New Marijuana Laws and gun purchases.

[Captcurt]

With the new state regulations on legal marijuana ATF has brought to dealer's attention that although you can have a prescription it is still against Federal Law. As such it is illegal to purchase a firearm.

How are dealer's going to know unless the buyer check yes to 11e on the 4473 form? Looks like our elected officials have opened another can of worms.

 

[cjwils]

I don't think dealers are expected know if buyers are truthful on question 11e, except maybe when a buyer obviously smells of marijuana. Buyers will hopefully be truthful when they read at the top of page 2 that lying on this form is a federal felony. I suspect that Attorney Gen. Sessions might want to make a point by finding a few liars to be arrested in this regard.

 

[MedWheeler]

Same way the dealers are "supposed to know" if the buyer is or isn't lying elsewhere on the form.

The Federal law against marijuana use does indeed still stand. This makes it remain unlawful for anyone who is a user, whether unlawful or "state-legal", to purchase a firearm, regardless of what they indicate on the 4473.

No new "can of worms" has been opened.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The ATF warning was about use of a Medical Marijuana Card for Federal Form 4473 identification purposes.
It identifies residence maybe, but it is probable cause to believe one is a current user of a federally controlled substance for sure (a former user would not have a MMC or present it to an FFL as ID).
https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download
21 Sep 2011 ATF Open Letter to All FFLs
[Am I the only person who got a "don't ask don't tell" vibe on medical marijuana from that letter?]
ADD: a current user of medical marijuana is still a person prohibited by federal law from buying, transfering, or possessing a firearm or as little as one round of ammo. A bill to add state medical marijuana card holders to the NICS prohibited person database might be a wake up call for some of those who call on putting "No Fly' and "Terror Watch" list names on the NICS database.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let's stay focused on what the law is and how it works and avoid drifting off into politics or philosophy.

​

 

[cjwils]

The ATF warning referred to above by Carl Brown is from a letter dated 2011. However the new language on form 4473 was added very recently. That new language reads as shown below, and it does not seem at all to imply a don't-ask-don't-tell vibe. I think the new language means what it says, and the language in the first paragraph on page 2 of form 4473 makes clear that lying on the form is a federal felony.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The ATF warning referred to above by Carl Brown is from a letter dated 2011. However the new language on form 4473 was added very recently. That new language reads as shown below, and it does not seem at all to imply a don't-ask-don't-tell vibe. I think the new language means what it says, and the language in the first paragraph on page 2 of form 4473 makes clear that lying on the form is a federal felony....

I agree. There's nothing "don't ask - don't tell" about it. This whole subject has [needlessly] caused a lot of confusion in the gun community. As States began to "legalize" the medical, and then recreational, use of marijuana many people lost focus of federal law. But no matter what state law was, marijuana continued to be illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, and anyone using marijuana continued to be an "unlawful user of a controlled substance" and therefore prohibited under federal law from possessing a gun or ammunition. The confusion on that point is obvious to anyone who has read the enormous amount of hogwash posted on the subject on gun boards.

The 2011 ATF letter was an attempt to make things clear for FFLs. The recent change to the 4473 is an attempt to make it clear to persons buying a gun.

So to be clear:

Anyone who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is violating federal law. He is an unlawful user of a controlled substance and is therefore prohibited under federal law from possessing a gun or ammunition. If a user of marijuana answers "no" to question 11e on a 4473, he has answered falsely and thereby committed a felony under federal law, in addition to any other federal crimes he may be committing.​

 

[Berger.Fan222]

I agree. There's nothing "don't ask - don't tell" about it. This whole subject has [needlessly] caused a lot of confusion in the gun community. As States began to "legalize" the medical, and then recreational, use of marijuana many people lost focus of federal law. But no matter what state law was, marijuana continued to be illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, and anyone using marijuana continued to be an "unlawful user of a controlled substance" and therefore prohibited under federal law from possessing a gun or ammunition. The confusion on that point is obvious to anyone who has read the enormous amount of hogwash posted on the subject on gun boards.

The 2011 ATF letter was an attempt to make things clear for FFLs. The recent change to the 4473 is an attempt to make it clear to persons buying a gun.

So to be clear:

Anyone who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is violating federal law. He is an unlawful user of a controlled substance and is therefore prohibited under federal law from possessing a gun or ammunition. If a user of marijuana answers "no" to question 11e on a 4473, he has answered falsely and thereby committed a felony under federal law, in addition to any other federal crimes he may be committing.​

Yep. If the AG ever wants to push the point, there are a lot of pot heads leaving paper trails regarding their federal felonies. For that matter, there is a lot of tax money collected by various states that could be seized as drug proceeds.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....there is a lot of tax money collected by various states that could be seized as drug proceeds.

Really? Can you cite some legal authority to support the seizure by the federal government of taxes collected by States pursuant to State law? Why, citing statutes and case law, would civil forfeiture principles apply to state tax revenue?

 

[Berger.Fan222]

Really? Can you cite some legal authority to support the seizure by the federal government of taxes collected by States pursuant to State law? Why, citing statutes and case law, would civil forfeiture principles apply to state tax revenue?

Why wouldn't it? Are drug proceeds exempt from civil forfeiture simply because they end up in the state tax coffers?

Can states profit from the sale of illegal drugs and be exempt from seizure? Cite their exemption from civil forfeiture laws.

 

[HankB]

11e Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? . . .

Some states have legalized marijuana, but the Feds haven't. So most people who smoke it would be committing a crime if they answered "no" on question 11e of the 4473 form.

HOWEVER . . . just to be difficult . . . it's my understanding that a very small number of people not only have official Federal permission to smoke marijuana for medical reasons, but are actually provided with it by the Feds; it's not unlawful for them.

So if their use doesn't rise to clinical addiction, wouldn't they be able to answer "no" to 11e without committing a criminal act?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Really? Can you cite some legal authority to support the seizure by the federal government of taxes collected by States pursuant to State law? Why, citing statutes and case law, would civil forfeiture principles apply to state tax revenue?

Why wouldn't it?....

Because a State is not a person. A State is a sovereign, political entity having broad police power and taxing powers, subject to Article IV, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and the State's own constitution.

...Are drug proceeds exempt from civil forfeiture simply because they end up in the state tax coffers?...

You're claiming that they're not, so it's your burden to demonstrate with proper authority that the federal government somehow has the constitutional power to confiscate state property.

...Cite their exemption from civil forfeiture laws.

Nope, it's your claim so you must support your claim. You're at this point merely guessing. You need to cite legal authority supporting the confiscation of state tax revenues by the federal government.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....HOWEVER . . . just to be difficult . . . it's my understanding that a very small number of people not only have official Federal permission to smoke marijuana for medical reasons, but are actually provided with it by the Feds; it's not unlawful for them......

Federal law allows for limited, lawful prescribing of drugs that can't otherwise be lawfully prescribed. It must be done under a formal research protocol and subject to oversight by an Institutional Review Board, as part of the clinical trial and investigation of new and novel drugs and therapies.

See, for example 21 CFR 1301.18 for some of the federal rules for conducting clinical trials with Schedule I controlled substances (which marijuana is).

Some years ago there was a formal clinical trial conducted with marijuana. The clinical trial has long been over, and there will be no new participants.

However, the last time I looked into the question several years ago there were still four participants alive and continuing to receive marijuana on the theory that it would be medically inappropriate to discontinue a treatment regimen once begun under the trial.

If any of those four are still alive and using marijuana today are the only lawful users of marijuana in the United States. No one else ever will be unless federal law is changed.

 

[1911 guy]

Odd rambling thought:

I have the right to get blind drunk if I want to. I also have the right to walk down the street if i want to. However, the two are exclusive of one another, as public intoxication is frowned upon. I have both rights, but must choose which one to exercise. It is perhaps a shallow analysis, but guns and weed are similar. I could get a medical marijuana card. Or I could buy a gun. But not both. It is a choice I am free to make, voluntarily giving up one to be able to exercise another. Of course, that deals with the state issue only, as it is still illegal under federal law.

 

[red rick]

I was talking to a young man a few months ago while sitting at the bar eating lunch . He had a sad story , he was 21 years old and a honor roll college student . While living off campus he bought his first pistol and he did smoke marijuana . His apartment was busted by the police during a party and they found some marijuana and his pistol . He was arrested , but the local courts decided not to prosecute the case and turned it over to the Federal courts . He said they had a year to act on the charges and after almost a years time had gone by , he thought that the Federal courts were not going to pick up the case . Then one day they came and arrested him . He said it was like something you see on TV movie , it was so many agents in tactical gear with guns drawn . They ended up convicting him of lying on his federal firearms purchase forum , all though he was charged with a lot more . He said his parents spent most of their savings on his lawyer , and he ended up serving either 2 or 5 years in prison , I forget . He is now not in college , has a criminal record and working as a dishwasher in a restaurant . A little mistake and lack of good judgment buy a young person ruined his life . He seemed like a nice young man and I hope he can get his life back on track , but I could tell that he was probably changed for life .

 

[hdwhit]

red rick wrote:
They ended up convicting him of lying on his federal firearms purchase forum (sic)

Yep. Lying on a federal form - and since it's that time of year, we might include the IRS Form 1040 - can get you into a lot of trouble. It's not worth losing your 2A rights.

 

[pintler]

"Why wouldn't it? Are drug proceeds exempt from civil forfeiture simply because they end up in the state tax coffers?"

Just FWIW, Washington State enacted a marijuana tax twenty plus years ago, when it was still illegal. I think a number of states did at the time. The theory was that you could prosecute for both possession and failing to pay the tax. I dunno why they wanted to do that instead of just upping the penalty for possession. But ot would seem to argue against the idea that states can't tax illegal things.

"I have the right to get blind drunk if I want to...." & etc.

From what I saw in the dorms many moons ago, I think booze and guns are an even worse mix than pot and guns. If we're designing the law to rationally reduce the risk of intoxicant related gun misuse, we'd outlaw possessing guns by drinkers before pot smokers.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Just FWIW, Washington State enacted a marijuana tax twenty plus years ago, when it was still illegal. I think a number of states did at the time. The theory was that you could prosecute for both possession and failing to pay the tax. I dunno why they wanted to do that instead of just upping the penalty for possession. But ot would seem to argue against the idea that states can't tax illegal things.....

There are indeed examples of taxing illegal income or activities. The federal government will prosecute criminals for failing to pay income tax on income derived from illegal activities. Failing to pay income tax on bootlegging income is why Al Capone went to prison. States could do the same.

Various criminal enterprises use a variety of strategies to "launder" money -- making "dirty" money look like money from legitimate commerce. Income from criminal activities gets integrated into a legitimate income stream; and taxes get paid.

But we're starting to get off track here, so let's stick with a discussion of gun possession and marijuana use.

 

[Delmar]

In the end, Federal authority is superior to state authority. Pot is illegal federally, so I wait for the Feds to try and convict a user in Federal court in a state where pot is by state statute legal. Probably what its going to take in order to settle the issue once and for all.

 

[1911 guy]

From what I saw in the dorms many moons ago, I think booze and guns are an even worse mix than pot and guns. If we're designing the law to rationally reduce the risk of intoxicant related gun misuse, we'd outlaw possessing guns by drinkers before pot smokers.

Pintler, either I failed to adequately express my thought or you missed the point entirely. It was a statement that some rights are exclusive of the exercise of other rights. Drinking was merely a convenient example. Simply using other ideas to convey a principle. I can choose one or the other, but not both.

 

[Old Dog]

Odd rambling thought:

I have the right to get blind drunk if I want to. I also have the right to walk down the street if i want to. However, the two are exclusive of one another, as public intoxication is frowned upon. I have both rights, but must choose which one to exercise. It is perhaps a shallow analysis, but guns and weed are similar. I could get a medical marijuana card. Or I could buy a gun. But not both. It is a choice I am free to make, voluntarily giving up one to be able to exercise another. Of course, that deals with the state issue only, as it is still illegal under federal law.

Harkening back to this thought ... I'm seeing that an awful lot of gun-owners and shooters in my state, where recreational marijuana use is legal under state law (indeed, the plethora of storefronts along the roads with huge signs advertising "Legal Weed" still gives me pause) don't even bother making the choice between one or the other -- they simply carry on, blithely smokin' and tokin' -- while continuing to buy guns (presumably not checking that box "yes" on the 4473), carrying 'em, and showing up at the local ranges (hopefully, not stoned).

It's so bad that we have to continually remind newly hired officers (apparently millennials aren't too good when it comes to reading the fine print in the applications) and even some old hands, that no, they cannot light up, EVER, that pakalolo is still illegal under federal law and they can't have the job and carry a gun if they want to smoke pot.

 

[CapnMac]

If we're designing the law to rationally reduce the risk of intoxicant related gun misuse

Unless I'm mistaken (and I have been before), that's puttingthe legislative cart before the horse.

The categories of Prohibited Persons have been with us--largely--since 1968. The categories of prohibition were not (per lex if not per se) meant to promote gun safety as to punish given criminal behaviors. It was intended that the message be "Don't Do dope, don't be a felon, etc., or else." Had 18 USC 922 been meant to prevent firearm misuse, it would be written rather differently.

 

[BSA1]

Has the Form 4473 been changed recently?

I recall (maybe faulty memory) that under Notices, Instructions and Definitions section it used to define a buyer being prohibited if they had used marijuana in last year.

I just open a pdf file of Form 4473 and do not see any instructions for answering question 11e. It gives instructions for 11.d. Fugitive from Justice and then skips to 11.f. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective.

 

[steve4102]

In the end, Federal authority is superior to state authority. Pot is illegal federally, so I wait for the Feds to try and convict a user in Federal court in a state where pot is by state statute legal. Probably what its going to take in order to settle the issue once and for all.

How about "growers" that work for ya?

http://missoulian.com/news/local/mo...cle_89211f90-6ca5-11e2-aa17-001a4bcf887a.html

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Maple-Valley-medical-marijuana-grower-charged-in-4965683.php

 

[cjwils]

Has the Form 4473 been changed recently?

Yes, the warning language that I included above in post #6 was added this year.