dope smokers and the 4473?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kimbershot

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
340
if it's legal in colorado to buy and smoke dope--what the implication in buying guns at retail through a dealer?
 
The question starts with "are you an unlawful user of?"

I don't see how any use of pot can be considered lawful as it is against federal law (with a very, very few exceptions).
 
The exact question is:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Click to expand...

While not unlawful under state law it is still unlawful under federal law. Given this is a federal form you would answer yes and be denied or lie and answer no.
 
dprice3844444 said:
unlawful is the catch,it's legal there now starting jan 1
Click to expand...
Colorado says it's legal, but the Federal government says it isn't and can still prosecute for it if they choose to. It's still illegal, so the answer would have to be "yes" and you'd most likely be denied on the purchase.

It doesn't matter what CO says when the Feds say it's illegal.

Matt
 
In California FFL have been TOLD (not written) to have a don't ask don't tell policy, but if some dumbarse shows his "card" or admits it then he is NG. They are against guns , not a little harless fun from other venues, frankly I am POSITIVE the gubbimint would MUCH rather have you stoned than be a gun owner.
 
...if it's legal in colorado to buy and smoke dope...
Click to expand...
...unlawful is the catch,it's legal there now starting jan 1
Click to expand...
It is NOT legal ANYWHERE in the U.S. to buy and smoke dope.

That is because federal law applies EVERYWHERE in the U.S. and federal law makes it illegal to buy and smoke dope.

State law may or may not prohibit it, but that's irrelevant. Federal law trumps state law and federal law says it's illegal.
 
An important distinction between federal and state law.

Federally, it is completely illegal to buy, possess, or use marijuana. Your state may not prohibit it at all, or may allow it in certain circumstances. That doesn't matter as the feds say there are NO exemptions. So, therefore, if you're possessing and/or using marijuana, you ARE an unlawful user of it according to federal law.

The 4473 is a federal form, not a state form.
 
The link posted above by dogtown tom makes it abundantly clear. The Feds do not recognize any use of MJ, even medicinal, as legal, especially for the purpose of the transferring of firearms through a FFL.
 
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Click to expand...

What does unlawful user even mean? Presently stoned? Smoked last month? Used it once decades ago?

If the latter is the case then a lot of people are lying on their form 4473...
 
I think the implication is that free men should be able to exercise their natural and 2nd amendment rights, regardless of some checksheet drafted by a bureaucrat and ratified by some corrupt politician.
 
The ATF has had a letter to FFL gun dealers out on this since early in the Obama Administration. It specifically states that anyone who offers a Medical Marijuana Card as proof of residence for a 4473 is automatically barred from buying guns or ammo, and is a federal felon if in possession of guns or ammunition. The current link is broken (ATF has reorganized their website) but the file is 092611-atf-open-letter-to-all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf (one reason I download files rather than rely on links staying up).

ADDED: The only exemption to this is that several states bar local law enforcement from aiding federal law enforcement in enforcing a federal law contrary to state constitution or state law. Already some states where medical marijuana is legal have taken the position that local LE resources will not be used in arresting medical marijuana card holders who own guns (they will aid arrest of violent felons in violation of fed gun laws). Gun dealers must follow federal law and refuse to sell to known med pot card holders.

How long will it be until the feds demand that medical marijuana card holders be added to the NICS prohibited person list? Pretty soon the only people not on the NICS prohibited person list will be retured LEOs with clean records.
 
Last edited:
Delawarean asks a good question:

What does unlawful user even mean? Presently stoned? Smoked last month? Used it once decades ago?
Click to expand...

My interpretation would be that you are a user if you have not permanently discontinued use. If your last joint was yesterday, and you intend to never use again, you are a former user. If you see yourself doing it again, you are a current user. This is considered true with tobacco and alcohol; might as well apply with THC.

Anyone here know of any case histories or precedents establishing otherwise? I'd be curious, too.
 
MedWheeler said:
Delawarean asks a good question:

What does unlawful user even mean? Presently stoned? Smoked last month? Used it once decades ago?
Click to expand...

My interpretation would be that you are a user if you have not permanently discontinued use. ...

Anyone here know of any case histories or precedents establishing otherwise? I'd be curious, too.
Click to expand...
What matters is how a court will interpret it, and a court will start with the definition in the ATF regulations (27 CFR 478.11):
Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year....
Click to expand...

And what does "permanently discontinued" (as used in your interpretation) actually mean? It can really be inferred only from past conduct, i. e., very long term abstention. A mere intent not to do something tomorrow doesn't really mean much.

And in U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009) the Sixth Circuit found that (at 355):
...the regular use of a controlled substance either close in time to or contemporaneous with the period of time he possessed the firearm...
Click to expand...
would support conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3).

Here's the bottom line:

  1. State law on marijuana is irrelevant.

  2. Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801, et seq.), marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance which may not, therefore, be lawfully prescribed or used. Therefore, any user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is, under federal law, an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

  3. Under federal law, a person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition (18 USC 922(g)(3)). Therefore, any one who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is a prohibit person and commits a federal felony by possessing a gun or ammunition.

  4. Being a prohibited person in possession of a gun or ammunition is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine. And since it's a felony, conviction will result in a lifetime loss of gun rights.
 
Colorado says it's legal, but the Federal government says it isn't and can still prosecute for it if they choose to.
Click to expand...

This is where I have a big problem. "They" would like everything to be illegal and pick and choose who is going to see their fury.

I feel any law that is not unilaterally applied and enforced should be null and void.

I say make it legal nationally or go arrest every law maker in CO, who voted to break federal law, for aiding and abetting.
 
....But it is just fine if I am a raging alcoholic or have an oxy script!

Russellc
 
I say make it legal nationally or go arrest every law maker in CO, who voted to break federal law, for aiding and abetting.
Click to expand...
Well now, that's not quite what happened. State lawmakers don't vote to BREAK federal law. They merely may choose to never create a state law that copies some aspect of federal law, or may choose to remove their own state's specific law that copies some aspect of federal law. That doesn't mean they've said, "we hereby possess and use a federally illegal product, and require that our citizens do as well." Just more to the point of "no comment."

A very similar situation arises in some of these states that have "firearms freedom" laws that remove any state prohibition against machine guns or silencers. They don't become legal. They simply are not against that state's law. Now some of those legislatures have come a whole lot closer to really BREAKING federal law, by adding provisions that they will resist with force any federal agent trying to enforce those laws. If you really want to arrest someone for this, better start with those guys.
 
..But it is just fine if I am a raging alcoholic...
Click to expand...
Why would that be just fine? The question asks if you are addicted to any stimulant or depressant. If you're a raging alcoholic you'd have to answer "yes."

...or have an oxy script!
Click to expand...
Why would a medical drug, given on a doctor's prescription, cause someone to be a prohibited person? :confused:
 
Not a user so take this for what it is worth, but I believe the Federal laws against drug use (and firearms regulation) are clear violations of the Constitution; the 10th Amendment in the case of drugs, the 2nd and 10th in the case of firearms. Do the Feds care what I think? No. Do they care what you think? No. Are you asking the forum to "bless" your decision to lie when answering that question? Good luck.

Answer as you will, and accept the possible consequences and ramifications.
 
Sam1911 said:
..But it is just fine if I am a raging alcoholic...
Click to expand...
Why would that be just fine? The question asks if you are addicted to any stimulant or depressant. If you're a raging alcoholic you'd have to answer "yes."
Click to expand...
Actually, Sam, you wouldn't have to answer "yes."

The specific condition disqualifying one from possessing firearms is (18 USC 922(g)(3)):
...an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));....
Click to expand...

And a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (21 USC 802(6), emphasis added) is:
....a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Click to expand...

So alcohol is not a controlled substance for the purposes of 18 USC 922(g)(3), and therefore alcohol addiction is not a disqualifying condition.

It might not appear to make sense, but it is what it is.

And so, for all of you folks thumping your chests about how wrong this is:

  1. The law at present is that someone who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance (including a user of marijuana, even under a state medical marijuana law) is prohibited under federal law from having possession of a gun.

  2. That could be fixed. Congress could amend 18 USC 922(g) to provide that an unlawful user of a controlled substance would not include someone using marijuana under a state medical marijuana law. Or Congress could amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for the lawful prescribing of marijuana (just as it does for Oxycontin). Or Congress could fix this in a variety of other ways.

  3. So have you written you Congressional representatives?
 
The word "dope" constitutes an illegal substance. If it's legal it wouldn't be dope anymore. Although since it's still prohibited under Federal law(for now) one could still argue using the term dope. At least until it gets completely legalized on a Federal level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
ATF says 'no" to pot users...bluntly
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
R
  • Locked
Smoking ban reversal.
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
Zander
Z
A
  • Locked
Hawkins: Donald Trump Could Be Pulling a Gun Control ‘Rope-a-Dope’
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
sabbfan
sabbfan
B
  • Locked
Do gun sales through an in state dealer have to be face to face?
2
Replies
28
Views
870
Art Eatman
A
S
  • Locked
Form 4473 questions
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
dogtown tom
dogtown tom
Back
Top