the case until Congress changes the federal marijuana laws.

PaperPuncher
02-03-2010, 9:14 AM
Nothing will change in my opinion. Everything will remain as it is today. There are plenty of shooters who smoke marijuana and they go into gunshops, check the "no" box, and purchase guns.

There are not a bunch of marijuana smokers waiting for MJ to become legal so they can take up shooting as a hobby. There will be no change in the current shooting demographic, there will be no addition of new, pot smoking, shooters, and the feds are not going to cancel our second amendment rights because some idiot (Tom Amiano) wants to hide his pot smoking habits behind tax revenue. Unless there is going to be a constitutional amendment that says the smoking of marijuana supersedes all other amendments of the constitution then the feds will again turn a blind eye to the problems that plague its California residents.

If anything, we (gun owners) should hope this passes so we can use it against California. This will definitely increase the crime rate everywhere in the state. It will also make you a target for crime if your neighbor decides to be a pot farmer. This could actually be our ticket to CCW. How does this extend out of the home...ever go for an evening walk in your neighborhood? Do you feel 100% safe now? Just imagine if half your neighbors grow pot. How many of them are going to be robbed? Want to be standing out in front of their house when some murderous home invasion burglars come running out of their house strapped with illegally obtained guns, hi-cap mags, and high on drugs? Not me.

I sat legalize it...keep pissing on the Constitution...everyone gets their comeuppins'.

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 9:15 AM
Our ticket to CCW is Palmer/Sykes, nothing more and nothing less.

PaperPuncher
02-03-2010, 9:19 AM
But the catch phrase is, are you an unlawful user of "or addicted to" the stuff? If you are a lawful user with a federal permit but in addition you state you are addicted to MJ you would still have to answer "yes" and be excluded from buying the gun. I think that's quite a catch - using MJ is legal, but if you are by your own admission "addicted" you can not buy the gun. An alcoholic is not prohibited from buying a gun, perhaps they should be but they are not. That would be quite the little catch 22.

A common symptom of addiction is denial. Therefore someone who is addicted will most likely not think they are actually addicted and will not, by their own admission, say so. That is a catch 22.

Also, addiction to alcohol does prohibit you from owning a gun. Alcohol is a controlled substance. Not so much as other drugs but it is still controlled and you can be unlawfully addicted. But again comes the denial part.

PaperPuncher
02-03-2010, 9:21 AM
Our ticket to CCW is Palmer/Sykes, nothing more and nothing less.

Never hurts to have a "plan B" in this state. Well, maybe it is "plan C" since the whole constitution thing didn't work out so well.

Blood Ocean
02-03-2010, 9:22 AM
So why don't you define what is a Hippie? Does a male with long hair and a ponytail make them a Hippie? What exactly is a Hippie? :TFH:

I sure hope not, I have long hair. In my opinion I would have to say that a hippie generally is someone who cares not for the negative consequences of their lazy existence. It's more a mindset than physical characteristic.

I'm not being sarcastic here: have you ever been around anyone high on pot? Yes Ever been high yourself? Yes, there's a time and a place for everything and it's called college.

It doesn't sound like it. Speculating that people might attack you after getting high legally is just odd.
Not all attacks come from the front, they usually come from the flank or rear

Unlike alcohol, THC tends to defuse aggressive impulses.

Maybe you should tell that to all the hippies that have been attacking our country through the legislature, they've done a pretty good job over the last 40 years.

tiki
02-03-2010, 9:26 AM
Just answer "no" like everyone always has. If you have a card there's a slight chance you might show up in a database, though. If this initiative passes you won't need a card.

Just having a card doesn't mean you use it. Not all people with handicapped parking permits park in handicapped parking. I know people with CCW permits that don't carry. There are lots of registered voters that don't vote. I have a friend with a driver's license but he doesn't own a car. I've left the dentist's office before with a prescription for pain killers that I never used. So, having a MMJ card does not make you a user.

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 9:27 AM
Well, since we don't have a RKBA provision in the state constitution, and we don't have an incorporated 2A, I'm not sure I understand the basis of your last comment. If "plan A" fails, and it is virtually guaranteed to not fail, it would likely take a CA constitutional amendment to give us enough leverage to force SI CCW.

Never hurts to have a "plan B" in this state. Well, maybe it is "plan C" since the whole constitution thing didn't work out so well.

PaperPuncher
02-03-2010, 9:31 AM
Just having a card doesn't mean you use it. Not all people with handicapped parking permits park in handicapped parking. I know people with CCW permits that don't carry. There are lots of registered voters that don't vote. I have a friend with a driver's license but he doesn't own a car. I've left the dentist's office before with a prescription for pain killers that I never used. So, having a MMJ card does not make you a user.

I would definitely agree with that statement however doctors don't go out of their way to reccomend MJ as a treatment. I am pretty sure it has to be requested by the patient and there are only select doctors that are MMJ friendy. So, the patient has to have some experience with or desire to smoke MJ as a treatment for whatever it is that ails them (most likely a hang nail, no offense to anyone using this for whatever legitimate reason they have) which leads me to believe that they either already smoked it, currently smoke it, or plan to smoke it. But I do agree, having a card does not necessarily mean that you are using it. However, it is not the same as a doctor/dentist prescribing you vicodin.

PaperPuncher
02-03-2010, 9:35 AM
Well, since we don't have a RKBA provision in the state constitution, and we don't have an incorporated 2A, I'm not sure I understand the basis of your last comment. If "plan A" fails, and it is virtually guaranteed to not fail, it would likely take a CA constitutional amendment to give us enough leverage to force SI CCW.

That would be the Constitution of the United States.

And I'm on your side so why the pushback? You even give a what if scenario in your response to me so you can't be all that confident in the current plan? Maybe you are just trying to get a rise out me I don't know or maybe you just like to disagree with people who agree with your stance.

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 9:50 AM
That would be the Constitution of the United States.

And I'm on your side so why the pushback? You even give a what if scenario in your response to me so you can't be all that confident in the current plan? Maybe you are just trying to get a rise out me I don't know or maybe you just like to disagree with people who agree with your stance.

The US 2A doesn't apply to CA, so your argument that it "failed" isn't true. I don't mean to be disagreeable for sport, I'm simply trying to highlight some inaccuracies and clarify some points made in the discussion. I gave a "what if" to show the type of act that would be required if incorporation failed, not to imply that it will.

PaperPuncher
02-03-2010, 10:18 AM
The US 2A doesn't apply to CA, so your argument that it "failed" isn't true. I don't mean to be disagreeable for sport, I'm simply trying to highlight some inaccuracies and clarify some points made in the discussion. I gave a "what if" to show the type of act that would be required if incorporation failed, not to imply that it will.

The Constitution of the United States not applying in one of the United States is pretty much a failure so I fail to see the inaccuracy of my statement.

I personally do not agree with your strategy. There is no need to twist words just for the sake of making someones statement wrong. Especially since we are on the same page here. That is just dumb. I don't need you to agree with me, I just don't see a need to turn my comments into something they are not just so you can feel like you have said something right.

Nothing is "for sure" in this state. Cali defies all laws of nature, physics, and constitutionality. Any attempt to change the 2A laws (or any law for that matter, hell, gay people don't even have basic rights here) can fail for any reason. So telling me that something is virtually guaranteed not to fail is very presumptuous. And to not have another plan because one is virtually guaranteed to work is being ill prepared to continue to fight this battle. And to shoot down my theoretical reasoning for "good cause" with no basis when saying that it will take a CA constitutional amendment to force CCW I would have to ask...What need will our CA constitutional amendment be based on? Not to say that my theory is the best one, just saying it is an applicable one.

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 11:44 AM
Hold on. I understand that you may not agree with the strategy, but you have yet to refute the soundness of it or provided a basis for yours. I'm not "twisting words" - you made inaccurate assertions and I pointed them out to you (and, more importantly, to the audience here). However, we are on the same team, and if you disagree with a component of the strategy you have every right to do so.

It's important to understand that in a post-McDonald world, 2A-based challenges will not simply fail because of the antagonistic nature of the policymakers. Such is the beauty of a robustly-protected right, such as 2A will be.

Please don't mistake my comments to mean that the coalition holds no other options; NRA/CGF/CRPA/SAF have the best and brightest working on these issues and to think that they are so shortsighted as to have a singular method of securing our rights is to grossly underestimate them.

To answer your question, the CA constitutional amendment I mentioned would be a ballot measure based on unambiguous language for our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.


The Constitution of the United States not applying in one of the United States is pretty much a failure so I fail to see the inaccuracy of my statement.

I personally do not agree with your strategy. There is no need to twist words just for the sake of making someones statement wrong. Especially since we are on the same page here. That is just dumb. I don't need you to agree with me, I just don't see a need to turn my comments into something they are not just so you can feel like you have said something right.

Nothing is "for sure" in this state. Cali defies all laws of nature, physics, and constitutionality. Any attempt to change the 2A laws (or any law for that matter, hell, gay people don't even have basic rights here) can fail for any reason. So telling me that something is virtually guaranteed not to fail is very presumptuous. And to not have another plan because one is virtually guaranteed to work is being ill prepared to continue to fight this battle. And to shoot down my theoretical reasoning for "good cause" with no basis when saying that it will take a CA constitutional amendment to force CCW I would have to ask...What need will our CA constitutional amendment be based on? Not to say that my theory is the best one, just saying it is an applicable one.

Blood Ocean
02-03-2010, 1:03 PM
The Constitution of the United States not applying in one of the United States is pretty much a failure so I fail to see the inaccuracy of my statement.

I personally do not agree with your strategy. There is no need to twist words just for the sake of making someones statement wrong. Especially since we are on the same page here. That is just dumb. I don't need you to agree with me, I just don't see a need to turn my comments into something they are not just so you can feel like you have said something right.

Nothing is "for sure" in this state. Cali defies all laws of nature, physics, and constitutionality. Any attempt to change the 2A laws (or any law for that matter, hell, gay people don't even have basic rights here) can fail for any reason. So telling me that something is virtually guaranteed not to fail is very presumptuous. And to not have another plan because one is virtually guaranteed to work is being ill prepared to continue to fight this battle. And to shoot down my theoretical reasoning for "good cause" with no basis when saying that it will take a CA constitutional amendment to force CCW I would have to ask...What need will our CA constitutional amendment be based on? Not to say that my theory is the best one, just saying it is an applicable one.

This has gotten way off topic and I wouldn't normally care but you are spreading FUD of the worst kind. Gay people are not a separate class of person they have the exact same rights as any other person. Mods, lock the thread please, we've lost our way.

PaperPuncher
02-03-2010, 1:13 PM
This has gotten way off topic and I wouldn't normally care but you are spreading FUD of the worst kind. Gay people are not a separate class of person they have the exact same rights as any other person. Mods, lock the thread please, we've lost our way.

Ok, before that gets twisted into some racist remark. The comment was in defence of equal civil rights for everyone which clearly is not the case for the gay population in California. Me stating that they do not have basic rights here is a fact. They are currenty fighting for the right to get married if you have forgotten. They are not a seperate class of people and are not currently enjoying the same rights that everyone else here does. Please read the whole comment in its entirety or get a job with the media.

Thanks for the FUD. Or maybe you can explain your comment?? When/where did I say gay people are a seperate class of people?? What was the FUD I am speading?

wildhawker
02-03-2010, 1:28 PM
Relax, guys.

PaperPuncher
02-03-2010, 1:34 PM
Relax, guys.

I totally would. I am with you. I get it.

However the last comment made me out to be a bigot and then there was a request to have the mods lock the thread not giving me a chance to defend my position. I am not going to made to look like a bigot by someone who either didn't read or understand my comment. Really, at this point, I am done with this particular thread but I wasn't going out like that. Blood Ocean took my comment totally out of context and he needed to be corrected.

Blood Ocean
02-03-2010, 1:58 PM
I didn't take anything out of context, you guys are way off topic here and my thread has run it's course. If you want to debate anything outside of what I asked start your own thread to discuss it. Pretty simple right?

Sgt Raven
02-03-2010, 3:04 PM
I didn't take anything out of context, you guys are way off topic here and my thread has run it's course. If you want to debate anything outside of what I asked start your own thread to discuss it. Pretty simple right?

You still haven't given a good definition of what is a hippie or explained how to know one when we see them. :TFH:

strangerdude
02-03-2010, 3:07 PM
Semi-related, can you own a firearm if you have a medical marijuana reccomendation?

Yes you can, actually a few friends of mine have a medical marijuana recommendation and have a pretty nice arsenal.

strangerdude
02-03-2010, 3:12 PM
That's right, you ain't no expert. And no marijuana is NOT addictive.

So we all know that you answer yes to (a) and then no all the way to the bottom of Q12 (in most cases) but I'm wondering what could happen depending on the election in November. Q12(e) asks:

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

So if the hippies get their way and put a ballot initiative for the complete decriminalization of Marijuana in the state of CA and get it passed what will be the impact for the gun-buying public?

I'm no expert but I don't think you can get addicted to Marijuana. If it's decriminalized then you're no longer an unlawful user of.

How will the Feds react to this? I envision this Brady Campaign response "You can't sell guns to people who are smoking weed legally." In the most draconian world (liberals in power) I could see them reaching for as close to a full ban of all gun sales in CA. Federally the marijuana is still felony-level illegal, and I don't see any anti-gun nuts missing this key part of the approval to purchase process and having something to say about it.

Yes I know I'm speculating about something that might not even happen (I sure hope they don't find any new sources of tax revenue) but I'm concerned of the ramifications if they do pass this garbage. I love buying guns, I don't want hippies to be getting high legally and not be able to defend myself from them. If you or someone you know/love is a hippie please get them help.

Super Spy
02-03-2010, 3:22 PM
How would the ATF even know if you were a CA legal user of marijuana?

It's called a computer. You may be using one......

Blood Ocean
02-03-2010, 3:23 PM
You still haven't given a good definition of what is a hippie or explained how to know one when we see them. :TFH:

Of course I did in post#41:
In my opinion I would have to say that a hippie generally is someone who cares not for the negative consequences of their lazy existence. It's more a mindset than physical characteristic. I didn't address "how to know one when we see them" but I'd say follow the SCOTUS opinion on obscenity "I know it when I see it."


That's right, you ain't no expert. And no marijuana is NOT addictive.

Since you're obviously the expert would you care to cite your study proving it? You're location says you're in Prison, is that on a Marijuana charge?

strangerdude
02-03-2010, 3:29 PM
Of course I did in post#41:
In my opinion I would have to say that a hippie generally is someone who cares not for the negative consequences of their lazy existence. It's more a mindset than physical characteristic. I didn't address "how to know one when we see them" but I'd say follow the SCOTUS opinion on obscenity "I know it when I see it."




Since you're obviously the expert would you care to cite your study proving it? You're location says you're in Prison, is that on a Marijuana charge?

I'm no expert but have read many articles on the medical benefits, It's just that you're easily convinced by propaganda. Oh and yes I am in prison, currently on the internet and drinking a corona with chips and salsa. We have the sweet life here.

B Strong
02-03-2010, 4:37 PM
Marijuana is regulated by federal law as well as state law, and a state decriminalization has nothing to do with federal statutes, including prohibition of firearms ownership for users.

It would be a very interesting case post incorporation, but even incorporation might not get otherwise lawful drug users out of the prohibited class.

Kharn
02-03-2010, 5:18 PM
The 4473 does not ask if you are complying with all applicable laws while being a user of marijuana. It asks if you are a habitual user, which you probably would be considered by a federal prosecutor and federal grand jury when presented with your prescription information. Your 4473s with 'no' marked would then be considered perjury.

dfletcher
02-03-2010, 6:21 PM
A common symptom of addiction is denial. Therefore someone who is addicted will most likely not think they are actually addicted and will not, by their own admission, say so. That is a catch 22.



Got it - that's some catch. ;)

dfletcher
02-03-2010, 6:25 PM
The 4473 does not ask if you are complying with all applicable laws while being a user of marijuana. It asks if you are a habitual user, which you probably would be considered by a federal prosecutor and federal grand jury when presented with your prescription information. Your 4473s with 'no' marked would then be considered perjury.

Doesn't ask if you're a habitual user, it asks if you are addicted. You can have a prescription but not be addicted. If I had a prescription and was required to use it I wouldn't be addicted - in my experience of many years ago it makes me sick as hell.

Unless by denying Catch 22 applies ..... :(

Pyr0
02-03-2010, 7:27 PM
Nothing wrong with marijuana, I sometimes wonder why it is still an illegal substance. And schedule one for that matter (I mean meth [worst drug ever] and cocaine are schedule two). Weed is a drug that keeps the "animals" docile, and I hope you know what I mean when I say "animals". I'd rather the stereotype be a redneck with a gun and a joint than one with a beer. (Well obviously I'd rather not have the stereotype at all, but it is out there so what're you gonna do?).


Also, what's incorporation and Palmer/Sykes mean?

scc1909
02-03-2010, 8:12 PM
Setting aside the whole addiction question, I haven't seen anyone define "unlawful user of" marijuana. Does it mean...

a. Currently high while filling out the form?

b. Illegally used marijuana within 24 hours, 1 week, a year?

c. Smoked pot a few times while you were in college 10-20-30 years ago?

I'm not being snarky here, I honestly don't know. The question seems unnecessarily vague to me. When I joined AFROTC back in '73 the application asked if you'd ever consumed marijuana even once in your life, which is pretty unambiguous.

loather
02-03-2010, 8:15 PM
Also, what's incorporation and Palmer/Sykes mean?

Here's the ten cent tour. Note for the pedants out there: this is a gross oversimplification of the situation and I'm leaving a *lot* out.

The Constitution of the United States generally applies to the Federal government only. Thus, the restrictions placed upon the Feds in the Bill of Rights aren't binding against the states. The 14th Amendment was supposed to change this, but it was rendered mostly meaningless by the Slaughter-House Supreme Court case. Nonetheless, certain amendments have been found to be incorporated and bound against the states; the first and fourth being two such notables. Incorporation, in the general sense around here, means overturning the Slaughter-House precedent and incorporating the entire bill of rights against the states, thus unleashing the full power of the fourteenth amendment. The Second Amendment comes along for the ride.

Sykes v. McGinness is a case on hold right now which challenges the legality of concealed carry statues in California. Once we get incorporation we will soon thereafter see a decision in this case, almost certainly in our favor. The outcome will be shall-issue concealed carry permits in California.

Palmer v. District of Columbia is a court case much like Sykes, however, it deals with the carry restrictions in Washington, DC.

Check out the Calguns Wiki for more information on any of the above topics.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page

Welcome to the fight! :)

Pyr0
02-03-2010, 8:18 PM
Thanks for the clarification Loather :)

nicki
02-04-2010, 2:51 AM
Since Obama's position with Med Marijuana is that if it is okay with the state, it is okay with him, perhaps a letter to the Attorney General may be in order.

Should come from a coalition of gun and marijuana rights groups.

Nicki