BATFE Form 4473 vs. CO Amendment 64

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-07-2012, 10:33
james_bond_007

BATFE Form 4473 vs. CO Amendment 64

So how does CO Amendment 64 affect one's answer to question 11e on BATFE's form 4473 ?

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant..."

Fed law USC 18.922(d)(3) :

Quote:

"(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person - (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));"

Note: Form 4473 says "user", in the present tense...as in currently using. It does not say "has used", "used", "will use.

Note: USC 18 922(d)(3) applies to FFLs (and ammo sellers, like Walmart) and says they cannot transfer a gun or sell ammo to MJ "users".

What responsibility do FFLs and ammo sellers have to ensure they are not selling/transferring to a MJ user, from a Federal perspective? ?
11-07-2012, 10:43
james_bond_007

Further the ATF attempted to clarify any confusion with this memo that says "No Guns" if using marijuana, we don't care what the states allow."

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...l-purposes.pdf

The CO medical MJ (and soon to be many other Colorado residents over 21 years ) users are lawful, per CO law.

It must be very confusing to someone filling out the form to say to themselves "Hmmm, are they asking about State or Federal law ?"
Yes, it is a Federal form, but I don't think most think that far ahead.

I would think that most MJ users would say "NO, I an not an UNLAWFUL user" , as they would honestly believe (not trying to lie) that since MJ is legal in CO, they are lawful, and have truthfully answered the question.

...or are firearms owners held to a higher standard than other citizens expected to know this distinction ?

What are firearm owners expected to do (legally) with their firearms and ammo if they wish to (legally) use marijuana * ?

Can they give "possession" of them to a friend, smoke a joint, and then go and retrieve them ?

After all, since they did not possess them while "using", and they are not currently "using" when they retrieved them, they didn't violate the letter of the law.

Does "possession" also mean "access to" ?
EX: Say my son lives with me and owns firearms and ammo. I use MJ and live in the same house. I do not own/possess them. Am I "OK" with the law?
Do I break the law if I touch one of them? or know the combo to the safe they are stored in?

*I know some of us might think, "Who's going to check? I'll just do it and keep my mouth shut." While this can be effective, I'm asking this from a legal perspective...
It comes down to the ATFs definition of what a "user" is ....(IMHO)
11-07-2012, 10:44
ruthabagah

That's a good question: I think that at this time Federal Law will trump state Law.
11-07-2012, 10:47
kidicarus13

Quote:

Originally Posted by james_bond_007

So how does CO Amendment 64 affect one's answer to question 11e on BATFE's form 4473 ?

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant..."

Fed law USC 18.922(d)(3) :

Note: Form 4473 says "user", in the present tense...as in currently using. It does not say "has used", "used", "will use.

Note: USC 18 922(d)(3) applies to FFLs (and ammo sellers, like Walmart) and says they cannot transfer a gun or sell ammo to MJ "users".

What responsibility do FFLs and ammo sellers have to ensure they are not selling/transferring to a MJ user, from a Federal perspective? ?

You're overthinking it, mark NO and move to the next question.
11-07-2012, 10:49
Wiggity

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidicarus13

You're overthinking it, mark NO and move to the next question.

A wise man
11-07-2012, 10:55
Great-Kazoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiggity

A wise man

2 wise men.
11-07-2012, 11:03
Ronin13

Basically what I just told a bunch of my pot head friends this morning: Weed or guns, you can't have both.

I wonder, if the ATF finds out, how many businesses will be prosecuted if they sell firearms to pot heads? Selfish dope smokers (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, mind you) aren't hurting themselves nearly as much as they would be hurting FFLs. [Bang]
11-07-2012, 11:14
james_bond_007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronin13

...Selfish dope smokers (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, mind you) ...

For the definition of an oxymoron, see the above quote...[ROFL3]
11-07-2012, 11:18
Ronin13

Quote:

Originally Posted by james_bond_007

For the definition of an oxymoron, see the above quote...[ROFL3]

"Pay attention 007... This is your Q branch issued Sarcasm Detector, you scan text here, and record audio here and it will detect levels of sarcasm." [Coffee]
11-07-2012, 11:23
james_bond_007

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidicarus13

You're overthinking it, mark NO and move to the next question.

There is no over-thinking on my part. I won't be utilizing any "benefits" of Amendment 64. I was just asking some of the "obvious" questions that will come up.

My point was that it will cause a bunch of confusion and possible liability if not understood correctly by:
1) Firearms Sellers
2) Firearms Buyers
3) Citizens selling firearms FTF in CO
4) Citizens buying their 1st firearm]
etc.

I see many Sale ads here on our forum that state
"No sales to Felons or Criminals"

They now needs to say
"No sales to Felons, Criminals, or Potheads"

I expect the ATF to come out with another "MEMO" soon.
Stay tuned ....

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page