Marijuana Disqualification Question To Be Removed From ATF 4473

[harley128]

The law is pretty clear about lying on the 4473. And you are right, if you are caught lying on that form you most certainly would end up in a court room. I’d lay down some odds on who would come out the short end of that stick. (And it won’t be the gubment).

 

[JR777]

The law is pretty clear about lying on the 4473. And you are right, if you are caught lying on that form you most certainly would end up in a court room. I’d lay down some odds on who would come out the short end of that stick. (And it won’t be the gubment).

You're still not getting it.

Lying on the form is illegal. On this we can agree.

What you're not grasping is that the legal status of marijuana is unknown when it comes to otherwise legal state users. Therefore it is unknown if someone is lying or not if they answer no.

There is something called desuetude. If a law is conspicuously violated and yet goes conspicuously unprosecuted, as a matter of public policy, it is considered to be obsolete. It was just upheld by the supreme court in 2003, and it's been upheld in state supreme courts before that.

There is no law in history that is more conspicuously violated or has gone more unprosecuted as a matter of official policy than the federal marijuana law. By publicly choosing not to enforce the law as it applies to state legal marijuana, the de facto state of affairs is that it no longer applies. Like I said, 20 years ago they would have had a strong case, but the ship has pretty much sailed. If it hadn't, commercial banks and multimillion dollar hedge funds wouldn't be diving head first into it. Like I said, the genie is out of the bottle, and it can no longer be put back in.

 

[harley128]

Ok. I give up.

 

[JR777]

Ok. I give up.

What does that mean, though? Because it sounds like it means you're still denying the facts but have run out of arguments to support your position.

Bottom line is WE LOST. The fat lady has sung, and pot is now legal, de facto, and will be officially legal in short order. Even in the great conservative state of Oklahoma, it's de facto recreational now. Have you noticed in Oklahoma City that there are about four pot shops per square mile? Because of small amounts being decriminalized, the state authority has become a weed cartel, and the license holders are dealing it on the side. This should be obvious to everyone by now.

All that remains to be seen is how it affects our 2A situation, which is going to be determined by how we as a community treat people who openly use it. If we make it taboo to be a gun/weed enthusiast, we're only hurting ourselves. As much as I hate to admit it, there's an overlap between gun culture and weed culture, because weed advocates, like us, have been battling an oppressive government and opposing popular opinion for decades. Now that weed culture is going mainstream, we can infiltrate their ranks and ride their coat tails. It all depends on converting enough of them, so that they represent a large enough demographic that gun loving potheads can't be ostracized by their own circles of friends and organizations.

 

[James Abram]

What you have to remember is the question on the 4473 is if you are a user, it does not ask if you are a card holder. I know a few card holders who don’t use THC (got the card and found that THC wasn’t for them), just as I know people who have a handgun license that don’t carry a gun. So just because you have a medical marijuana card, that does not automatically preclude you from purchasing a firearm. Now, if you have your card and DO use then by federal law you can not purchase a gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MacFromOK]

Just for clarity...

 

[JR777]

What you have to remember is the question on the 4473 is if you are a user, it does not ask if you are a card holder. I know a few card holders who don’t use THC (got the card and found that THC wasn’t for them), just as I know people who have a handgun license that don’t carry a gun. So just because you have a medical marijuana card, that does not automatically preclude you from purchasing a firearm. Now, if you have your card and DO use then by federal law you can not purchase a gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, that's not true. The pertinent law, the 1968 gun control act, reads:

(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));

Whether or not someone who legally uses marijuana in their state is an unlawful user, that is something only the courts can decide at this point. Not me, not you, and certainly not the ATF.

Granted, anyone who owns guns and uses marijuana is taking a certain risk, but it's a much lesser risk than the growers, retailers, and commercial banks who are moving billions of dollars of the stuff.

If you want to inform people they are taking a risk, fine. They probably already know, but okay. However, it's inaccurate to state as a fact that they are automatically breaking the law by answering no to that question, because that is a matter of opinion at this point that is yet to be decided by the courts. Again, the question is not whether they are a user or not, but whether they are an ILLEGAL user.

You have three things saying they aren't. The supremacy clause is generally not regarded to apply to state legal cannabis. Congress for years has made it illegal for federal agencies to use federal funds to prosecute cases involving state legal cannabis. Desuetude strongly supports the notion that any prosecution at this point would be arbitrary and capricious. Translation: the fat lady has sung, the ship has sailed, we lost, yada yada yada...

And like I said before, the question now is if we're going to be spoilsports and ostracize weed enthusiasts from gun culture and continue to rub their face in what amounts to a memo from the ATF, or welcome them with open arms and get their widespread support. Like I said, we have a real chance at normalizing gun culture within weed culture, such that anyone affiliated with it will have to take a neutral or supportive stance towards 2A rights.

That can go either way at this point. Weed culture is permeated by liberals, but also by individualists and libertarians of all kinds. As their culture goes mainstream, we want a lot of people in it to be on our side, because that culture as a whole is going to have a lot of influence on our culture in general. It is to our extreme detriment to ostracize cannabis enthusiasts at this point, and very well could be the deciding factor in whether gun culture can go mainstream, or return to its former status as a small and reviled subculture.

We have a real chance at making an AR15 as normal as a set of golf clubs. But we will blow that chance if we can't play nice with others.

 

[dennishoddy]

Again, that's not true. The pertinent law, the 1968 gun control act, reads:

(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));

Whether or not someone who legally uses marijuana in their state is an unlawful user, that is something only the courts can decide at this point. Not me, not you, and certainly not the ATF.

Granted, anyone who owns guns and uses marijuana is taking a certain risk, but it's a much lesser risk than the growers, retailers, and commercial banks who are moving billions of dollars of the stuff.

If you want to inform people they are taking a risk, fine. They probably already know, but okay. However, it's inaccurate to state as a fact that they are automatically breaking the law by answering no to that question, because that is a matter of opinion at this point that is yet to be decided by the courts. Again, the question is not whether they are a user or not, but whether they are an ILLEGAL user.

You have three things saying they aren't. The supremacy clause is generally not regarded to apply to state legal cannabis. Congress for years has made it illegal for federal agencies to use federal funds to prosecute cases involving state legal cannabis. Desuetude strongly supports the notion that any prosecution at this point would be arbitrary and capricious. Translation: the fat lady has sung, the ship has sailed, we lost, yada yada yada...

And like I said before, the question now is if we're going to be spoilsports and ostracize weed enthusiasts from gun culture and continue to rub their face in what amounts to a memo from the ATF, or welcome them with open arms and get their widespread support. Like I said, we have a real chance at normalizing gun culture within weed culture, such that anyone affiliated with it will have to take a neutral or supportive stance towards 2A rights.

That can go either way at this point. Weed culture is permeated by liberals, but also by individualists and libertarians of all kinds. As their culture goes mainstream, we want a lot of people in it to be on our side, because that culture as a whole is going to have a lot of influence on our culture in general. It is to our extreme detriment to ostracize cannabis enthusiasts at this point, and very well could be the deciding factor in whether gun culture can go mainstream, or return to its former status as a small and reviled subculture.

We have a real chance at making an AR15 as normal as a set of golf clubs. But we will blow that chance if we can't play nice with others.

I’m seeing both sides of this discussion while understanding the difference of opinion between JR777 and the front line line FFL owners.
JR777 is looking at the overall picture, with what appears to be some legal background that would be used in a court case during an appeal of a MJ violation on a 4473.
Front line FFL owners/dealers read the law verbatim and run their business according.to the letter of the law as they read it so as to not loose their license and/or not be prosecuted by the feds because NOBODY has the finances to fight the feds in court.
They will overwhelm FFL owners with court proceedings, continuations, and so on until they are left on the streets with no money, no home, no retirement and bow out right before the last court date after doing a personal destruction of the business and their entire finances.
That fear is what local FFL’s live with every day and makes them wary of your upscale advice.

 

[JR777]

I’m seeing both sides of this discussion while understanding the difference of opinion between JR777 and the front line line FFL owners.
JR777 is looking at the overall picture, with what appears to be some legal background that would be used in a court case during an appeal of a MJ violation on a 4473.
Front line FFL owners/dealers read the law verbatim and run their business according.to the letter of the law as they read it so as to not loose their license and/or not be prosecuted by the feds because NOBODY has the finances to fight the feds in court.
They will overwhelm FFL owners with court proceedings, continuations, and so on until they are left on the streets with no money, no home, no retirement and bow out right before the last court date after doing a personal destruction of the business and their entire finances.
That fear is what local FFL’s live with every day and makes them wary of your upscale advice.

I'm certainly in no way advocating that FFLs knowingly sell guns to cannabis users. Since the legal status of those users is in limbo, there's no reason for them to take that risk. Especially when the user in question can just go to the next town over and buy the gun from a dealer who doesn't know them personally.

 

[dennishoddy]

I'm certainly in no way advocating that FFLs knowingly sell guns to cannabis users. Since the legal status of those users is in limbo, there's no reason for them to take that risk. Especially when the user in question can just go to the next town over and buy the gun from a dealer who doesn't know them personally.

I think your comments ^^^^ may clarify this issue.
There have been a lot of comments back and forth about this issue.
Great discussion!