Marijuana Disqualification Question To Be Removed From ATF 4473

[PBramble]

Oklahoma state law dictates that any person who is “ineligible to possess a pistol due to any provision of law of this state or the United States Code”shall be deniedthe right to have a handgun license pursuant the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act.(21 O.S. § 1290.10(9))Title 18 USC § 922 (g) (3) federally prohibits anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from firearms possession.”According to a 2011 Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL)written by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.” The letter tells FFL’s, “if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have‘reasonable cause to believe’ that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance.”Unless and until the federal government changes marijuana from the Schedule 1 Prohibited Category, possession and use of medical marijuana will make a person ineligible to possess firearms.


Purchasing or possessing a firearm as a marijuana user is still a felony. I know a few who say it shouldn't matter, but it's a law. And before anyone refutes the logic behind it, build some class three stuff without stamps and flaunt it on facebook. Let's see what you really think of stupid laws.

 

[JR777]

Oklahoma state law dictates that any person who is “ineligible to possess a pistol due to any provision of law of this state or the United States Code”shall be deniedthe right to have a handgun license pursuant the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act.(21 O.S. § 1290.10(9))Title 18 USC § 922 (g) (3) federally prohibits anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from firearms possession.”According to a 2011 Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL)written by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.” The letter tells FFL’s, “if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have‘reasonable cause to believe’ that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance.”Unless and until the federal government changes marijuana from the Schedule 1 Prohibited Category, possession and use of medical marijuana will make a person ineligible to possess firearms.


Purchasing or possessing a firearm as a marijuana user is still a felony. I know a few who say it shouldn't matter, but it's a law. And before anyone refutes the logic behind it, build some class three stuff without stamps and flaunt it on facebook. Let's see what you really think of stupid laws.

Those two things have virtually nothing to do with each other. If the state were to legalize NFA weapons and start handing out state licenses, then we could draw comparisons, especially if the federal government publicly directed the ATF not to prosecute those in compliance with state law, which is what has been done with medical cannabis.

So the question is, is a medical user an illegal user. The ATF's OPINION is yes, and they're advising FFL's that they, in their opinion, can deny someone a firearm if they know that person to have a card. That's it. What the courts have ruled is that FFLs are not violating someone's constitutional rights.

You have to separate the ATF's opinion from law. In order for state users to be illegal users, a case would have to be fought and won between the states and the federal government, ruling in favor of the feds. And even then there would almost certainly be an amnesty period because they're not about to put a bunch of bankers, CEOs, and state officials in federal prison for life, which is precisely what they would be facing if prosecuted, given the hundreds of millions of dollars of a schedule 1 substance they've moved.

I hope you see the problem here. They can't pick and choose and say okay it's illegal under this scenario but not this one. Either it's illegal or it's not, and the federal government has basically abdicated to the states by its continued directives not to prosecute marijuana cartels. The law makes no qualification for circumstances. I.e. someone who is moving millions of dollars of pot a year is just as guilty as someone who answers no on the form, IF the federal government fought the case and won it.

Now that's not to say that in the future they couldn't pass a specific law saying it's specifically illegal to have a gun if you use marijuana, legal or not. And I certainly wouldn't put it past them to try it, and I'm sure there are lots of people in congress who would love to make that part of any federal legalization bill.

 

[PBramble]

Those two things have virtually nothing to do with each other. If the state were to legalize NFA weapons and start handing out state licenses, then we could draw comparisons, especially if the federal government publicly directed the ATF not to prosecute those in compliance with state law, which is what has been done with medical cannabis.

So the question is, is a medical user an illegal user. The ATF's OPINION is yes, and they're advising FFL's that they, in their opinion, can deny someone a firearm if they know that person to have a card. That's it. What the courts have ruled is that FFLs are not violating someone's constitutional rights.

You have to separate the ATF's opinion from law. In order for state users to be illegal users, a case would have to be fought and won between the states and the federal government, ruling in favor of the feds. And even then there would almost certainly be an amnesty period because they're not about to put a bunch of bankers, CEOs, and state officials in federal prison for life, which is precisely what they would be facing if prosecuted, given the hundreds of millions of dollars of a schedule 1 substance they've moved.

I hope you see the problem here. They can't pick and choose and say okay it's illegal under this scenario but not this one. Either it's illegal or it's not, and the federal government has basically abdicated to the states by its continued directives not to prosecute marijuana cartels. The law makes no qualification for circumstances. I.e. someone who is moving millions of dollars of pot a year is just as guilty as someone who answers no on the form, IF the federal government fought the case and won it.

Now that's not to say that in the future they couldn't pass a specific law saying it's specifically illegal to have a gun if you use marijuana, legal or not. And I certainly wouldn't put it past them to try it, and I'm sure there are lots of people in congress who would love to make that part of any federal legalization bill.

You contradict yourself. They are both rulings by BATFE. And they both include firearms. If one is okay, the other is as well given your reasoning.

And BATFE does not say you don't have to sell to them if you have reasonable suspicion. Their stance is it is illegal to sell to them period.

It's very black and white in the laws as they are set. Until Federal law changes, any MJ user (even medical) cannot possess a firearm or ammunition, or attempt to buy a firearm or ammunition without committing a felony, just as producing a NFA item without a stamp or their permission. The rules currently stipulate that if a and b fall in line, then c is legal. If either a or b does not, then c is not. It's quite easy to follow actually.

The only problem is that the guy was able to purchase a firearm from a different dealer, making them both felons. This is the kind of stuff that current legislators are eating up as illegal gun sales.

 

[harley128]

Under Federal law the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful.. Question 21 (e) of the form 4473 asks the buyer of the weapon if they are an unlawful user of marijuana (among other things), then goes on to remind them that the use or possession is considered unlawful at the Federal level, regardless of what the states have done. In order to answer that question correctly, without committing a felony by lying on the form 4473, a card-carrying marijuana user in the state of Oklahoma would have to truthfully answer that question with a "yes".............. Any yes answers to question 21, except for the 21 (a) question disqualifies the buyer. At that point, the FFL is to discontinue the application and the process is over, the potential buyer is thereby not allowed to purchase the firearm.

Can't get much more clearer than that...........

 

[harley128]

Additionally, I will tell you an FFL can refuse to transfer a firearm for a whole host of reasons.......even if the background check clears. IE: he becomes suspicious of the person/ transaction, comments made in the presence of the FFL, suspicion of being under the influence, suspicion of mental health issue, etc., etc.......... There is no law requiring him to transfer that firearm.

 

[JR777]

You contradict yourself. They are both rulings by BATFE. And they both include firearms. If one is okay, the other is as well given your reasoning.

And BATFE does not say you don't have to sell to them if you have reasonable suspicion. Their stance is it is illegal to sell to them period.

It's very black and white in the laws as they are set. Until Federal law changes, any MJ user (even medical) cannot possess a firearm or ammunition, or attempt to buy a firearm or ammunition without committing a felony, just as producing a NFA item without a stamp or their permission. The rules currently stipulate that if a and b fall in line, then c is legal. If either a or b does not, then c is not. It's quite easy to follow actually.

The only problem is that the guy was able to purchase a firearm from a different dealer, making them both felons. This is the kind of stuff that current legislators are eating up as illegal gun sales.

The ATF can't make rulings. They can only enforce the law as it's written. Their OPINION is that state card holders are illegal users, but that's something only the courts can decide. However, there's 20 years of precedent where the federal government has made it a matter of policy to favor the states in this matter. That, plus the implications of sending rich and powerful people to jail for life, makes this a giant hurdle of epic proportions if they ever want to backtrack on that.

Under Federal law the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful.. Question 21 (e) of the form 4473 asks the buyer of the weapon if they are an unlawful user of marijuana (among other things), then goes on to remind them that the use or possession is considered unlawful at the Federal level, regardless of what the states have done. In order to answer that question correctly, without committing a felony by lying on the form 4473, a card-carrying marijuana user in the state of Oklahoma would have to truthfully answer that question with a "yes".............. Any yes answers to question 21, except for the 21 (a) question disqualifies the buyer. At that point, the FFL is to discontinue the application and the process is over, the potential buyer is thereby not allowed to purchase the firearm.

Can't get much more clearer than that...........

Again, whether they are an unlawful user or not is something ONLY the courts could determine. As of right now, there is no answer to that question.

It must also be pointed out that gun owners are far from the only people in this position. That's why commercial banks and major hedge funds waited 10-15 years to get involved in the business. Like I keep saying, I don't think anyone quite appreciates the $#!$storm of truly epic proportions that would be unleashed if the federal government were to try and backtrack on this now. We're talking states likely seceding if that were to happen.

 

[harley128]

The ATF can't make rulings. They can only enforce the law as it's written. Their OPINION is that state card holders are illegal users, but that's something only the courts can decide. However, there's 20 years of precedent where the federal government has made it a matter of policy to favor the states in this matter. That, plus the implications of sending rich and powerful people to jail for life, makes this a giant hurdle of epic proportions if they ever want to backtrack on that.



Again, whether they are an unlawful user or not is something ONLY the courts could determine. As of right now, there is no answer to that question.

It must also be pointed out that gun owners are far from the only people in this position. That's why commercial banks and major hedge funds waited 10-15 years to get involved in the business. Like I keep saying, I don't think anyone quite appreciates the $#!$storm of truly epic proportions that would be unleashed if the federal government were to try and backtrack on this now. We're talking states likely seceding if that were to happen.

Try buying a firearm in Oklahoma right now after telling the FFL that you are a legal state medical Marijuana user with a card.

 

[JR777]

Try buying a firearm in Oklahoma right now after telling the FFL that you are a legal state medical Marijuana user with a card.

We've already covered that. There is existing case law that protects FFLs from being sued if they deny a sale based on that alone. It has nothing to do with the actual legal status of state legal users, which is yet to be determined.

And just because the ATF puts something on a form doesn't make it so. 20 years ago they would have had a point, but now after 20 years of precedent we're so far into the gray there's no way back out. It would be them vs. 75% of the states and DC, along with the power and resources of a multibillion dollar industry, with every high powered attorney in the country vs. their bureaucrats. Not only would they get squished like a bug on a windshield, but it would set a precedent for states to basically do whatever they wanted and tear the country apart. Nobody is going to open that can of worms, period.

 

[harley128]

“And just because the ATF puts something on a form doesn't make it so.”

Well, try lying on form 4473 to any of the questions, and if caught, let us know how that works out for you.

 

[JR777]

“And just because the ATF puts something on a form doesn't make it so.”

Well, try lying on form 4473 to any of the questions, and if caught, let us know how that works out for you.

Again, whether someone is lying or not by answering no is up to the courts, because the law is now unclear on that point.

IF someone is lying by answering no, THEN that also means that some very wealthy and or highly placed people are facing multiple life sentences. Which will happen when pigs fly and hell freezes over.

Look, I'm not too happy about this either, but howling at the moon isn't going to put the genie back in the bottle. Potheads are now a big part of the 2A movement, and we need to accept that and move on. Continuing to ostracize them by spreading ATF rumors and mistruths only divides us and weakens our movement. If they're not high on the firing line then it's really just something we need to ignore.