JohnRich 4 #1 September 28, 2011 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has sent a letter to licensed gun dealers explaining that marijuana users are prohibited from buying or even possessing firearms or ammunition: Open letter to all Federal Firearms Licensees "As you know, Federal law, 18 U.S.C. S 922(g)(3), prohibits any person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition. Marijuana is listed in the Controlled Sunstances Act as a Schedule I controlled substance, and there are no exception in Federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by State law... Therefore, 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."Full story: http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ATFOpenLetter092111.pdf How many of you are pot-smokers that own firearms? Are you a danger to society? Should the police come to your home with a warrant and confiscate your firearms? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #2 September 28, 2011 They certainly don't belong to the group of law abiding gun owners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #3 September 28, 2011 Actually the author of the letter is making a ruling on the term unlawful that is nonsensical. If the use is sanctioned by state law it is not unlawful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freddysdaddy 0 #4 September 28, 2011 I am missing the option: Nobody should be allowed to own a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #5 September 28, 2011 QuoteActually the author of the letter is making a ruling on the term unlawful that is nonsensical. If the use is sanctioned by state law it is not unlawful. Actually the author states that federal law does not have an exception for medicinal use and therefor any use is unlawful, regardless of any state laws, for the purpose of establishing lawful ownership of guns under federal law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #6 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteActually the author of the letter is making a ruling on the term unlawful that is nonsensical. If the use is sanctioned by state law it is not unlawful. Actually the author states that federal law does not have an exception for medicinal use and therefor any use is unlawful, regardless of any state laws, for the purpose of establishing lawful ownership of guns under federal law. Yup, that is what is being stated. I believe, however, that the courts in several jurisdictions have ruled that state laws do in fact make them lawful users. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 636 #7 September 28, 2011 Yessir, they have. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteActually the author of the letter is making a ruling on the term unlawful that is nonsensical. If the use is sanctioned by state law it is not unlawful. Actually the author states that federal law does not have an exception for medicinal use and therefor any use is unlawful, regardless of any state laws, for the purpose of establishing lawful ownership of guns under federal law. Yup, that is what is being stated. I believe, however, that the courts in several jurisdictions have ruled that state laws do in fact make them lawful users. So which holds trump? State medical mj law (never heard of so many people under 50 with 'glaucoma' in my life), or GCA 68?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 636 #9 September 28, 2011 Given what Avery just went trough, it would appear to depend on the crime committed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #10 September 28, 2011 Quote....in fact make them lawful users. Yes, lawful users of MJ under State Law. However, the letter is explaining that no such thing exists under Federal Law and goes on to state that uner Federal Law these people are not eligable to own guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #11 September 28, 2011 So, here are the questions: 1) If states maintain some sort of list or registry of Medical MJ users, can the feds compel them to turn over that list and put those people on the prohibited list? 2) Can the Feds require dealers to ask if the potential buyer posesses a medical marijuana card? If so, can the dealer actually check that? Can he be held responsible if he cannot?"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #12 September 28, 2011 1) Don't know, I am suer when/if it happens it will end up in the courts to establish that. 2) Don't know. That too I am sure will end up in the courts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #13 September 28, 2011 Quote So which holds trump? State medical mj law (never heard of so many people under 50 with 'glaucoma' in my life), or GCA 68? Like all jurisdictional issues that is a matter for the courts. Since in many jurisdictions the courts have already ruled in favor of the states, I would have to lean that way. It pisses me off when bureaucrats ignore the rulings of the courts just because their bailiwick is not specifically mentioned. It is practiced widely and serves to put financial stress on law abiding people as well as the system while the courts are forced to clarify themselves in ways that are inevitable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 636 #14 September 28, 2011 No worries. They'll make more laws to cover those gaps as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 September 28, 2011 QuoteQuote So which holds trump? State medical mj law (never heard of so many people under 50 with 'glaucoma' in my life), or GCA 68? Like all jurisdictional issues that is a matter for the courts. Since in many jurisdictions the courts have already ruled in favor of the states, I would have to lean that way. It pisses me off when bureaucrats ignore the rulings of the courts just because their bailiwick is not specifically mentioned. It is practiced widely and serves to put financial stress on law abiding people as well as the system while the courts are forced to clarify themselves in ways that are inevitable. It'll be interesting if it ever gets to the Supremes - my guess is that they'll go in support of GCA since it is the controlling law for eligibility for purchase.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #16 September 28, 2011 Quote The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has sent a letter to licensed gun dealers explaining that marijuana users are prohibited from buying or even possessing firearms or ammunition: Open letter to all Federal Firearms Licensees "As you know, Federal law, 18 U.S.C. S 922(g)(3), prohibits any person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition. Marijuana is listed in the Controlled Sunstances Act as a Schedule I controlled substance, and there are no exception in Federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by State law... Therefore, 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." Full story: http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ATFOpenLetter092111.pdf How many of you are pot-smokers that own firearms? Are you a danger to society? Should the police come to your home with a warrant and confiscate your firearms? Oh man, JR, it seems you're in serious troubles. Strikes are getting closer and closer ..... More gun laws, gun control, a constant threat of losing the weapons - life's really hard nowadays. And if Bill Cole is right, the Chinese man very soon will take over the US - woah! That's what I call real sh*t. They surely will disarm you. Solution of the problem: You need to increase your arsenal! That's the right step into a future, beeing fully armed. Not only your poor 15 - 25 guns you proudly showed here ....NO. Increase! All those lame and lousy polls will not help you, you have to be really active .... Bwahahahahahaaaa - a man and his guns: The never ending story of an individual fighter for his guns. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #17 September 28, 2011 QuoteActually the author of the letter is making a ruling on the term unlawful that is nonsensical. If the use is sanctioned by state law it is not unlawful. Still against FEDERAL law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #18 September 28, 2011 QuoteActually the author states that federal law does not have an exception for medicinal use and therefor any use is unlawful, regardless of any state laws, for the purpose of establishing lawful ownership of guns under federal law. State vs Federal I have a guess on who is gonna win that one. Didn't this country go through some sort of conflict about State vs Federal determination? Should the State deny the Feds the wherewithal to arrest its law-abiding citizens?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #19 September 28, 2011 Quote You need to increase your arsenal! That's the right step into a future, beeing fully armed. Not only your poor 15 - 25 guns you proudly showed here ....NO. Increase! That really is a good idea. We ALL should. When the shit hits the fan, you poor defenseless souls will be... -hiding -begging for protection -falling like flies -eating each other Ahhh, but then there's the Feds...Ruby Ridge remembers, Waco remembers, etc.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #20 September 28, 2011 My problem with this is that I see recreational pot smokers as no different than recreational liquor drinkers. They aren't dangerous, they aren't threatening anyone, they aren't robbing banks or mugging little old ladies. They just smoke to feel good, just like drinkers. This should not be a category that automatically excludes one from gun ownership. The only thing that should do that is actual criminal behavior, like burglary, robbery, assault and so on, and some of the other existing prohibitions. And if you do that kind of crime, you're a felon, which puts you in another category that is prohibited from guns. So if you were smoking pot while doing those kinds of crimes, the pot is really irrelevant - the crime alone would do it. Besides, personal pot smoking is a misdemeanor, and minor non-violent crimes should not be an exclusion for gun ownership, or any other constitutional right. If the government really wanted to go crazy, they would add alcohol to the controlled substances list, and abracadabra - under existing law, three-quarters of the population would instantly be ineligible to own guns... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #21 September 28, 2011 Quote If the government really wanted to go crazy, they would add alcohol to the controlled substances list, and abracadabra - under existing law, three-quarters of the population would instantly be ineligible to own guns... Damn, John! Don't give those bozos any ideas. We'd ALL be criminals!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #22 September 28, 2011 >When the shit hits the fan, you poor defenseless souls will be... >-hiding >-begging for protection >-falling like flies >-eating each other Exactly. Whereas the gun owners will be sitting pretty, protectin their ranches and eatin their guns. It will be like Mad Max but with the national anthem playing in the background. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 September 28, 2011 Quote>When the shit hits the fan, you poor defenseless souls will be... >-hiding >-begging for protection >-falling like flies >-eating each other Exactly. Whereas the gun owners will be sitting pretty, protectin their ranches and eatin their guns. It will be like Mad Max but with the national anthem playing in the background. If they have ranches, they'll be eating beef and not guns. Nice attempt, otherwise.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #24 September 28, 2011 >If they have ranches, they'll be eating beef and not guns. Or people, if they're dude ranches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #25 September 28, 2011 Quote >If they have ranches, they'll be eating beef and not guns. Or people, if they're dude ranches. Well you are a greenie lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
