Medical MJ = No guns for you...

[Grant H.]

http://fortune.com/2016/09/01/medical-marijuana-gun/?utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR0wiQ0FpfmaScMvHsUHXxmpdcYjVbjlyN9QFhBKW NpRwiw1Wbp9V4e4zcQ

This is going to get interesting...

In general, I actually agree with this, largely because it is upholding the laws that are on the books.

If the laws need to change, or be struck down, then that's a different story.

[Colorado Osprey]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been and continues to be the law here as well as nationally.
When you fill out your 4473 back ground check MJ use is on that form.

[Grant H.]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that has been and continues to be the law here as well as nationally.
When you fill out your 4473 back ground check MJ use is on that form.

Yes. But there's been no enforcement of it, and everyone just suggests committing perjury.

Now that this has made it to the 9th, I expect this to become a bigger issue.

I know several folks personally who have committed perjury on 4473's due to MJ use and buying guns.

If the .gov decides to start chasing this, that's a whole lot of easily proven criminals who can be prosecuted for federal perjury...

That's a whole lot of gun owners now perma-banned from owning firearms.

[mb504]

http://fortune.com/2016/09/01/medical-marijuana-gun/?utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR0wiQ0FpfmaScMvHsUHXxmpdcYjVbjlyN9QFhBKW NpRwiw1Wbp9V4e4zcQ

This is going to get interesting...

In general, I actually agree with this, largely because it is upholding the laws that are on the books.

If the laws need to change, or be struck down, then that's a different story.

That article is 2 years old... but it still applies. Perhaps some laws need to change, but that is what we have now.

[Grant H.]

That article is 2 years old... but it still applies. Perhaps some laws need to change, but that is what we have now.

Good call.

Even I fall prey to not checking the details sometimes...

[Grant H.]

If they start prosecuting for perjury we're going to lose 99% of trial attorneys and 99% of all respondents, probably 85% of petitioners.

Too bad they don't - ever.

I agree.

But, there's nothing that says they have to prosecute all cases. Just the ones that fit their needs...

[Skip]

I think a lot of us knew this, I know we've discussed it.

Each time I tried to warn someone (online or in real life) it turns into an argument on why weed should be/is "legal." They don't understand how Fed laws are in conflict and the potential consequences.

I think most people can't keep more than one or two ideas in their head at any given point in time and unable to examine the complexity/consequences. Smoking pot must make this even harder.

Another way potheads screwed themselves was voting for Dim politicians that passed UBCs. If you could transfer without a 4473, you'd have a way around this, or at least, wouldn't be making a false declaration.

Two DB queries at CBI and I could probably make thousands of people in this state felons.

[Gman]

They rarely prosecute anyone that misrepresents themselves on a 4473. Might as well not have the checks it's so low.

[izzy]

It's kind of a poorly written question. Let say you honestly say no because you've never used any of the substances in question. The next day your dog dies, you lose your shit and start smoking weed. Are you now potentially in trouble for falsifying the form? Let's say you've been a heavy user but turned your life around for good the day before filling out the form?

[BPTactical]

LOL, when the med cards first came out I was working pt in a local shop. You wouldn't believe the amount of dumbasses that would try to use their MMJ card as "ID".

Uhmm no...

[izzy]

To buy a firearm really?!

[Great-Kazoo]

Yes. But there's been no enforcement of it, and everyone just suggests committing perjury.

Now that this has made it to the 9th, I expect this to become a bigger issue.

I know several folks personally who have committed perjury on 4473's due to MJ use and buying guns.

If the .gov decides to start chasing this, that's a whole lot of easily proven criminals who can be prosecuted for federal perjury...

That's a whole lot of gun owners now perma-banned from owning firearms.

There was enforcement of it, maybe 10 yrs ago. The Feds came in to CO and asked to see the MMJ registry. Howls of fed overreach rose up, demanding they had no right to said info as it was HIPPA protected.
Umm not so said the feds, as HIPPA doesn't cover something while state legal, was not federally recognized. Especially with a schedule 1 drug
. And yes the feds did contact people who were on the registry, giving them a warning.

Personally it's way past time to remove it off the schedule 1 roster. So what if someone gets high smoking weed, when there's a liquor store on every corner. If it was decriminalized a decent portion of freeloaders would stay in their own state.


But that's another thread which will turn in to a shit show or not depending how fast some mods lock it down.

[Skip]

[snip]

Personally it's way past time to remove it off the schedule 1 roster. So what if someone gets high smoking weed, when there's a liquor store on every corner. If it was decriminalized a decent portion of freeloaders would stay in their own state.

But that's another thread which will turn in to a shit show or not depending how fast some mods lock it down.

That's the argument this always turns into.

People are unable to separate their feelings about what should be from the cold hard reality of what is. Even if it's de-scheduled, there are unknown number of people who have made a false declaration on 4473 and could end up losing their gun rights if someone ever wanted to look into it.

We are lucky, for whatever reason (probably political), that this hasn't turned into confiscation/prohibited persons.

BGCs not only create a de facto registration but another potential pitfall given the felony penalties for misstatements which is why they want them.

[Eric P]

4473s should be destroyed upon approval.

[Irving]

How come discussions about standard capacity mags are never taken this serious? I suppose because the consequences are lower.

[BPTactical]

How come discussions about standard capacity mags are never taken this serious? I suppose because the consequences are lower.

Dont you mean with MMJ its "Higher"?

[Irving]

Indeed.

[Mazin]

The question on the 4473 is are you unlawfully addicted to Marajuina, so its all in how you Interpret that. Are you addicted after 1,5,12 times using it, last I heard heroin was the only drug that you were physically addicted to after one use so what is that determining factor?
So what is being "Unlawfully addicted", legal on the state level but not fed, ok I can see that but then where's the ATF closing all these illegal operations in the states that its legalized, Again it's all subjective.
What's next UA's for BGC, or how about random UA's for all gun owners... we are all on a slippery slope where ever your opinions fall on the topic of mmj, this isn't about pot it's about further ristriciting lawful citizens in owning firearms.

[Irving]

I'm not sure anyone has ever been addicted to marijuana. Which is why the conversation always goes to changing the wording. Clearly a throw back to the days of reefer madness.

[Great-Kazoo]

The question on the 4473 is are you unlawfully addicted to Marajuina, so its all in how you Interpret that. Are you addicted after 1,5,12 times using it, last I heard heroin was the only drug that you were physically addicted to after one use so what is that determining factor?
So what is being "Unlawfully addicted", legal on the state level but not fed, ok I can see that but then where's the ATF closing all these illegal operations in the states that its legalized, Again it's all subjective.
What's next UA's for BGC, or how about random UA's for all gun owners... we are all on a slippery slope where ever your opinions fall on the topic of mmj, this isn't about pot it's about further ristriciting lawful citizens in owning firearms.

Correct. Unlawfully addicted. There's no bar that defines addiction or an unlawful amount. The reprecussions for us a gun owners IMO isn't worth the risk. lamenting as i down my 4th shot of tekillya before getting back in my car to go home


Sadly for every lawyer who's ready to take on the fed .gov when it comes to weed. I'd wager 99% + wouldn't take the case if it was a gun owner whose life / career was on the line.

[TFOGGER]

If it can be grown by a motivated individual, the government can never effectively regulate it.

[Mazin]

Correct. Unlawfully addicted. There's no bar that defines addiction or an unlawful amount. The reprecussions for us a gun owners IMO isn't worth the risk. lamenting as i down my 4th shot of tekillya before getting back in my car to go home


Sadly for every lawyer who's ready to take on the fed .gov when it comes to weed. I'd wager 99% + wouldn't take the case if it was a gun owner whose life / career was on the line.

Oh I agree I just think about My mom and her situation. I was heavily researching CBD before she passed to help her neuropathy instead of having too eat gabapentin 3 times a day. For me knowing about CBD I would have still trusted my mom with a firearm, especially for her protection. Now as far as the worthless end of the spectra that got their med cards due to the pimple on their ass crack, then screw it they shouldn't own because in my eyes they made a choice and signed up to be known as a MJ user just so they could get stoned, but again that's IMHO.

[Eric P]

So should you loose a right for not being convicted of any crime?

Drug dealers can legally obtain a firearm if they have never been convicted of a crime.

Serial killers can legally obtain a firearm if they have never been convicted of a crime.

Any criminal can pass a 4473 check and obtain a firearm if they have never been convicted of a crime.

This is why background checks are silly and ineffective for obtaining a firearm.[fail]

[BPTactical]

Fed definition:

Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.

[DFBrews]

Abide by the 4473.
National cannabis legalization is coming. The amount of money available can’t be ignored

The early century timber industry lobbyists are a huge factor regarding the stigma on cannabis
Ethanol consumption had the similar issues with a prohibition era.

Let the drinkers drink and The stoners smoke.

Normal users of both are just as safe as the other regarding firearms.

As in everything it’s the outliers that are a problem.

[Tinelement]

Depending on the definition of ?addicted to?..... most people would have to answer yes to 11e.

Never mind the MJ warning.

Alcohol is a depressant

Is one drink a week addicted to?

Is 2 a week...

Is one a day....

It?s a dumb question.

[BPTactical]

Depending on the definition of ?addicted to?..... most people would have to answer yes to 11e.

Never mind the MJ warning.

Alcohol is a depressant

Is one drink a week addicted to?

Is 2 a week...

Is one a day....

It?s a dumb question.

Alchohol, Tobacco and Prescription meds are "Exempt" from the unlawful use category.

[Tinelement]

Alchohol, Tobacco and Prescription meds are "Exempt" from the unlawful use category.

Does the average guy/gal know that though?

Just reading the question on the form, you could say ?yes? to a multitude of things you put in your body.

e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

I?m just saying it?s a stupid question.

[Great-Kazoo]

Fed definition:
.


The holes in that definition are like not being able to buy a greater than 15 rd mag (for now) in CO



Alchohol, Tobacco and Prescription meds are "Exempt" from the unlawful use category.

That may be changing sooner than later, since the feds at the moment don't have their hooks in to the evolving MJ market. With Coke entering the cannabis infused (CBD) liquids market. Don't be surprised to see the feds take mj off a schedule 1 list.

From what i've seen the CBD market (refining the weed to get various levels from 0-high test) liquid for both medical & pleasure in the U.S. is really taking off.
Besides Coke, the NFL and other major $$ players have ventured in to that CBD area as well.

[Irving]

These threads always crack me up.

[Bailey Guns]

The question on the 4473 is are you unlawfully addicted to Marajuina,...

Actually, the question is: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, Marijuana or any other, blah, blah, blah. WARNING: The use of possession of MJ remains unlawful under federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."

BP's post pretty much covers the "unlawful user" definition. There's really no ambiguity according to the federal definition.

[jreifsch80]

I’ve known quite a few stoners that would go on and on about how weed was not addictive “at all” and in the same breath they would say they can’t go to sleep at night or get going in the morning if they don’t smoke a bowl. Wasn’t just one or two but lots so I would say that there does seem to be some sort of addiction that some people might experience like some sort of “emotional” addiction or something like that

[Bailey Guns]

I don't know enough about it to know if it's any worse than alcohol or not. I do know the feds are gonna have to poop or get off the pot and decide if marijuana's good or "marijuana's bad, mmm-kay". Because the states are already making up their minds. Hell...in some places you just get a misdemeanor summons for possession of meth or crack any more if it's just personal use amounts.

[Great-Kazoo]

I don't know enough about it to know if it's any worse than alcohol or not. I do know the feds are gonna have to poop or get off the pot and decide if marijuana's good or "marijuana's bad, mmm-kay". Because the states are already making up their minds. Hell...in some places you just get a misdemeanor summons for possession of meth or crack any more if it's just personal use amounts.

When Utah & Az have legal medical mj, you know the winds are a blowing. CO has done over 1 Billion in sales, multiply that by say 40 states with potential equal sales based on population.