Guns and drugs, specifically marijuana

[003]

I noticed a brief post on the ammunition find sticky that mentioned that California will have a Marijuana legalization measure on the upcoming November ballot. While not an issue for me, as I have never used any illegal drug of other substance, based on several comments, it appears it is an issue for some folks here.

So, a question, how do most here feel about the AFT rule as enumerated on form 4473 question 13e, which asks: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

An affirmative answer would preclude a dealer from selling a firearm to anyone that answers yes.

[ChuckDizzle]

You would not be unlawful or considered addicted if you were using it lawfully right?

[003]

Under Federal law Marijuana is illegal, the feds do not care what the states say. Marijuana cannot be used legally under federal law.

[The Gleam]

An affirmative answer would preclude a dealer from selling a firearm to anyone that answers yes.

There are previous threads on this over the past few years, and that is correct. Federal regulations would prevent a dealer from selling to you.

It's unfortunate, because someone new to shooting sports, possibly young, just of age in order to buy their first handgun, naive, and having their "fuzzy feel good" state marijuana prescription/allowance card is bound to want to be honest and as it is such a commonplace thing for them in their life, they will answer that on the 4473 - and learn a truth.

[wrs916]

I noticed a brief post on the ammunition find sticky that mentioned that California will have a Marijuana legalization measure on the upcoming November ballot. While not an issue for me, as I have never used any illegal drug of other substance, based on several comments, it appears it is an issue for some folks here.

So, a question, how do most here feel about the AFT rule as enumerated on form 4473 question 13e, which states: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

An affirmative answer would preclude a dealer from selling a firearm to anyone that answers yes.

As per "ATF" Standard, it states and asks the buyer if they an UNlawful user of. If Marijuana is legalized (which in my opinion it should be decriminalized and taxed) then it is therefore LAWFUL. Even an argument could be made for firearm ownership and medicinal Marijuana. How would one define a user of medical Marijuana to be "Addicted" to it by solely one observation? I've seen plenty of people that abuse prescription medications far more than medical Marijuana. Just because a Dr prescribed a pill to you doesn't give you carte a blanch to founder yourself on an entire bottle of Vicodin in one sitting.

Unfortunately, it's an issue with far too many grey areas to address in one session of debate.

[The Gleam]

You would not be unlawful or considered addicted if you were using it lawfully right?

WRONG. It remains unlawful under Federal law, and the 4473 is a Federal form. I understand your point, because states like CA, CO, and possibly FL soon say it's OK, but Feds do not.

So here you are in CA, first-time gun buyer, and you think you are OK because CA allows it and has even allowed "marijuana shops" to legally pop up all over its major cities no different than 7/11s; so you answer that on the 4473 - BOING! You are a prohibited person.

[teg33]

Federal is still considered marijuana is illegal substance. Until Federal legalize it, FFL dealers can't sell firearms to CA legal pot users.

[The Gleam]

As per "ATF" Standard, it states and asks the buyer if they an UNlawful user of. If Marijuana is legalized (which in my opinion it should be decriminalized and taxed) then it is therefore LAWFUL.

Unfortunately, it's an issue with far too many grey areas to address in one session of debate.

Only under State law. 4473 is Federal - ANY use is unlawful according to Feds. Therefore, as it pertains to that question on the 4473 - this is not as "gray" as it would appear to be. It's actually quite black and white.

I have argued otherwise in the past, fully knowing the reality but playing dumb to it - out of pitching a Devil's Advocate argument in order to have people make a correlation too how many STATE firearm laws are incongruent to Federal firearm laws and should be nullified, but nobody really caught on; primarily because the Feds and State, are mutually exclusive.

[ChuckDizzle]

Seriously though, who is dumb enough to answer "yes" to any of those questions? Like, ohh gee wilikers, I was all set to buy this new gun, but darn it I smoked a joint at the Journey concert last week, shucks.

I would argue this law is void for vagueness, how long ago would I have to have used a drug to be considered an unlawful user? That night at the discotecha in San Juan 10 years ago going to count? What defines addicted?

It reminds me of the old days when checking bags at the airport and they ask if you have let someone handle your bag, or agreed to carry a bag for someone else lol.

[wrs916]

I understand since it's an "ATFE" form/4473 that is completed. However, I think in the very near future, the Federal Government will have no choice but to revamp firearm purchasing requirements due to more and more individual States legalizing Marijuana for recreational use.

With that aside, let me ask thus query....

If you had no choice being exposed to either A a severe alcoholic with a firearm or B a stoner that only wants to empty your refrigerator's contents into his/her belly, I ask you, how many assh+le alcoholics do you know? Now after you answer "Lots", ask yourself how many assh+le stoners do you know?

[ChuckDizzle]

Only under State law. 4473 is Federal - ANY use is unlawful according to Feds. Therefore, as it pertains to that question on the 4473 - this is not as "gray" as it would appear to be. It's actually quite black and white.

I have argued otherwise in the past, fully knowing the reality but playing dumb to it - out of pitching a Devil's Advocate argument in order to have people make a correlation too how many STATE firearm laws are incongruent to Federal firearm laws and should be nullified, but nobody really caught on; primarily because the Feds and State, are mutually exclusive.

Is using marijuana illegal under federal law, I've only seen possession laws? What is the statute of limitations on it?

[ChuckDizzle]

I understand since it's an "ATFE" form/4473 that is completed. However, I think in the very near future, the Federal Government will have no choice but to revamp firearm purchasing requirements due to more and more individual States legalizing Marijuana for recreational use.

With that aside, let me ask thus query....

If you had no choice being exposed to either A a severe alcoholic with a firearm or B a stoner that only wants to empty your refrigerator's contents into his/her belly, I ask you, how many assh+le alcoholics do you know? Now after you answer "Lots", ask yourself how many assh+le stoners do you know?

Probably because good God fearing white Christian people drink and those scary Nation of Islam minorities use marijuana.

[ChrisBrooklyn]

Under Federal law Marijuana is illegal, the feds do not care what the states say. Marijuana cannot be used legally under federal law.

While rare the federal gov HAS issued a few medical cards. So there is precedent for federal medical use

[wrs916]

Seriously though, who is dumb enough to answer "yes" to any of those questions? Like, ohh gee wilikers, I was all set to buy this new gun, but darn it I smoked a joint at the Journey concert last week, shucks.

I would argue this law is void for vagueness, how long ago would I have to have used a drug to be considered an unlawful user? That night at the discotecha in San Juan 10 years ago going to count? What defines addicted?

It reminds me of the old days when checking bags at the airport and they ask if you have let someone handle your bag, or agreed to carry a bag for someone else lol.

Pretty much agree with everything you stated.

[003]

"Since 1972, there have been numerous proposals in the United States to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the most tightly restricted category reserved for drugs which have "no currently accepted medical use". Rescheduling proponents argue that cannabis does not meet the Controlled Substances Act's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I, and therefore the government is required by law either to permit medical use or to remove the drug from federal control altogether. The government, on the other hand, maintains that cannabis is dangerous enough to merit Schedule I status. The dispute is based on differing views on how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision."

"The Controlled Substances Act provides a process for rescheduling controlled substances by petitioning the Drug Enforcement Administration. The first petition under this process was filed in 1972 to allow cannabis to be legally prescribed by physicians. The petition was ultimately denied after 22 years of court challenges, although a pill form of cannabis' psychoactive ingredient, THC, was rescheduled in 1985 to allow prescription under schedule II. In 1999 it was again rescheduled to allow prescription under schedule III. A second petition, based on claims related to clinical studies, was denied in 2001. The most recent rescheduling petition was filed by medical cannabis advocates in 2002, but was denied by the DEA in July 2011. Subsequently, medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Access filed an appeal in January 2012 with the D.C. Circuit, which was heard on October 16, 2012.[1] As of August 2013, 20 states and Washington D.C. have legalized the use of medical marijuana."