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: 3553507" data-attributes="member: 45725">Good grief...The ATF doesn't have the authority to say whether the supremacy clause can apply to state medical programs, which is ultimately the question at hand.The law in question here is the one about lying on a 4473. And whether someone is lying or not depends on whether the supremacy clause can be made to apply to state medical marijuana.Let's say in the future Congress were to pass a spending bill that didn't preclude the ATF from prosecuting someone on these grounds, and they found a test case to take to court. The question isn't whether someone lied about using marijuana, but whether they lied about being an UNLAWFUL user. Which depends entirely upon whether state programs are superseded by the supremacy clause.It would undoubtedly go to the supreme court, because the implications would be huge all around. What you don't realize is that a conviction on those grounds would be an affirmation of the court that the supremacy clause does in fact apply to state programs, which would turn everyone involved in them into overnight felons. It would also force the states to shut down their programs and stop collecting the billions of dollars in tax revenues they had been counting on. That would actually bankrupt California.And let's be realistic. If the federal government decided to try and stop state medical programs, they wouldn't do it this way. If they did, they would be awakening two sleeping giants instead of just the one. That is, they would be fighting the gun lobby and the cannabis lobby both at the same time. If they're going to open that can of worms, they're going to find a test case that doesn't invite pushback from two different powerful lobbies.So should FFLs knowingly sell guns to potheads? Of course not! Should potheads answer no to the question? It's a calculated risk, so that's just a decision they would have to make for themselves.Should people go around saying it's a felony to answer no on a 4473? Absolutely not, because it's a bald faced lie. Half truth at best.Even the ATF doesn't make that claim. All the ATF says is, "Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside."That warning has also been omitted from the new efile system, so they're obviously slowing their roll on that front, no doubt due to the very things we've been discussing here. In any case, all the warning amounts to is an FYI.</blockquote>

Verification