Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Colorado Marijuana Law and Federal Form 4473

Discussion in 'Legal' started by bhk, Nov 7, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,576
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    And working those sorts of questions out is what courts do. If you're charged and want to object to the way the definition in the regulations was applied in your case, under your circumstances, there are procedures for you to do so.

    Certainly it would be with a court order.

    But if there's some point to your comments, it escapes me.
     
  2. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,319
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    My somewhat wandering point is the answer to being a unlawful user of pot is based on the preception of present and recent by the applicant.
     
  3. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,576
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    But one's subjective perception just might not mean too much to a judge.
     
  4. sherman123

    sherman123 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    384
    After reading this thread I had to reply to some of the comments I'm seeing regarding these recent law changes. X-Rap, I must question how Colorado has "lost their minds" regarding the medicinal use of cannabis which has countless uses ranging from treating multiple sclerosis and HIV to killing cancer cells through autophagy(all without damaging healthy cells and tissue). Yes it is illegal as others have said but state laws are changing and there is a great chance federal law will in regards to this as well. So to echo what folks here have said, yes it is illegal under federal law still so until that changes firearms ownership in conjunction with cannabis use will still be illegal for that reason.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012
  5. thefish

    thefish Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    559
    Location:
    Colorado
    Smoking in public will be against the law. As well as private sales. If it is enforced, we will see. Personally I could care less if someone sits at home and burnes one. But when they burn one and go to the range, or get in their car while my wife and 2 kids are driving the roads, is what rubs me the wrong way.

    Backdoor gun control? Highly unlikely. Attractiveness of over 200 million in tax revenue. Very likely.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2012
  6. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    But....those who are irresponsible enough to use it in the ways you don't want them to are going to do it whether it's legal or not. Just like they will with alcohol.
     
  7. BSA1

    BSA1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    5,319
    Location:
    West of the Big Muddy, East of the Rockies and Nor
    But one's subjective perception just might not mean too much to a judge.

    Yep...my point exactly. The BATF could write a simple phrase like;

    "If you have used a illegal drug, or been arrested and convicted of possession, transportation, or distributing a illegal drug as defined by >>> regardless of the severity level, i.e. citation, infraction, misdemeanor or felony, in the past 12 months then you are not allowed to purchase a firearm."

    Simple clear concise.

    As you point out the current regulations are subject to the whims of the Government and Judges.

    I got to admit though it is a job security for lawyers. :D
     
  8. Sav .250

    Sav .250 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,459
    Location:
    Central Fla
    "Smoke if you got-um" Remember that guys! Wonder what Colo is going to do about drug tests.
     
  9. dtow2

    dtow2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8
    Location:
    Windber, PA
    I bet the stores selling weed will have to see your photo id. What if they scan it and now your in the system and if it makes it to the fed level "or state level in some states" you would be denyed the purchase of firearms
    Yep all kinds of worms will be opened on this
     
  10. allaroundhunter

    allaroundhunter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,988
    Location:
    Southeast Texas
    I would guess not. As has been said Federal Gvt > State Gvt. The federal government will not relinquish that (especially a democrat-run government).
     
  11. celery

    celery Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2
    Location:
    KY
    How can the cultivation and use of a plant by an individual be the business of a government anyway????

    Oh yea, I forgot. They said it is their business so it is their business.
     
  12. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,576
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    You could try that pitch with a judge, but it sure won't get you anywhere. And the Supreme Court has confirmed on a number of occasions that the government can indeed make it its business.
     
  13. Rail Driver

    Rail Driver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,525
    Location:
    Quincy, FL
    That doesn't make it right. That is just proof that the government's primary concern is retaining power and control over the population for itself.

    I don't know about you, but I don't need some suit in Washington D.C. to tell me right from wrong - My parents taught me that quite well, thank you.
     
  14. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,576
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Nope, that's only your interpretation of it. On the other hand, the Founding Fathers in the Constitution delegated the judicial power of the United States to the federal courts, and gave the federal courts jurisdiction to, among other things, decide cases arising under he Constitution (Constitution of the United States, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

    It's not about your view of what is right or wrong. It's about the what is Constitutional and what is or is not legal.
     
  15. lobo9er

    lobo9er Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,238
    Location:
    Earth, Currently
    interesting when dealing with something that maybe constitutional yet illegal all at once. The government has made such a mess of the laws it is only gong to make things costly and time consuming to figure out. Making things illegal like growing a plant sounds pretty unconstitutional. Just my opinion, and only opinion that matters as frank has pointed out is the judges. They make the rules.

    Law is power of language. Its been done through out history time and time again.
     
  16. Rail Driver

    Rail Driver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,525
    Location:
    Quincy, FL
    You're right - it's not about my view of what's right or wrong.

    I am trying to respond in a "High Road" fashion to this, so please bear with me, and if I step over the line feel free to moderate as necessary.

    It seems to me that you are defending the right of the government to make up the rules as they go along whether those rules violate the intent that the Founding Fathers had or not (which, let's face it - none of us can know with 100% certainty, the intent of the founding fathers).

    It is apparent to me that you have a strong bias against marijuana and its use - That's fine, and you're entitled to that opinion - but your bias has nothing to do with the constitutionality of laws regulating it - It's well known that Supreme Court Justices (the end of the line where law in this nation is concerned) are NOT objective, or else who appoints those justices wouldn't be as much of an issue where firearms rights are concerned.

    The question here seems to be whether or not it's constitutional for the government to regulate ... well... everything, based on the commerce clause.

    You seem to be defending the right of the government to regulate every aspect of our lives using that clause simply because it's in the constitution and if I'm mistaken please correct me.

    The way I see it, you can't have it both ways - If the government can regulate everything else based on the commerce clause, then why can't they regulate firearms? If they cannot regulate everything on that basis, then why can they regulate marijuana? For that matter, what gives the government the right to regulate firearms or marijuana at all?

    There's nothing in the constitution about marijuana - several of the Founding Fathers grew hemp on their own lands (granted they likely didn't smoke it). There is, however, an entire constitutional amendment relating to firearms, which we are all familiar with, which prohibits the government from making any law which infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, yet here we are today with literally thousands of state and federal laws infringing on our firearms rights, and a product that was once one of our nation's largest cash crops rendered completely illegal.

    But the government NEVER does ANYTHING that is unconstitutional, and the government is completely transparent in everything it does. :rolleyes:

    The real kicker here is that in order for something to be declared unconstitutional, someone has to file suit with the government, convince the supreme court to hear the case, extremely large sums of money must change hands, and then those same judges that are appointed by the people that make the laws get to decide whether or not a law is constitutional or not.

    Seems to me that things aren't quite as cut and dried as they should be, if the constitution is really the end of the line and the law of the land.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012
  17. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,576
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    No, but in the real world the Founding Fathers delegated the authority under the Constitution to the federal courts to exercise the judicial power of the United States to resolve, among other things, disputes over the meaning and application of the Constitution.

    I have no idea how you reached that conclusion. I've said nothing about my personal views regarding marijuana or its use. I've been very clear, however, about what the current law is.

    And disputes on such questions are, under the Constitution, matters for the federal courts.

    Again, more issues for the federal courts.

    But the courts do sometimes rule against the government.

    Welcome to real life.

    Which is apparently the way the Founding Fathers wanted it, because that's the way they set things up in the Constitution.

    What makes you think things should be all the cut and dried? We live in a complex, pluralistic, political world with many people having differing beliefs, values, interests, needs, etc. That is not a recipe for "cut and dried."
     
  18. sherman123

    sherman123 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    384
    I wholeheartedly agree that cannabis prohibition does not meet the definition of constitutional. Yes, it is illegal and we are discussing legal issues but if we are to discuss constitutional issues as well then it's safe to say the founding fathers would not approve of cannabis prohibition.
    “Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, sow it everywhere.”
    -George Washington
     
  19. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,576
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Well they aren't here now, and the Supreme Court has found it to be constitutional (e. g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)). The opinion of the Supreme Court, to which the Founding Fathers delegated the judicial power of the United States, including jurisdiction of cases arising under the Constitution, trumps your opinion.
     
  20. DMF

    DMF Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    The government is providing guidance on what is LIKELY to be considered proof of being an illegal user of a controlled substance. However, ultimately it is a fact to be determined by a jury. If charged you either stipulate to that fact and plead guilty, or go to trial and let a jury decide if the government has proven that element of the crime.
     
  21. DMF

    DMF Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    They don't do that because contrary to what some spew around here the ATF, does not simply create law on it's own, and the determination of what constitutes proof of being an illegal user of a controlled substance is a fact determined by the jury, not ATF.
     
  22. powder

    powder member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Messages:
    792
    Location:
    Midwest
    If marijuana use is legallized in your state, you are no longer an " unlawful user"....

    Individual States have the Authority to be LESS restrictive than Federal Laws, but NOT MORE restrictive. However, they then also subject themselves (The State gov't.) to punitive Federal discipline, for lack of a better phrase, IE Highway funding withheld, etc..

    However, here's the overwhelming misnomer that is being overlooked by the advocates: legalizing marijuana will not eliminate the criminal activities surrounding it, and comparing it to alcohol prohibition is a red-herring argument, as the surrounding scenarios are not even close to being parallels. Tens of thousands of people will continue to be murdered in the processes of getting marijuana traffic around the U.S.. Just like alcohol and tobacco, it is a politically charged topic with literally tons of money attached to it, and it will be bloody.
     
  23. allaroundhunter

    allaroundhunter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    3,988
    Location:
    Southeast Texas
    The Form 4473 is a federal form, and therefore its questions are regarding federal laws (I believe). That being the case, even if use of marijuana is legal in your state, until federal law changes you are still an unlawful user. You can still be charged by federal authorities which means that it is still unlawful.

    Federal law is still the highest in the land. What these states are doing is not being less restrictive than the federal government, they are legalizing something that is deemed illegal.

    These states are sticking their necks out, and I am waiting to see how the federal government responds.
     
  24. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,576
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Nope, your absolutely wrong about that. I laid it all out in post 11. Under federal, marijuana can not be lawfully used or prescribed. Any person using marijuana, even if legal under state law, is an unlawful user of a controlled substance under federal law.

    And that is also incorrect and an over simplification of federal preemption.

    If federal law has "occupied the field", it will supersede state law overall. But in general, otherwise state law may be more restrictive. For example, In some States requirements for firearm possession and/or transfer are more onerous than required under federal law.

    The practice of the federal government to fund, or withhold funding, is another matter. That is a way for the federal government to assert authority over matters that are outside its constitutional power to regulate directly. So since the federal government may not directly set national highway speed limits, it conditions its funding of state highways upon States setting certain speed limits.
     
  25. powder

    powder member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Messages:
    792
    Location:
    Midwest
    Really. Let's use that theory to the age of consensual sexual relations: Federal vs. individual states.

    If Federal law were the highest law in the land, that all states HAD to abide by, there would be no "medicinal marijuana" dispensaries in 17 states today. Correct? The DEA would be just busting and locking down every single dispensary as it opened.

    Going back to post #11, I see the first point is to state that state's laws are irrelevant? Also, within post #11 what are you referencing, when, and which is your personal opinion?
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page