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.
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.
Cry me a river.
Stop smoking dope.
Saw this coming a mile away. This is the quid pro quo the anti-gunners have been dreaming of.
No oppression is easier than the oppression the people seek out on their own.
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...
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.
Right. Wonder if the feds have a way of tracking retail purchase of mj?
Or as Sun Tzu once said (paraphrasing): “Never interrupt the enemy when they are making a mistake.”
Sure if you’re using electronic means to pay. You could use cash, and I’d bet they could still track you through surveillance.
Is it possible by "appropriately" you suggest that the applicant lie to the feds in a sworn statement?
Dude, don’t harsh my buzz!
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.
Careful. Sounds like you're suggesting that someone who wants to buy a gun is not "peaceful". Borderline libtardism. d;^)
I’d never recommend intentionally falsifying a sworn statement.
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”.
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.
I’d rather be around an armed pothead than an armed drunk.
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.”
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.
The government always wants too much information. Just lie.
I’m a Native American. I was born here.
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.
Like it or not, the Feds use commerce and taxation to regulate firearms and drugs. So far, it's constitutional.
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.
Lost all my grass in a boating accident. Unfortunately all my weapons were also lost.
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).
“Recreational” happy smoke has its consequences. LOL!
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.
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.
That there is just damned funny!
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.
“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.
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.
Yep. So-called conservatives seem to care about the constitution only when it suits them.
The LGS is correct, but I bet they get sued anyway.
So you lie. What’s the big deal? It’s just a government form.
Medical marijuana falls under the protection of HIPPA. In Colorado pot is recreational. The feds can access those accounts.
“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.
I'm told that paranoia is a side effect of some pot smokers.
I heard a radio report that said they wanted to see your drivers license to make a purchase, so yes they have a record.
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.
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.
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.
Give a stoner a gun and he'll trade it for a bag of Doritos.
Only if you want to buy a gun, keep your job, such things as that.
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.
High-ly intelligent too.
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.