4473 revised

[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

[izzy]

I've read though that Texas is trying to pass a law where they'll refuse to enforce federal firearms laws. Is this just as absurd as states basically not enforcing federal drug laws then?

https://www.uslawshield.com/texas-bi...eral-gun-laws/

[Zundfolge]

I've read though that Texas is trying to pass a law where they'll refuse to enforce federal firearms laws. Is this just as absurd as states basically not enforcing federal drug laws then?

https://www.uslawshield.com/texas-bi...eral-gun-laws/

This may be the one good thing to come from legal weed. The States need to push back against the Federal Government and retake some of their rights and responsibilities.

[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.

[milwaukeeshaker]

I'm with you brother, but we are the minority here.

I'm actually more annoyed that the form 4473 exists in the first place, not so much the specifics that are on it.

[BladesNBarrels]

Credit cards can absolutely be used to buy weed. There are noy supposed to be ATM machines in potshops either, but some of them have an ATM anyway.

Learn something every day! How does the pot shop clear the credit card charge slips through a bank if the bank is not allowed to facilitate the sale of drugs?
Or are the shops not disclosing what the charges are?

[Irving]

Learn something every day! How does the pot shop clear the credit card charge slips through a bank if the bank is not allowed to facilitate the sale of drugs?
Or are the shops not disclosing what the charges are?

I don't know the answers to that, and I don't know any put shop owners to ask.

[Zundfolge]

Learn something every day! How does the pot shop clear the credit card charge slips through a bank if the bank is not allowed to facilitate the sale of drugs?
Or are the shops not disclosing what the charges are?

One of the guys I work with also works at a rec pot shop. They take cash only, but some of the med shops take CC's and he said that as he understands it, some smaller locally owned banks will take on one or two "high risk" accounts so that allows some medical dispensaries to get access to CC processing.

[bellavite1]

According to line 21 it would appear that CCW holders are not require to have a NICS check.
This failed in CO.
I wonder how that is going to play out...

[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.