View Full Version : Colorado gun group: Let pot users have concealed carry permits
I don't see this happening.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/12/colo-gun-group-concealed-carry-marijuana-users/
DENVER — A Colorado gun-rights group launched Friday an initiative campaign to allow legal marijuana users to obtain concealed handgun permits.
Edgar Antillon, co-founder of Guns for Everyone in Westminster, known for providing free concealed carry classes, said he had filed a proposed ballot measure that would bring Colorado’s gun laws in line with its legal recreational and medical marijuana laws.
“Basically, we just want to sync up Colorado’s marijuana laws with our concealed carry permit laws,” Mr. Antillon said.
His group, the Colorado Campaign for Equal Gun Rights, needs 86,105 signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot. While he said he would prefer to see the measure land on the ballot as soon as November 2015, it might be more realistic to wait for the November 2016 ballot.
“In 2015, not as many people show up,” Mr. Antillon said. “We might have a better chance in 2016.”
The County Sheriffs of Colorado concealed handgun permit application now asks if “you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
Since voters legalized medical marijuana in 2000 and recreational marijuana for adults in 2012, it’s unclear whether someone who legally uses marijuana as defined by state law would be an “unlawful user” of marijuana.
“The entire state of Colorado is in violation of federal law,” said campaign co-founder Isaac Chase in a statement. “Marijuana is legal in Colorado, and the people voted to regulate it like alcohol. Consumers of alcohol are allowed to conceal, so should marijuana users.”
It’s still early, but Mr. Antillon said he envisions a grassroots campaign without heavy involvement from national firearms or marijuana groups. Then again, he said he may not have a choice, given that firearms and drug legalization groups tend to draw from different ends of the political spectrum.
“Those who are pro-gun are a lot of times against marijuana, and those who are pro-marijuana are against guns,” Mr. Antillon said. “For us, it’s a freedom issue.”
I would vote for it as well, just like alcohol you don't drink booze and go shooting and you don't smoke pot and go shooting.
StagLefty
12-12-2014, 17:17
I would vote for it as well, just like alcohol you don't drink booze and go shooting and you don't smoke pot and go shooting.
Edibles are exempt ?
Bailey Guns
12-12-2014, 17:53
I think the feds would have something to say about that since that's the reason MJ users can't possess firearms or ammunition now. At least legally, they can't.
Great-Kazoo
12-12-2014, 17:55
Unfortunately fed law supersedes state , especially with schedule 1.
IF one is not a menace to them self or others who cares. There's no check box for alcohol on a 4473
“Those who are pro-gun are a lot of times against marijuana, and those who are pro-marijuana are against guns,” Mr. Antillon said. “For us, it’s a freedom issue.”
It is nice to hear that. Get rid of the division and realize we're all for freedom.
I have a feeling the only reason marijuana is even on the firm is because of the drug war.
I have a feeling the only reason marijuana is even on the firm is because of the drug war.
Or maybe because it was an illegal, mind-altering substance, when they updated the form.
It is only fairly recently that MJ has seen a lessening of the societal stigma that has traditionally been attached to it. IMHO. Just my 2 cents.
jerrymrc
12-12-2014, 21:04
It is only fairly recently that MJ has seen a lessening of the societal stigma that has traditionally been attached to it. IMHO. Just my 2 cents.
Now that does depend on where ya grew up. When I was a teenager simple possession was reduced to a traffic ticket in OR. IMO I still would rather deal with a stoner than a drunk. Just my 2 cents.[Flower]
Zundfolge
12-12-2014, 21:13
I have no problem with the state allowing people with medical mj cards to get their CHP too. As for recreational users, I guarantee you that most folk that smoke a little now and again don't check that little box on the 4473 saying they're an illegal drug user, so I don't see the point in carving out a special exemption for them. And like with alcohol, you can't pack under the influence (medical mj or recreational).
I'd be curious to see if taking a couple of hits before a high power match would improve my scores.... LOL! It definitely enhances your senses including your vision.....
And I concur with Jerrymrc... I'd rather have a stoner with a gun than a drunk with a gun.
Now that does depend on where ya grew up. When I was a teenager simple possession was reduced to a traffic ticket in OR. IMO I still would rather deal with a stoner than a drunk. Just my 2 cents.[Flower]
True on both counts. I was just commenting on the "nation-wide" attitude about controlled substance, in response to another member's post. Over the years, I have encountered several individuals who purchased firearms (or multiple firearms), that I knew for a fact were regular pot smokers. Most of them, I didn't give a second thought to the way they checked that box on the 4473. And as Zundfolge said, if the state can issue them a med card, that shouldn't automatically preclude them from a concealed carry permit, providing they follow all the rules every other permit holder does.
I have no problem with the state allowing people with medical mj cards to get their CHP too. As for recreational users, I guarantee you that most folk that smoke a little now and again don't check that little box on the 4473 saying they're an illegal drug user, so I don't see the point in carving out a special exemption for them. And like with alcohol, you can't pack under the influence (medical mj or recreational).
Technically doesn't it ask if you are addicted to it? So smoking every now and then is not addicted, similar to alcoholic vs an occasional drink.
Captured from 4473:
53643
Sorry for the crappy screen snip, but Form 4473 Question 11.e. begins "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to...". So I guess with the current laws in CO, any recreational or med card user of MJ could honestly answer "NO" (as long as they aren't using any other drugs listed in 11.e).
Zundfolge
12-12-2014, 22:48
... Form 4473 Question 11.e. begins "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to...". So I guess with the current laws in CO, any recreational or med card user of MJ could honestly answer "NO" (as long as they aren't using any other drugs listed in 11.e).
Except that its a Federal form so my assumption is that the question includes Federal law in which case even a Medical MJ license would count as an "unlawful user of...".
That said, a CHL is a state issued license, not a Federal one so as long as your Med MJ user isn't buying from an FFL* they fall into kind of a gray area but the state could allow it.
*of course the Dems screwed that one up for Coloradoans now didn't they.
Here is another fun gray area. What about growers... can you grow and possess/purchase from an ffl and for arguments sake completely clean no usage at all solely a lively hood. i have always wanted to talk to a lawyer about that. See what their thoughts are
Except that its a Federal form so my assumption is that the question includes Federal law in which case even a Medical MJ license would count as an "unlawful user of...".
That said, a CHL is a state issued license, not a Federal one so as long as your Med MJ user isn't buying from an FFL* they fall into kind of a gray area but the state could allow it.
*of course the Dems screwed that one up for Coloradoans now didn't they.
Good point. I completely disregarded the Federal aspect in my argument without even realizing it.
Or maybe because it was an illegal, mind-altering substance, when they updated the form.
I say that because it is specifically mentioned and other drugs aren't. At least I don't think they are. Been a while since I filled out that form.
Great-Kazoo
12-12-2014, 23:44
Good point. I completely disregarded the Federal aspect in my argument without even realizing it.
Reply #6.
Except one cannot make a comparison between marijuana and alcohol. Sure they both inhibit abilities, and dull senses, but whereas alcohol metabolizes faster than MJ, the latter can stay in the system actively for up to 24 hours and impair (partially or fully) for up to 8 hours. While one can have a beer, wait an hour or two and operate a motor vehicle without much of any impairment, the same cannot be said 100% for MJ, depending on the user, of course. Also, regardless, the system currently does not exist to gauge or create a scale of comparison for intoxication with marijuana like we have with alcohol. I'd say hold off on this before just giving stoners the permission to carry guns. You can still be denied a CHP for habitual alcohol offenses; I wonder how they would treat MJ offenses, or just wipe the slate clean? I'm not saying this is a bad idea, I'm just saying that the jury is still out and I would rather this not be done half-cocked like they did with 64. Put some time in, do some studies, find out more info, and put a better foundation down before passing anything else so that it's done right.
Except one cannot make a comparison between marijuana and alcohol. Sure they both inhibit abilities, and dull senses, but whereas alcohol metabolizes faster than MJ, the latter can stay in the system actively for up to 24 hours and impair (partially or fully) for up to 8 hours. While one can have a beer, wait an hour or two and operate a motor vehicle without much of any impairment, the same cannot be said 100% for MJ, depending on the user, of course. Also, regardless, the system currently does not exist to gauge or create a scale of comparison for intoxication with marijuana like we have with alcohol. I'd say hold off on this before just giving stoners the permission to carry guns. You can still be denied a CHP for habitual alcohol offenses; I wonder how they would treat MJ offenses, or just wipe the slate clean? I'm not saying this is a bad idea, I'm just saying that the jury is still out and I would rather this not be done half-cocked like they did with 64. Put some time in, do some studies, find out more info, and put a better foundation down before passing anything else so that it's done right.
Blah blah blah cop talk.
wctriumph
12-13-2014, 11:10
I'd vote for it. Right now my wife, a registered user on MMJ, cannot get a permit for her own defense. Its ridiculous that she is not allowed to defend herself because she uses a prescribed medication that is legal in the state.
I'm not sure you can say alcohol has a lesser effect post intoxication. I'm thinking that 12 hours after getting high, most drivers would see minimal effects, while someone that had been seriously drunk might not have significant alcohol still in their system, but could still be affected by the hangover to the point of impairment. That being said, I am ambivalent on the issue of the OP. One would hope that people that are applying for CCW permits have enough sense not to carry while impaired, but the cynic in me says otherwise, regardless of what the state does. Those that are inclined to carry while intoxicated will do so if the state allows them to have a CCW permit or not.
wctriumph
12-13-2014, 11:44
Except one cannot make a comparison between marijuana and alcohol. Sure they both inhibit abilities, and dull senses, but whereas alcohol metabolizes faster than MJ, the latter can stay in the system actively for up to 24 hours and impair (partially or fully) for up to 8 hours. While one can have a beer, wait an hour or two and operate a motor vehicle without much of any impairment, the same cannot be said 100% for MJ, depending on the user, of course. Also, regardless, the system currently does not exist to gauge or create a scale of comparison for intoxication with marijuana like we have with alcohol. I'd say hold off on this before just giving stoners the permission to carry guns. You can still be denied a CHP for habitual alcohol offenses; I wonder how they would treat MJ offenses, or just wipe the slate clean? I'm not saying this is a bad idea, I'm just saying that the jury is still out and I would rather this not be done half-cocked like they did with 64. Put some time in, do some studies, find out more info, and put a better foundation down before passing anything else so that it's done right.
Good post with some interesting points.
However, and this is just anecdotal, some guys I knew and two of my cousins that served in combat in vietnam told me, their officers did not much care if they smoked pot except on guard duty or patrol whereas, no one was allowed to get drunk. They told me that when attacked by the enemy, the burst of adrenalin completely canceled out the MJ high where a drunk stayed drunk under the same circumstances. Any of you older guys that may have served over there in combat feel free to chime in. I was not there, just relating what I was told by friends and family that were there and were in combat, two of which received Purple Hearts for wounds received. These guys were in Army and Navy in country.
Captured from 4473:
53643
Sorry for the crappy screen snip, but Form 4473 Question 11.e. begins "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to...". So I guess with the current laws in CO, any recreational or med card user of MJ could honestly answer "NO" (as long as they aren't using any other drugs listed in 11.e).
..."marijuana or any depressant..."
Isn't alcohol classified as a depressant?
If people who drive drunk, text and drive, carry while using drugs (or any altering nature) want to enter into a contract with me that if their stupidity costs me or someone I care about their life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, they will pay damages and then end their life if they took one, sure, we can get rid of all the laws that protect the innocent from the stupid. But you all know that is not going to happen. Just another step down the path of the "Me first, last and always" and screw anyone else who even ventures to wants to be able to go about their lives without the risk of peril from stupid and irresponsible people.
I don't know wctriumph, nor his wife, from Adam and Eve, but I would be willing to hazard a guess that she would be fine, and responsible with a carry permit and the use of MMJ. IF CO just had MMJ, I might be inclined to argue on her behalf. However, do I think the same of most of the recreational users I have seen...NO WAY! So, maybe one could say that the recreational users no-go and the medical users gtg? But anyone who is honest knows that the MMJ system was highly abused prior to the passing of the recreational allowance.
XC700116
12-13-2014, 13:24
I see it very Similar to Mark, and dare I say it, but it's a case by case, person by person issue. A responsible person isn't going to carry when they decide to go out and let their hair down at the bar, likewise they aren't going to do it stoned out of their gourd. But someone who's an honest to goodness addict (drug, alcohol, or otherwise) isn't going to see anything wrong with their actions, or with carrying a gun when they can hardly stand, just as most don't think twice about driving in the same shape. Point being, IMHO if you have any repeated alcohol and or drug convictions no CCW for you, outside of that, I have a hard time saying that they (alcohol and MJ) should be treated any different.
I also somewhat agree with Ronin on the issue, there's not a reliable live testing platform for MJ impairment like BAC. I honestly think that's probably the single biggest hurdle to nationwide legalization. The DUI issue surrounding it, along with current testing measures surrounding work, etc only being able to tell if you have used it within a given time period, not if you are under the influence of it, leaves too many liabilities on the table.
It's far more important to repeal the background check law and magazine ban law than it is to pass this.
This doesn't even really rate.
Great-Kazoo
12-13-2014, 14:11
After recieving my CCW 28ish yrs ago, It was one of the reasons i started my slow but sure move away from consuming alcoholic beverages, outside the home. IF we were drinking / at bars, the gun was not on hand & vice versa The fear of loosing my CCW, which at that time was by sheriff not state wide, out weighed having a beverage.
[QUOTE=XC700116;1794315]I see it very Similar to Mark, and dare I say it, but it's a case by case, person by person issue. A responsible person isn't going to carry when they decide to go out and let their hair down at the bar, likewise they aren't going to do it stoned out of their gourd. But someone who's an honest to goodness addict (drug, alcohol, or otherwise) isn't going to see anything wrong with their actions, or with carrying a gun when they can hardly stand, just as most don't think twice about driving in the same shape. Point being, IMHO if you have any repeated alcohol and or drug convictions no CCW for you, outside of that, I have a hard time saying that they (alcohol and MJ) should be treated any different.
I also somewhat agree with Ronin on the issue, there's not a reliable live testing platform for MJ impairment like BAC. I honestly think that's probably the single biggest hurdle to nationwide legalization. The DUI issue surrounding it, along with current testing measures surrounding work, etc only being able to tell if you have used it within a given time period, not if you are under the influence of it, leaves too many liabilities on the table.
While i agree with the repeat alcohol, i disagree with the drug part. For many a decade in this country getting caught with a few joints was considered a felony. In Wyo if you were in possession ( Pot) you were charged with a felony. John or Jane Doe who in their younger years had a run in with LE while in possession of Pot, would be disqualified because their states law is stricter than say CA or WA. Same for other states, NY at one time had a ZERO TOLERANCE for possession of pot, ANY AMOUNT. You got caught you were gone for 13+ months, depending on qty / weight. It was a longer sentence for weed than cocaine.
milwaukeeshaker
12-13-2014, 14:56
Hear, Hear!!!
It's far more important to repeal the background check law and magazine ban law than it is to pass this.
This doesn't even really rate.
I also somewhat agree with Ronin on the issue, there's not a reliable live testing platform for MJ impairment like BAC.
I don't think this is as important as many of you believe it to be. Ask Bailey about handing out a DUI to a girl who blew a .02 BAC.
mtnrider
12-13-2014, 16:26
It's far more important to repeal the background check law and magazine ban law than it is to pass this.
This doesn't even really rate.
^ He speaks the truth! I could care less about potheads carrying right now. we have much more important things we should be focusing on.
Good point. I completely disregarded the Federal aspect in my argument without even realizing it.
No. This is a federal form. Marijuana is still Illegal in Colorado. Amendment 64 is an affirmative defense, that is all.
But, that said, how many Stoners ever have checked yes. The "questions" on a 4473 are very close to a waste of time. So how do we pass an imaginary law to make something legal (CCW) when the handgun they are supposed to carry is theoretically illegal.
This is an imaginary problem that doesn't need a bandaid. Stoners will continue to lie. If they are high, they will lose their CCW. If one shithead leaves a gun on a toilet and a kid pops themselves, the MJ can be blamed because its not endorsed a this point.
PPL here think these types of regs advertise Colorado as FREEDOM. Do you know what type of person these laws have attracted, Amendment 64 especially? NOT libertarians. Blue democrats, entitlement leaches, low wage earners. Please stop going out of our way to let them $#$# our State to hell.
ETA: Basically, you think this is a step in the direction of freedom but you are changing the demographic makeup of our state, ensuring Colorado becomes "little California" within the next decade, which we were already well on our way, now with little hope. I wish people would have stepped back and seen the bigger picture.
Quoting the original article: WHY ARE WE trying to attract ANTI firearm people to our state.[/FONT][/COLOR]
Trot, I can't quite tell if your entire response is directed at me, or a General commentary, but please take note that I recognized, and admitted, my error pertaining to fed law in post #19.
XC700116
12-13-2014, 20:40
I don't think this is as important as many of you believe it to be. Ask Bailey about handing out a DUI to a girl who blew a .02 BAC.
It's important to the "voting public", scientific validation really has no bearing on it, remember, we're talking politics, not reason. Point being, the majority of people are far more afraid of pot and thereby DUI because they can't put a number on it.
I know people that could peg the meter without anyone even knowing they'd been drinking. I'm sure MJ is much the same way. But until there's an instantaneous test that can assign a number vs a legal limit, people will get nutted up about it. And the current testing systems flag hot a LONG time after consumption and thereby aren't in any way shape or form evidence of anything beyond having ingested the substance at some point within a certain time frame that's too long to prove anything by. The vast majority of people think a DUI is completely dependent on BAC level and not demonstrated impairment, when in reality the BAC is just the extra evidence/final nail in the coffin to it.
We are in complete agreement.
It's far more important to repeal the background check law and magazine ban law than it is to pass this.
This doesn't even really rate.
Get more people into guns, get more people interested in expanding gun rights. It's about building up troops to put pressure on the politicians.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.