Discussion in 'Legal' started by kimbershot, Dec 28, 2013.
I don't see how any use of pot can be considered lawful as it is against federal law (with a very, very few exceptions).
While not unlawful under state law it is still unlawful under federal law. Given this is a federal form you would answer yes and be denied or lie and answer no.
Colorado says it's legal, but the Federal government says it isn't and can still prosecute for it if they choose to. It's still illegal, so the answer would have to be "yes" and you'd most likely be denied on the purchase.
It doesn't matter what CO says when the Feds say it's illegal.
It is NOT legal ANYWHERE in the U.S. to buy and smoke dope.
That is because federal law applies EVERYWHERE in the U.S. and federal law makes it illegal to buy and smoke dope.
State law may or may not prohibit it, but that's irrelevant. Federal law trumps state law and federal law says it's illegal.
1. The dealer doesn't get to "ask"......the buyer either answers yes or no to Question 11.e.
2. ATF most certainly has told dealers IN WRITING how state medical marijuana laws apply to the purchase of a firearm: http://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/09/092611-atf-open-letter-to-all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf
Federally, it is completely illegal to buy, possess, or use marijuana. Your state may not prohibit it at all, or may allow it in certain circumstances. That doesn't matter as the feds say there are NO exemptions. So, therefore, if you're possessing and/or using marijuana, you ARE an unlawful user of it according to federal law.
The 4473 is a federal form, not a state form.
What does unlawful user even mean? Presently stoned? Smoked last month? Used it once decades ago?
If the latter is the case then a lot of people are lying on their form 4473...
ADDED: The only exemption to this is that several states bar local law enforcement from aiding federal law enforcement in enforcing a federal law contrary to state constitution or state law. Already some states where medical marijuana is legal have taken the position that local LE resources will not be used in arresting medical marijuana card holders who own guns (they will aid arrest of violent felons in violation of fed gun laws). Gun dealers must follow federal law and refuse to sell to known med pot card holders.
How long will it be until the feds demand that medical marijuana card holders be added to the NICS prohibited person list? Pretty soon the only people not on the NICS prohibited person list will be retured LEOs with clean records.
My interpretation would be that you are a user if you have not permanently discontinued use. If your last joint was yesterday, and you intend to never use again, you are a former user. If you see yourself doing it again, you are a current user. This is considered true with tobacco and alcohol; might as well apply with THC.
Anyone here know of any case histories or precedents establishing otherwise? I'd be curious, too.
What matters is how a court will interpret it, and a court will start with the definition in the ATF regulations (27 CFR 478.11):
And what does "permanently discontinued" (as used in your interpretation) actually mean? It can really be inferred only from past conduct, i. e., very long term abstention. A mere intent not to do something tomorrow doesn't really mean much.
And in U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009) the Sixth Circuit found that (at 355):
would support conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3).
Here's the bottom line:
State law on marijuana is irrelevant.
Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801, et seq.), marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance which may not, therefore, be lawfully prescribed or used. Therefore, any user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is, under federal law, an unlawful user of a controlled substance.
Under federal law, a person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition (18 USC 922(g)(3)). Therefore, any one who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is a prohibit person and commits a federal felony by possessing a gun or ammunition.
Being a prohibited person in possession of a gun or ammunition is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine. And since it's a felony, conviction will result in a lifetime loss of gun rights.
This is where I have a big problem. "They" would like everything to be illegal and pick and choose who is going to see their fury.
I feel any law that is not unilaterally applied and enforced should be null and void.
I say make it legal nationally or go arrest every law maker in CO, who voted to break federal law, for aiding and abetting.
Well now, that's not quite what happened. State lawmakers don't vote to BREAK federal law. They merely may choose to never create a state law that copies some aspect of federal law, or may choose to remove their own state's specific law that copies some aspect of federal law. That doesn't mean they've said, "we hereby possess and use a federally illegal product, and require that our citizens do as well." Just more to the point of "no comment."
A very similar situation arises in some of these states that have "firearms freedom" laws that remove any state prohibition against machine guns or silencers. They don't become legal. They simply are not against that state's law. Now some of those legislatures have come a whole lot closer to really BREAKING federal law, by adding provisions that they will resist with force any federal agent trying to enforce those laws. If you really want to arrest someone for this, better start with those guys.
Why would that be just fine? The question asks if you are addicted to any stimulant or depressant. If you're a raging alcoholic you'd have to answer "yes."
Why would a medical drug, given on a doctor's prescription, cause someone to be a prohibited person?
Answer as you will, and accept the possible consequences and ramifications.
Actually, Sam, you wouldn't have to answer "yes."
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 might not appear to make sense, but it is what it is.
And so, for all of you folks thumping your chests about how wrong this is:
The law at present is that someone who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance (including a user of marijuana, even under a state medical marijuana law) is prohibited under federal law from having possession of a gun.
That could be fixed. Congress could amend 18 USC 922(g) to provide that an unlawful user of a controlled substance would not include someone using marijuana under a state medical marijuana law. Or Congress could amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for the lawful prescribing of marijuana (just as it does for Oxycontin). Or Congress could fix this in a variety of other ways.
So have you written you Congressional representatives?
Separate names with a comma.