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.