Post by: huntrights on November 17, 2014, 11:33:06 AM
"Marijuana cards, gun ownership combination remain a legal risk"
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in-the-news/2014/11/marijuana-cards,-gun-ownership-combination-remain-a-legal-risk.aspx
Post by: timberfaller on November 17, 2014, 10:02:55 PM
Had to help a local GW tear down a hunting camp because of a fatality cause by a breakfast of wackie tobackie!!
If you think booze and guns don't mix, neither does POT and guns. :bdid:
Post by: bigtex on November 17, 2014, 10:10:08 PM
Another one of those gun laws that's on the books but rarely prosecuted for. :twocents:
Post by: Bean Counter on November 18, 2014, 09:16:01 AM
Post by: huntrights on November 18, 2014, 01:40:45 PM
People need to be aware. Just because an initiative passed by the voters makes marijuana "legal" in Washington doesn't make it legal at the federal level or in other states. Remember I-594 was passed by initiative as well; we now have to fight that unjust and misguided law via the judicial and legislative processes.
Excerpt from the article:
http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/11/13/4233788_marijuana-cards-gun-ownership.html?rh=1
"As the use of marijuana gains acceptance for both recreational and medicinal use, owners and buyers of firearms should be aware that the federal government still doesn’t believe the two should mix, according to authorities in both fields. They add that the chance of prosecution for a federal felony, while not highly probable, is nothing to take lightly.
The experts cite question 11(e) of the federal Firearms Transaction Record, which asks gun buyers whether he or she is “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance.” They also refer to a Sept. 21, 2011 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to federal firearms licensees, which states that there “are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if it is sanctioned by state law.”
Possession of a marijuana card, such as those issued to marijuana users under Proposition 215, California’s Compassionate Care Act, could prove legally problematic for anyone who answers “no” to question 11(e), according to Sam Paredes of Gun Owners of California.
“If you get a medical marijuana card and buy a firearm and fill out the form, you are committing a felony and could lose your gun rights for life,” says Paredes"
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 18, 2014, 02:00:37 PM
And I hope it stays that way.
So you approve of denying gun rights to people who do things that you personally don’t approve of?
Conservatives: Party of small government!*
*Unless we can use it to push people around.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 18, 2014, 02:07:14 PM
And I hope it stays that way.
So you approve of denying gun rights to people who do things that you personally don’t approve of?
Conservatives: Party of small government!*
*Unless we can use it to push people around.
I don't know about Timberfallers' personal feelings or motivations, but that's a nice logical fallacy there, jumping from one person's vague comment to impugning all of conservatism. You may now go to your local DNC office and collect your cookie.
Post by: fly-by on November 18, 2014, 02:16:41 PM
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 18, 2014, 02:20:02 PM
And I hope it stays that way.
So you approve of denying gun rights to people who do things that you personally don’t approve of?
Conservatives: Party of small government!*
*Unless we can use it to push people around.
I don't know about Timberfallers' personal feelings or motivations, but that's a nice logical fallacy there, jumping from one person's vague comment to impugning all of conservatism. You may now go to your local DNC office and collect your cookie.
Nah. It's oatmeal raisin today.
I've read enough of his posts to get a bead on him. Just another under-informed right winger hate-drunk on AM radio. Read his posts for yourself. I'm not wrong.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 18, 2014, 02:20:52 PM
https://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/09/092611-atf-open-letter-to-all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf (https://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/09/092611-atf-open-letter-to-all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf)
. . . especially now that the I-594 advocates have now made it their business to impede your right to self-defense or imprison you on federal felony firearms or perjury charges.
Mag_j - as usual, you miss the point. An appropriate objection was not to all of conservatism, but to Timberfaller's comment. Yes, you were wrong to implicate all of conservatism.
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 18, 2014, 02:31:29 PM
Mag_j - as usual, you miss the point. An appropriate objection was not to all of conservatism, but to Timberfaller's comment. Yes, you were wrong to implicate all of conservatism.
Fine, Timberfaller, your comment was illogical. Furthermore, I find your entire worldview to be centered on fear and spite.
However, this particular hypocrisy (Government overreach is the worst thing in the world, but it’s ok if used against things I don’t like) is common within those who self-identify as conservatives, so I thought it was worth bringing attention to.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 18, 2014, 02:34:01 PM
Mag_j - as usual, you miss the point. An appropriate objection was not to all of conservatism, but to Timberfaller's comment. Yes, you were wrong to implicate all of conservatism.
Fine, Timberfaller, your comment was illogical. Furthermore, I find your entire worldview to be centered on fear and spite.
However, this particular hypocrisy (Government overreach is the worst thing in the world, but it’s ok if used against things I don’t like) is common within those who self-identify as liberals and conservatives, so I thought it was worth bringing attention to.
Better. Did you check out the GruberGate video? Do you endorse fraud on your fellow Americans, a la I-594, to achieve one's political ends?
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 18, 2014, 02:35:43 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 18, 2014, 02:37:25 PM
Post by: timberfaller on November 18, 2014, 07:21:38 PM
Wow! :yike: Ya took a big strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrretch in making a assumption there!
Anything that is "mind altering" DOES NOT make for a good mix around firearms PERIOD. Its called being SAFE.
Even in that statement, how can one draw that I am for denying people's Rights!! Which I am not, you have all the right in this world to act stupid.
Liberalism nor Conservatism is not the issue here.
There is a reason why there are Darwin Awards!!
"I'm not wrong." :bdid: Oooooooh but you ARE! :nono:
Post by: csaaphill on November 19, 2014, 12:07:54 AM
guess im letting my liberal side show here I agree here! :yike: why shouldn't people who now partake in a legal substance not be able to own a firearm if both are legal now er still?And I hope it stays that way.
So you approve of denying gun rights to people who do things that you personally don’t approve of?
Conservatives: Party of small government!*
*Unless we can use it to push people around.
so ya more to fight I guess.
Post by: magnanimous_j on November 19, 2014, 07:18:41 AM
"So you approve of denying gun rights to people who do things that you personally don’t approve of?"
Wow! :yike: Ya took a big strrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrretch in making a assumption there!
Anything that is "mind altering" DOES NOT make for a good mix around firearms PERIOD. Its called being SAFE.
Even in that statement, how can one draw that I am for denying people's Rights!! Which I am not, you have all the right in this world to act stupid.
Liberalism nor Conservatism is not the issue here.
There is a reason why there are Darwin Awards!!
"I'm not wrong." :bdid: Oooooooh but you ARE! :nono:
No one thinks a person should be intoxicated and handle firearms. But surely you understand that just because someone uses cannabis, doesn’t mean they are, by default, stoned 24 hours a day? Just like not every beer drinker is hammered all day long.
So your wanting to prevent MMJ card holders from owning firearms is just arbitrarily taking rights away from people who do things you don’t like. If you were being intellectually honest, you would advocate restricting gun ownership to casual drinkers as well.
Post by: huntrights on November 19, 2014, 08:45:44 AM
:twocents:
The original post was meant to raise an awareness of the potential consequences of the laws as they are. Obviously there will be different opinions of how various people think things should be, but those different opinions will not change the laws; they are what they are. If "We the People" don't like the laws, then we have to work through the judicial and legislative processes available in our system of government to repeal or change them. People need to be aware of the potential consequences of their choices.
Read the original post again.
Read the DOJ Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement. Pay particularly close attention to the last paragraph.
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 19, 2014, 09:37:57 AM
:twocents:
The original post was meant to raise an awareness of the potential consequences of the laws as they are. Obviously there will be different opinions of how various people think things should be, but those different opinions will not change the laws; they are what they are. If "We the People" don't like the laws, then we have to work through the judicial and legislative processes available in our system of government to repeal or change them. People need to be aware of the potential consequences of their choices.
Read the original post again.
Read the DOJ Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement. Pay particularly close attention to the last paragraph.
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf
The pertinent part:
Quote
As with the Department's previous statements on this subject, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. This memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law, including federal laws relating to marijuana, regardless of state law. Neither the guidance herein nor any state or local law provides a legal defense to a violation of federal law, including any civil or criminal violation of the CSA [Controlled Substances Act]. Even in jurisdictions with strong and effective regulatory systems, evidence that particular conduct threatens federal priorities will subject that person or entity to federal enforcement action, based on the circumstances. This memorandum is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. It applies prospectively to the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in future cases and does not provide defendants or subjects of enforcement action with a basis for reconsideration of any pending civil action or criminal prosecution. Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence of anyone of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances where investigation and prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest.
http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf (http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf)
And from the ATF guidance re:Marijuana, 2A, and 4473 perjury:
Quote
A number of States have passed legislation allowing under State law the use or possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes, and some of these States issue a card authorizing the holder to use or possess marijuana under State law. During a firearms transaction, a potential transferee may advise you that he or she is a user of medical marijuana, or present a medical marijuana card as identification or proof of residency.
As you know, Federal law, 18 U.S.c. § 922(g)(3), prohibits any person who is 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»" from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition. Marijuana is listed in the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I controlled substance, and there are no exceptions in Federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by State law. Further, Federal law, 18 U.s.C. § 922(d)(3), makes it unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. As provided by 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, "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."
Therefore, any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. Such persons should answer "yes" to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473 (August 2008), Firearms Transaction Record, and you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to them. Further, if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have "reasonable cause to believe" that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. As such, you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person, even if the person answered "no" to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473.
https://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/09/092611-atf-open-letter-to-all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf (https://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/09/092611-atf-open-letter-to-all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf)
The sum total of this is that for marijuana users, there is no lawful way that you can exercise your 2A rights (you are a federal prohibited purchaser and possessor), and in order for you to obtain a firearm under I-594, you must now (that private transactions must go through the federal NICS) unconstitutionally choose between your 5A rights against self-incrimination and your 2A rights of self-defense.
Furthermore, any potential sellor/transferor is on notice that should you knowingly sell/transfer to a marijuana user, you are also subject to federal felony charges for transferring to a prohibited purchaser.
This is not a value judgement. This is the state of existing law that is selectively enforced at your peril. Your continued 2A rights are at stake.
If you think this does not affect you, consider the abuse of the plea-bargain system in which charges are stacked to obtain unjust convictions.
Quote
The Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments famously guarantee the grand jury as an assurance against capricious prosecutions, and also due process, no seizure of property without just compensation, prompt justice, an impartial jury, access to counsel (of choice according to judicial interpretation), and reasonable bail. Almost none of this really exists in most cases today, and Judge Rakoff writes: “The drama inherent in these guarantees is regularly portrayed in movies and television programs as an open battle played out in public before a judge and jury. But this is all a mirage. In actuality, our criminal-justice system is almost exclusively a system of plea bargaining, negotiated behind closed doors and with no judicial oversight. The outcome is very largely determined by the prosecutor alone.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392417/plea-against-pleading-conrad-black (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392417/plea-against-pleading-conrad-black)
Post by: timberfaller on November 19, 2014, 09:41:04 AM
Wife and I had this discussion this morning, as she rides the bus to work all week, the "stink" she has to put up with now that MJ is legal. Cigarettes smell was one thing MJ just outright stinks.
Her comment was to this effect, didn't they push this for "health" needs and NOW they want it amended already for recreational use!?? Do these people show up for work smelling like this and operate machinery with obvious after effects???
Ya the state can make it "legal" but there are still Federal Laws that haven't changed. There will be "consequences" especially if we wind up with a better DOJ and AG. Holder and his office has been pre -occupied with other things.
As with welfare "card holders" I am very sure there are MMJ "card holders" of the same caliber!(fraudulent users)
Flame on!!
Post by: Knocker of rocks on November 19, 2014, 09:56:44 AM
Still stretching it, mag....j!
Wife and I had this discussion this morning, as she rides the bus to work all week, the "stink" she has to put up with now that MJ is legal. Cigarettes smell was one thing MJ just outright stinks.
Her comment was to this effect, didn't they push this for "health" needs and NOW they want it amended already for recreational use!?? Do these people show up for work smelling like this and operate machinery with obvious after effects???
Ya the state can make it "legal" but there are still Federal Laws that haven't changed. There will be "consequences" especially if we wind up with a better DOJ and AG. Holder and his office has been pre -occupied with other things.
As with welfare "card holders" I am very sure there are MMJ "card holders" of the same caliber!(fraudulent users)
Flame on!!
And what is your opinion of the Feds enforcing this statute against those prescribed ADHD, sleep, depression and long term pain meds?
Post by: timberfaller on November 19, 2014, 10:31:08 AM
Stick to the issue at hand!
Start another thread if you want to go down the road of other issues.
Your probably not aware that the Texas tower shooter, Stockton school yard shooter, plus a few other were all on the "same" prescribed drug by head shrinks. Spell check doesn't give me the profession's title, but you should get the drift.
MJ and form 4473 is going to create some very interesting "issues" just like what is going on here.
I am under the impression, some here are more worried about their "right" to smoke pot now that it is legal versus their "right" on firearm ownership. Had they know the "Laws" that were already on the books about MJ and firearms, they might not have rushed to make MJ legal :dunno:
I wonder what the turn out would have been in this state during the last election had there been another MJ initiative on the ballot??
The Feds can "enforce" just about anything they want to, they just find the right lawyer to fit the bill. Its been a long time since we had a war over "states rights"
There is my :twocents:
chew on this, the last I checked we had over 400,000 plus laws just to enforce the BEST 10.
Post by: huntrights on November 19, 2014, 10:48:27 AM
http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml
Pharmacist's Manual - SECTION IX-XIV
SECTION IX – VALID PRESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/manuals/pharm2/pharm_content.htm
Marijuana Resource Center: State Laws Related to Marijuana
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/state-laws-related-to-marijuana
Excerpt from web page:
"Since 1996, 20 states and Washington, DC have passed laws allowing smoked marijuana to be used for a variety of medical conditions. It is important to recognize that these state marijuana laws do not change the fact that using marijuana continues to be an offense under Federal law. Nor do these state laws change the criteria or process for FDA approval of safe and effective medications."
Post by: Knocker of rocks on November 19, 2014, 10:51:46 AM
"including federal laws relating to marijuana, regardless of state law."
Stick to the issue at hand!
Start another thread if you want to go down the road of other issues.
Your probably not aware that the Texas tower shooter, Stockton school yard shooter, plus a few other were all on the "same" prescribed drug by head shrinks. Spell check doesn't give me the profession's title, but you should get the drift.
MJ and form 4473 is going to create some very interesting "issues" just like what is going on here.
I am under the impression, some here are more worried about their "right" to smoke pot now that it is legal versus their "right" on firearm ownership. Had they know the "Laws" that were already on the books about MJ and firearms, they might not have rushed to make MJ legal :dunno:
I wonder what the turn out would have been in this state during the last election had there been another MJ initiative on the ballot??
The Feds can "enforce" just about anything they want to, they just find the right lawyer to fit the bill. Its been a long time since we had a war over "states rights"
There is my :twocents:
chew on this, the last I checked we had over 400,000 plus laws just to enforce the BEST 10.
Interesting that you didn't rebuke Beancounter, who brought up "pack mules in Arizona", which has nothing to do with Washington or MJ cards. Other have brought up the ATF regulations. Marijuana is covered by the same same rules as the legally prescribed drugs which I noted above.
Your first post on this thread was off topic, you and the GW had nothing to do with Federal law enforcement.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 19, 2014, 11:33:18 AM
Interesting that you didn't rebuke Beancounter, who brought up "pack mules in Arizona", which has nothing to do with Washington or MJ cards. Other have brought up the ATF regulations. Marijuana is covered by the same same rules as the legally prescribed drugs which I noted above.
ATF Form 4473 asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
A person using "prescribed ADHD, sleep, depression and long term pain meds" (your words) in accordance with his/her prescriptions have nothing to worry about the "Feds enforcing this statute against those prescribed ADHD, sleep, depression and long term pain meds . . . ." (again your words), because they are not unlawful users of (or addicted to, without making unstated assumptions) "marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance . . . ."
Thanks for highlighting that the Feds treat marijuana differently than these other controlled substances.
As stated above, it does not matter whether you or I or Timberfaller feels any differently about the matter. The law says what it says. Please don't cloud that issue here.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on November 19, 2014, 11:37:15 AM
And why?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on November 19, 2014, 11:44:46 AM
What happens to a person who tries to stop taking ADHD or sleep meds?
And why?
They continually post on a forum trying to deliberately derail a topic, because they just can't let it go?
Post by: Knocker of rocks on November 19, 2014, 12:54:51 PM
What happens to a person who tries to stop taking ADHD or sleep meds?
And why?
They continually post on a forum trying to deliberately derail a topic, because they just can't let it go?
:chuckle: