4473 revised

[MarkCO]

So with that little addition is now says possession makes you a prohibited person.

There is no change at all. It has always been against Federal law. They just added a warning to make sure such a person really knows when they sign the form that they have in fact broken Federal law.

[DFBrews]

There is no change at all. It has always been against Federal law. They just added a warning to make sure such a person really knows when they sign the form that they have in fact broken Federal law.

See foxtrots point and yours as well mark
I know it is Definitely still illegal on the fed level and have way to much invested in many aspects of my life to use anything.
but always took it that with the unlawful user/addicted wording a roommate smoking a bowl wouldn't bring the the black heli's calling

I know it is a grey area and a "enthusiastic" DA could tack in some kind of charge to that effect. But have never gotten a straight answer from a lawyer.

[Martinjmpr]

I know it is a grey area and a "enthusiastic" DA could tack in some kind of charge to that effect. But have never gotten a straight answer from a lawyer.

Lawyers aren't allowed to give "straight answers." The answer is always "It depends..."

WRT MJ and guns, before Heller and McDonald it would have been an easy call, since the 2nd Amendment had not been declared to be a "fundamental right" nor had it been "incorporated" to the states.

But now that the 2nd amendment has been determined to convey an individual right to own firearms and incorporated to the states, there is a real question of whether merely using MJ in accordance with state law can deprive you of a fundamental right.

I would argue that it can't, any more than using MJ would deprive you of your right to speak freely or be free from unreasonable search and seizure, but of course that's just my opinion.

There is also the Federalism question: Who has the authority to determine what substances are legal within the boundaries of a sovereign state, the state or the Federal government? Because under our Constitutional system, the Federal government is supposed to be a government of limited and specified jurisdiction while the states have general jurisdiction.

Up to now, the states have generally acquiesced to the Federal government with regard to the classification of drugs (mostly because by allowing the Feds to regulate drugs, enforcement is done with a LOT of Federal $$) but if a state wanted to assert that the right to regulate drugs within the boundaries of a state was the right of that state and not of the Federal government, I think they could make a strong argument for it.

Of course, the Feds could prevent all of this if they would reschedule MJ from Schedule I to something else or by removing MJ from the schedule entirely. With California joining the states that have legalized recreational weed it seems to me that the Federal government is going to have to do something sooner or later.

[brutal]

This reply is formulated strictly within the bounds of reality.

There is no state law permitting the use of marijuana. There is only an affirmative defense. Further, state laws cannot legalize federal crimes. A critical distinction ignored by many in this state. Also, we could theoretically argue that the second amendment provides the right to own SAM misses to the stoned, alcoholic or mentally deficient until we're blue in the face because the 2A says so. The fact of the matter is, the country you live in regulates it, and if they so desire, when you break regulation, they will prosecute you. Prosecution on minor issues is less likely but can always happen. Sure, you could spend 1.5 million and ten years of your life (much of it jailed) to petition ceratori to the US Supreme Court and argue federalism in any case, maybe you're the 1% of cases that get heard in doing so. And, almost a complete guarantee, they will rule against you anyway, as the country (even if conservative) is not in the habit of taking power away from itself, regardless of what any amendment says. And sure, a state could make an argument for anything, but the gov't is going to say "no" and "no money", so they are not going to do it.

Speaking of affirmative defense, would be very interested in your sage wisdom regarding the HPA.

https://www.ar-15.co/threads/159470-...Protection-Act

[Martinjmpr]

This reply is formulated strictly within the bounds of reality.

There is no state law permitting the use of marijuana. There is only an affirmative defense. Further, state laws cannot legalize federal crimes. A critical distinction ignored by many in this state. Also, we could theoretically argue that the second amendment provides the right to own SAM misses to the stoned, alcoholic or mentally deficient until we're blue in the face because the 2A says so. The fact of the matter is, the country you live in regulates it, and if they so desire, when you break regulation, they will prosecute you. Prosecution on minor issues is less likely but can always happen. Sure, you could spend 1.5 million and ten years of your life (much of it jailed) to petition ceratori to the US Supreme Court and argue federalism in any case, maybe you're the 1% of cases that get heard in doing so. And, almost a complete guarantee, they will rule against you anyway, as the country (even if conservative) is not in the habit of taking power away from itself, regardless of what any amendment says. And sure, a state could make an argument for anything, but the gov't is going to say "no" and "no money", so they are not going to do it.

I think we're talking right past each other. Everything you said is true - right up to the point where someone challenges a prosecution in light of Heller and McDonald. Of course, until and unless someone is prosecuted for lying on the 4473 or for being in possession of a firearm while being a user of MJ, it's not likely that they'd have an opportunity to challenge the law, so the federal government can 'kick the can' down the street as long as they want to by simply declining to prosecute anyone for this particular violation of the law.

And of course the 9th Circuit has already ruled on this and upheld the Federal law but (a) the 9th circuit's opinion is only valid in that circuit and (b) the 9th circuit is notoriously anti-gun anyway so it's not surprising they would uphold any action that limits the right to bear arms (it's also worth noting that the 9th circuit, AFAIK, is the most frequently overruled circuit in the Federal appellate system.)

If a federal prosecutor tries to prosecute someone in a state not in the 9th circuit, and they raise Heller and McDonald and Federalism issues, the outcome could be very different. We've seen it before, for example in the Lopez decision in 1997 when SCOTUS slapped back at the Federal government trying to use the Commerce clause to justify the "gun free school zone" act.

[Rucker61]

Everything you said is true - right up to the point where someone challenges a prosecution in light of Heller and McDonald. Of course, until and unless someone is prosecuted for lying on the 4473

That's evidently pretty low risk. In the 2010 Brady Act Enforcement report, the data shows that 54k felons, fugitives and locally prohibited persons were denied after a NICS check. The FBI turned over a total of 58k names to ATF. ATF send 4k names to the field for investigation. 90 were prosecuted. 13 were found guilty.

[BULLSEYEGUY]

Nice! Can't even order the new 4473's yet to have on hand for the upcoming change in January. I tried last month, but I was told to try back in the middle of December....now they tell me it will be January 9th before THEY will even have the new forms. The morons won't even let me pre-order the forms....I have to call back in January. I can't order them until the 9th, and that is assuming that they actually have them then, and it takes them weeks usually to deliver my orders....and I am supposed to be using the new form by the 16th? (They DID say that they were going to mail each dealer a pack of 50 in a few weeks. That ought to hold us over!)