MA:Federal Court Rules in Favor of 2d Amend. Right for People with Old Pot Conviction

[CPRAFAN]

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/04/mafederal-court-rules-in-favor-of.html

[Jimi Jah]

I wonder how this will work out in Colorado. Since pot is legal there, can they use pot use as a denier?

Seems it would be now be considered the same as alcohol use.

[speedrrracer]

I wonder how this will work out in Colorado. Since pot is legal there, can they use pot use as a denier?

Seems it would be now be considered the same as alcohol use.

I don't understand what you're saying. They can't deny you if you've had a beer, now pot is on the same footing as beer, so why would they be able to deny you your rights when you haven't broken any law?

[fiddletown]

I wonder how this will work out in Colorado. Since pot is legal there, can they use pot use as a denier?

Seems it would be now be considered the same as alcohol use.

This court decision will have no effect whatsoever.

This Massachusetts case involved a federal trial court's ruling regarding the effect of very old marijuana possession convictions as disqualifying conditions under a Massachusetts firearms law.

A user of marijuana is still prohibited under federal law from possessing guns or ammunition, even if marijuana use is legal under state law.

[PhillyGunner]

Anyone find it odd we have (2) marijuana/guns threads going in the same forum on 4/21?

[RickD427]

I wonder how this will work out in Colorado. Since pot is legal there, can they use pot use as a denier?

Seems it would be now be considered the same as alcohol use.

I don't understand what you're saying. They can't deny you if you've had a beer, now pot is on the same footing as beer, so why would they be able to deny you your rights when you haven't broken any law?

This court decision will have no effect whatsoever.

This Massachusetts case involved a federal trial court's ruling regarding the effect of very old marijuana possession convictions as disqualifying conditions under a Massachusetts firearms law.

A user of marijuana is still prohibited under federal law from possessing guns or ammunition, even if marijuana use is legal under state law.

Gents,

Fiddeltown hit it right on the head.

This case doesn't change a thing, and it's quite likely to go down the tubes on the inevitable appeal. It would be a good case to follow as it goes through the process.

Marijuana use remains illegal throughout all of the United States. For that reason its use is not the same as having a beer. It's true that Washington and Colorado have removed state-level criminal sanctions from its use, but as long as it remains illegal under federal law, its illegal.

[Section 101]

I wonder how this will work out in Colorado. Since pot is legal there, can they use pot use as a denier?

Seems it would be now be considered the same as alcohol use.

It's still illegal. They just won't arrest you for it. It's like the highway patrol saying we won't pull you over until you go 5 mph over the speed limit.

[IVC]

Since pot is legal there, ...

...now pot is on the same footing as beer, ...

State law in CA and CO is trumped by the federal law. Pot is still illegal in both of those states, just not based on the state law, so it's not enforced.

Similar to MT claiming that GCA of '68 doesn't apply to them and that they can have/create machine guns as long as they don't cross state lines.

[CapS]

...Similar to MT claiming that GCA of '68 doesn't apply to them and that they can have/create machine guns as long as they don't cross state lines.

Now there's a thougt to conjure with. Let the nullifications keep coming!



Cap

[a1c]

The irony is that form 4473 still is about use, not growing or selling. That means that someone in California can be growing pot legally for a 215 patient or selling to a dispensary, honestly answer the form's question if they're not a user and just a grower, and therefore not become a prohibited person.

Now sure, growing marijuana is illegal by federal standards, but the 4473 form doesn't ask anything about that...