Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unintended consequence of Colorado's new marijuana laws: you can't buy a gun.

Posted on 01/06/2014 10:39:46 AM PST by LouAvul

This was discussed on a gun board re a guy who 1) wanted to buy a firearm and 2) smoked marijuana.

For those who don't know, when you buy a firearm via a licensed dealer, you must fill out a form 4473. On that form is a series of questions that include a question about pot, viz. do you smoke pot. If the answer is yes, then you're disqualified.

Even though Colorado says the drug is legal, the federal government disagrees.

Here's the link and the original post. It took place in Colorado.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1514900

I was at the LGS/shooting range today. (Note: "LGS" means "local gun store".) A guy was in there asking about buying a gun. He asked how he needed to answer the question about illegal drug use if he smokes MJ now that it is legal per state law in CO.

LGS was a little shocked that he was so open about asking. LGS said that if he is a user of MJ he needs to fill out the 4473 that he is an illegal user of drugs. He then proceeded to argue that MJ was legal by state law and the 4473 asked about "illegal drug use". The LGS said it is a federal form and still against federal law.

He then said he would fill the form out saying wasnt and illegal user. LGS won though, and said regardless of how he fills the form out, they have reason to believe he is a prohibited person and they wouldn't sell him a gun. Then they asked him to leave the store.

I suspect there are going to be a ton of unintended consequences re the legalization of marijuana at the local level. But time will tell if making it legal is an ok thing or if it's going to be a horrendous mistake.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: banglist; colorado; libertarians; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; potheads
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

1 posted on 01/06/2014 10:39:46 AM PST by LouAvul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

Cry me a river.

Stop smoking dope.


2 posted on 01/06/2014 10:41:11 AM PST by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

Oops.


3 posted on 01/06/2014 10:41:56 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

Saw this coming a mile away. This is the quid pro quo the anti-gunners have been dreaming of.


4 posted on 01/06/2014 10:42:24 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul
We are told that potheads are peaceful people. Why would a pothead need a gun?
5 posted on 01/06/2014 10:42:29 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Who knew that one day professional wrestling would be less fake than professional journalism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

LOL


6 posted on 01/06/2014 10:43:03 AM PST by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free..... Even robots will kill for it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

No oppression is easier than the oppression the people seek out on their own.


7 posted on 01/06/2014 10:44:08 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FReepers
As far as the left is concerned, Americans cannot
be trusted with these high capacity lead delivery systems.



Click the Pic


Support Free Republic

8 posted on 01/06/2014 10:44:20 AM PST by deoetdoctrinae (Gun-free zones are playgrounds for felons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
Cry me a river. Stop smoking dope.

The feds have no Constitutional authority for a pot ban. That should be up to the states.

However, since you don't seem to care about the feds denying an enumerated Consitutional right (gun ownership) over a usurped power (banning pot), I guess you also wouldn't have a problem with the feds eventually banning guns to those whose political views they disagree with as well. Who cares about that messy Bill of Rights? Ignore the 10th, ignore the 2nd, ignore the First, as long as those dopers can't get a gun...

9 posted on 01/06/2014 10:46:06 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

As far as I’m concerned if you don’t have enough common sense to fill out a 4473 appropriately then you probably don’t have enough common sense to carry a firearm.


10 posted on 01/06/2014 10:53:51 AM PST by Tucsonican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
...about the feds denying an enumerated Consitutional right (gun ownership)

Right. Wonder if the feds have a way of tracking retail purchase of mj?

11 posted on 01/06/2014 10:54:12 AM PST by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." -from a guy who never had a real job and couldn't feed his family)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Or as Sun Tzu once said (paraphrasing): “Never interrupt the enemy when they are making a mistake.”


12 posted on 01/06/2014 10:57:40 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

Sure if you’re using electronic means to pay. You could use cash, and I’d bet they could still track you through surveillance.


13 posted on 01/06/2014 10:58:34 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tucsonican
...if you don’t have enough common sense to fill out a 4473 appropriately then you probably don’t...[etc.]

Is it possible by "appropriately" you suggest that the applicant lie to the feds in a sworn statement?

14 posted on 01/06/2014 10:59:21 AM PST by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." -from a guy who never had a real job and couldn't feed his family)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Dude, don’t harsh my buzz!


15 posted on 01/06/2014 11:00:11 AM PST by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

If you put the pot on your credit or debit card they could have indirect proof that you lied on the form - if they could get ahold of that info.


16 posted on 01/06/2014 11:01:22 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"..We are told that potheads are peaceful people. Why would a pothead need a gun?

Careful. Sounds like you're suggesting that someone who wants to buy a gun is not "peaceful". Borderline libtardism. d;^)

17 posted on 01/06/2014 11:04:56 AM PST by CopperTop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

I’d never recommend intentionally falsifying a sworn statement.


18 posted on 01/06/2014 11:08:34 AM PST by Tucsonican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

As part of Obamacare, they do have law passed by Congress, signed by the President, and allowed by the courts that deals with this: anything the FDA lists as a drug must be made by an agent approved and taxed by the Federal government. Even your local pharmacy can get in trouble for mixing things that were legal before the abomination was passed. This is as close as you can come to an “authority”.


19 posted on 01/06/2014 11:11:42 AM PST by Ingtar (The NSA - "We're the only part of government who actually listens to the people.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

That does seem obvious, doesn’t it? In which case it becomes just another tool for a far-reaching, zero tolerance government.

Arguably, there is less risk of improper firearm handling from a smoker than a drinker; imagine the furor if action were taken regarding the latter.


20 posted on 01/06/2014 11:12:18 AM PST by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." -from a guy who never had a real job and couldn't feed his family)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I’d rather be around an armed pothead than an armed drunk.


21 posted on 01/06/2014 11:12:32 AM PST by Tea Party Terrorist (Why work for a living when you can vote for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

Frog in a pot said, “Is it possible by “appropriately” you suggest that the applicant lie to the feds in a sworn statement?”

Since the question on the form requires you to violate your Fifth Amendment Rights then arguably it sets up a possible defense to a claim of perjury on that form. Since you have two protected rights involved the form is defective for asking the person to admit to a crime and infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)

“A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under § 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under § 5851. Pp. 390 U. S. 95-100.”


22 posted on 01/06/2014 11:15:27 AM PST by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tea Party Terrorist
I’d rather be around an armed pothead than an armed drunk.

Give a drunk a gun and he'll go out and shoot someone. Give a stonner a gun and he'll take it apart and lose half the pieces.

23 posted on 01/06/2014 11:16:49 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

The government always wants too much information. Just lie.

I’m a Native American. I was born here.


24 posted on 01/06/2014 11:19:01 AM PST by Uncle Miltie (Mohammed was a pedophile and Islam is a Totalitarian Death Cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tucsonican
I’d never recommend intentionally falsifying a sworn statement.

Knowing you as I do, I would be surprised if you did. Because then all they would have to do is trace the applicant's retail purchase to the falsified statement and detain her somewhere in a camp.

25 posted on 01/06/2014 11:19:13 AM PST by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." -from a guy who never had a real job and couldn't feed his family)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
The feds have no Constitutional authority for a pot ban. That should be up to the states.

Like it or not, the Feds use commerce and taxation to regulate firearms and drugs. So far, it's constitutional.

26 posted on 01/06/2014 11:20:30 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

By federal standards, alcohol is legal. Hell, prescription pain medication is legal when prescribed, and there’s an enormous epidemic of illegal pain medication abuse in this country, yet none of those addicts would be lying on a 4473.


27 posted on 01/06/2014 11:24:03 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

Lost all my grass in a boating accident. Unfortunately all my weapons were also lost.


28 posted on 01/06/2014 11:26:00 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz ("The GOP fights its own base with far more vigor than it employs in fighting the Dims.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos

Yeah, Haynes was “fixed” by the GCA of 1968. Now, there is no defense against either, failing to register nor possession of (and we are talking about NFA weapons, mind you, not non NFA arms).


29 posted on 01/06/2014 11:26:45 AM PST by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

“Recreational” happy smoke has its consequences. LOL!


30 posted on 01/06/2014 11:26:51 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (If you like your ObamaCare, you can keep your ObamaCare. I'll pass. PERIOD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Just because SCOTUS has tortured those concepts beyond recognition doesn’t mean it’s right. If more people stood up to that kind of crap it could be curtailed. Instead, folks have no problem with the feds banning stuff they don’t like.


31 posted on 01/06/2014 11:27:04 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Here’s another one. Apparently it is legal in my state, KY, to buy and sell guns between private parties all you want without any sort of registration, etc. However, If you do, you are violating FEDERAL LAW and if they ever did get into your house and find such guns, you could be in a world of hurt.

If they ever felt motivated to do that.


32 posted on 01/06/2014 11:29:18 AM PST by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

That there is just damned funny!


33 posted on 01/06/2014 11:30:16 AM PST by carriage_hill (Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos
...possible defense

Thank for qualifying your response. Without looking at the case you cited, I would say the privilege against self-incrimination is a hell of a lot more established than the 2d's right to bear (buy, own, etc.) firearms. We can look at the 5/4 USSC to see how fragile is the latter.

Don't know about you, but most of us do not have the money or time to test the proposition at the highest court.

34 posted on 01/06/2014 11:31:18 AM PST by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." -from a guy who never had a real job and couldn't feed his family)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

“Right. Wonder if the feds have a way of tracking retail purchase of mj?”

A lot would depend on if you use cash or the debit card.


35 posted on 01/06/2014 11:31:49 AM PST by Clay Moore ("In politics, stupidity is not a handicap." Napoleon Bonaparte)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Private sales are legal in Florida, as they should be. The burden of proof would be on the Fedguv to show that your guns aren’t yours.


36 posted on 01/06/2014 11:32:13 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Yep. So-called conservatives seem to care about the constitution only when it suits them.


37 posted on 01/06/2014 11:32:59 AM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

The LGS is correct, but I bet they get sued anyway.


38 posted on 01/06/2014 11:37:11 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

So you lie. What’s the big deal? It’s just a government form.


39 posted on 01/06/2014 11:41:37 AM PST by discostu (I don't meme well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
If you put the pot on your credit or debit card they could have indirect proof that you lied on the form - if they could get ahold of that info.

Medical marijuana falls under the protection of HIPPA. In Colorado pot is recreational. The feds can access those accounts.

40 posted on 01/06/2014 11:43:53 AM PST by LouAvul (In a state of disbelief as to how liberals destroyed America in a mere 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

“when you buy a firearm via a licensed dealer”

Actually, legally, ALL private gun sales now have to use this form via a licensed dealer as well because of the BS laws the kommies passed last year. It doesn’t look like many people are bothering to comply though.

So, legally, no one who smokes pot in Colorado can legally buy a gun in Colorado now. Period.

This is the kind of perfection that Fascists love: turning the entire population into criminals and then selectively enforcing the laws.


41 posted on 01/06/2014 11:44:27 AM PST by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Why would a pothead need a gun?

I'm told that paranoia is a side effect of some pot smokers.

42 posted on 01/06/2014 11:45:00 AM PST by LouAvul (In a state of disbelief as to how liberals destroyed America in a mere 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: frog in a pot

I heard a radio report that said they wanted to see your drivers license to make a purchase, so yes they have a record.


43 posted on 01/06/2014 11:46:32 AM PST by caver (Obama: Home of the Whopper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tucsonican
if you don’t have enough common sense to fill out a 4473 appropriately

By "appropriately" you mean to lie on a federal form? I think I'd rather just confine all my gun purchases to private party transactions. They don't (at least in my state) require any paperwork.

44 posted on 01/06/2014 11:47:16 AM PST by LouAvul (In a state of disbelief as to how liberals destroyed America in a mere 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
If you put the pot on your credit or debit card

I believe CC and bank processors are refusing those transactions (when they know what it is). A new business operating as a pot retailer would never get the account.

45 posted on 01/06/2014 11:48:10 AM PST by steve86 (Some things aren't really true but you wouldn't be half surprised if they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
By federal standards, alcohol is legal. Hell, prescription pain medication is legal when prescribed, and there’s an enormous epidemic of illegal pain medication abuse in this country, yet none of those addicts would be lying on a 4473.

You are correct, and you raise a frightening possibility. Imagine a governmental political operative (like those that contributed to OCare) that believes Form 4473 is inadequate - that added language correcting that defect ought to be included in the next 2000 page "Additional Consumer Rights" legislation.

This is a provocative issue because OCare gives us fresh insight as to how such legislation can be passed, to say nothing of the day-to-day lesson in the consequences of such legislation.

46 posted on 01/06/2014 11:49:01 AM PST by frog in a pot ("To each according to his need..." -from a guy who never had a real job and couldn't feed his family)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Give a stonner a gun and he'll take it apart and lose half the pieces.

Give a stoner a gun and he'll trade it for a bag of Doritos.

47 posted on 01/06/2014 11:49:49 AM PST by LouAvul (In a state of disbelief as to how liberals destroyed America in a mere 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
“Recreational” happy smoke has its consequences.

Only if you want to buy a gun, keep your job, such things as that.

48 posted on 01/06/2014 11:51:48 AM PST by LouAvul (In a state of disbelief as to how liberals destroyed America in a mere 40 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LouAvul

If you possess a firearm, and smoke pot, you are committing a federal felony. Being a felon makes you disqualified from firearms possession for life, unless you can get the felonly conviction expunged at the federal level. And the feds are all about disarming the public.


49 posted on 01/06/2014 11:52:46 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
We are told that potheads are peaceful people. Why would they need a gun?

High-ly intelligent too.


50 posted on 01/06/2014 11:55:18 AM PST by Fightin Whitey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson