Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Marijuana Disqualification Question To Be Removed From ATF 4473
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JR777" data-source="post: 3552891" data-attributes="member: 45725"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JR777, post: 3552891, member: 45725"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Marijuana Disqualification Question To Be Removed From ATF 4473
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
