Close
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    High Power Shooter james_bond_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Westminster
    Posts
    926

    Default 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) :
    "(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? ?
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________________
    The fattest knight at King Arthur’s round table was Sir Cumference. He acquired his size from too much π.

  2. #2
    High Power Shooter james_bond_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Westminster
    Posts
    926

    Default

    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)
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________________
    The fattest knight at King Arthur’s round table was Sir Cumference. He acquired his size from too much π.

  3. #3
    Loves Paintball ruthabagah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Centennial
    Posts
    1,324

    Default

    That's a good question: I think that at this time Federal Law will trump state Law.
    "The French soldiers are grand. They are grand. There is no other word to express it."
    - Arthur Conan Doyle, A visit to three fronts (1916)

  4. #4
    Zombie Slayer kidicarus13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Littleton
    Posts
    6,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by james_bond_007 View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    High Power Shooter Wiggity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    C Rock
    Posts
    901

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kidicarus13 View Post
    You're overthinking it, mark NO and move to the next question.
    A wise man

  6. #6
    The "Godfather" of COAR Great-Kazoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Washboard Alley, AZ.
    Posts
    48,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggity View Post
    A wise man
    2 wise men.
    The Great Kazoo's Feedback

    "when you're happy you enjoy the melody but, when you're broken you understand the lyrics".

  7. #7
    Sig Fantastic Ronin13's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Arvada, CO
    Posts
    10,268

    Default

    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.
    "There is no news in the truth, and no truth in the news."
    "The revolution will not be televised... Instead it will be filmed from multiple angles via cell phone cameras, promptly uploaded to YouTube, Tweeted about, and then shared on Facebook, pending a Wi-Fi connection."

  8. #8
    High Power Shooter james_bond_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Westminster
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin13 View Post
    ...Selfish dope smokers (I don't mean that in a derogatory way, mind you) ...

    For the definition of an oxymoron, see the above quote...
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________________
    The fattest knight at King Arthur’s round table was Sir Cumference. He acquired his size from too much π.

  9. #9
    Just a little different buckshotbarlow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    littleton
    Posts
    1,866

    Default

    i don't know man, i need some doritos and brownies. Anyone want to make a run to tacobell?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggity View Post
    A wise man
    NRA BP+PPITH Instructor
    CO state senator: 2nd Amendment doesn't protect duck hunting, therefore:
    2 non web feet bad,
    2 web feet good...
    Vas-tly Different Now...and prefers corn to peas

  10. #10
    High Power Shooter james_bond_007's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Westminster
    Posts
    926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kidicarus13 View Post
    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 ....
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________________
    The fattest knight at King Arthur’s round table was Sir Cumference. He acquired his size from too much π.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •