Posted on 03/05/2020 4:42:05 PM PST by PROCON
Like a number of states, concealed pistol license holders in Michigan are exempted from the requirement to undergo a NICS background check every time they purchase a new firearm. That’s because permit holders have already undergone an extensive background check and fingerprinting in order to be issued a permit in the first place.
Michigan has had that exemption from the ATF since 2006, but yesterday the ATF rescinded it.
Why? Because recreational marijuana is now legal in the state. Voters approved legalization in 2018 and retail sales started December 1, 2019.
While buying and using weed may not be a state crime in the big mitten, it’s still illegal as far as the feds are concerned.
~~~SNIP~~~
Now, because the state of Michigan is issuing CPLs to people who use marijuana, the ATF sent the following letter yesterday notifying all of the state’s FFLs that Michigan CPL holders are no longer exempted from the background check requirement.
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...
Michigan "legalized" a Schedule 1 drug and then decided that they would still issue a CCW to marijuana users. Alaska, which also has "legalized" marijuana has you complete a NICS supplement when applying for or renewing a CCW where you attest that you don't use illegal drugs, including marijuana. This is a federal form, so if you use marijuana and you state you don't use illegal drugs, you have just perjured yourself since marijuana use is illegal under federal law. When Michigan does the same, they will get their NICS exemption back.
States rights bud....get used to it...prohibition has failed again....thankfully.
And yeah...if you dont support the same restrictions for other legal drugs...such as alcohol and scripts...this qualifies as hypocrisy.
Toothless regulation from dc bureaucrats. From 09/2018 =>
______
A new report from the federal Government Accountability Office says that last year, 112,000 people tried to buy guns from licensed dealers but were caught giving false information on the form.
snip
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives referred just 12,700 cases to field offices for investigation. Of those, the Justice Department prosecuted exactly 12 — one of every 9,333 alleged liars.
As an free man...I will pick both.
May your chains rest lightly...
Also a blatant perjury trap.
“All the green herbs of the earth are yours”
Genisis
>Your position is not.
The law is a mess. ATF is taking the position everywhere pot is legal (I recall something likewise in CO) that you can’t violate the federal law on pot and pass the background check. I don’t think anyone on our side is happy about it, but it’s hardly surprising.
I think the pot advocates were very pleased to have people disqualify themselves for firearm purchases by taking advantage of state law changes on pot.
IMO a great opportunity for us to take the high ground (no pun intended!) If Rs pushed a bill to remove the federal law against pot, it’d put a bunch more people on the right side who reflexively vote D against drug-warrior Rs.
This would be assisted by the House Ds burying the bill. In their plans gun control is paramount and they won’t risk giving ground there for the stoner vote.
You make no sense.
Are you suggesting that using mj is some kind of liberating magic potion?
Hmmmm.
Herbs in Hebrew/Chaldean translates as veggies.
I suppose you chew castor beans and too. Only once, though...
Leap to the absurd...fallacious argument.
I suppose next is “people who smoke pot shouldnt be conservative or support trump”
?????
Using that rationale, then maybe we have no standing to withhold funds from sanctuary cities “just because” they flout Federal Laws...
Difference is leag and not ;egal by federal laws...
Using your rationale, then maybe we have no standing to withhold funds from sanctuary cities “just because” they flout Federal Laws...
The Constitution recognizes our natural right to keep and bear arms, and there are no exception clauses in the Second Amendment. There is neither a natural nor a Constitutional right to federal funds.
“The Constitution recognizes our natural right to keep and bear arms, and there are no exception clauses in the Second Amendment. There is neither a natural nor a Constitutional right to federal funds.”
I agree - but calling Barr a gun-grabber didn’t seem to fit the deal...some think there should be zero regulation, but they probably don’t live next to a nut case that should be institutionalized...
During his cinfirmayion hearing, he rresponsed to a question about gun control:
The Hon. William P. Barr:
“Sure. I think I opposed an assault weapon ban because I felt that was really sort of the aesthetics of the gun.
Since that time Heller has been decided. Actually, before Heller, I did work on OLC on this issue, and I personally concluded that the Second Amendment creates a personal right, under the Constitution.
It’s based on the Lockean notion of the right of self-preservation. It’s tied to that. I was glad to see Heller come out and vindicate that initial view that I had.
And so there is no question under Heller that the right to have weapons, firearms, is protected under the Second Amendment and is a personal right. At the same time there is room for reasonable regulation.
All powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.
You can tell that to the judge at your trial, but I don't think it will do any good.
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.