Legalized Marijuana and Firearms.

[steve4102]

They still scan my DL sometimes when I buy liquor. Not real concerned. And btw, the question on the form addresses unlawful users. If you've committed no crime, then just answer, truthfully, 'no', take your property and go home and use your cannabis as it's prescribed or as you please. You don't give stupid answers to stupid questions. This is not hard stuff.

Correct! The 4473 is a Federal forum and requires answers to Federal Law. If you are a user of Pot you must answer "Yes" on line 11e.

Read the Link to the ATF's open letter to FFL.

There is also case law in regards to this.

Google, Oregon Supreme Court, in Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058

Short Version.
The Oregon Supreme Court, in Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011), ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. The Court concluded that Ms. Willis had satisfied the statutory requirements under Oregon's "shall issue" conceal handgun license (CHL) law, notwithstanding that the use of marijuana violated federal law. So the Oregon sheriff was obliged under the applicable Oregon statute to issue a CHL to Ms. Willis.

...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...

And thus the Oregon Supreme Court specifically acknowledged that while Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun, she could still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).

What it means is that the States can choose to ignore Federal Law, but they cannot and will not interfere with The Feds prosecuting offenders under Federal Law.

[Mn01r6]

...so you are only risking federal prison time? How reassuring.

I know a few pilots that swear off smoking cigarettes forever the day of their flight physical, only to have a change of heart on the drive home and begin smoking again.

I ask because I legitimately do not know: are you able to possess a firearm as an "illegal drug user" or is it only when filling out a 4473?

[steve4102]

...so you are only risking federal prison time? How reassuring.

I know a few pilots that swear off smoking cigarettes forever the day of their flight physical, only to have a change of heart on the drive home and begin smoking again.

I ask because I legitimately do not know: are you able to possess a firearm as an "illegal drug user" or is it only when filling out a 4473?

For now MN is only considering "legalizing" Medical Marijuana. If MN follows CO and other States that have already "Legalized" Medical Marijuana, they will issue the user a "Medical Card". If you are a Medical user, you will have a Pot Card, then you must answer "Yes" on line 11e. No matter when or how often you use it.

[Deputyhiro]

Shall NOT be infringed.

[hunterfreakhd]

This is a fluff issue when the Constitution is being attacked ..... please take your "pot " issues to some other fluff forum.
I consider this issue to the issue of "what to wear to the party before the asteroid destroys the earth or should I take a shower before the nuke hits my city...

An actual topic that REALLY does have to do with firearms and you say this?? There is plenty of topics that don't have anything to do with guns but this one is a valid point.

[mrp]

This is a fluff issue when the Constitution is being attacked ..... please take your "pot " issues to some other fluff forum.
I consider this issue to the issue of "what to wear to the party before the asteroid destroys the earth or should I take a shower before the nuke hits my city...

Yes. Don't use this forum for off-topic...um...just a minute....

Username: Spartan
User statistics
Most active forum:
Off Topic Discussion
(99 Posts / 13.43% of user’s posts)

Nevermind.

[ericinmn1970]

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

According to a guy at Bill's Gun Shop tonight, drinking coffee qualifies as a yes answer for 11e. When last I checked, coffee is legal, so if I drink it I'm not an "unlawful user" and it's not addictive. As to marijuana, technically Coloradoans could answer no to 11e for the same reason as coffee. It's legal in their respective state, and it's not addictive.

Personally, the whole form thing is a buncha hooey. Just run the background check, see that I've never been arrested and convicted of any crimes, and give the proceed. Being proactive eventually crosses a line from being done in a productive manner and becomes tenuous.

[steve4102]

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

According to a guy at Bill's Gun Shop tonight, drinking coffee qualifies as a yes answer for 11e. When last I checked, coffee is legal, so if I drink it I'm not an "unlawful user" and it's not addictive. As to marijuana, technically Coloradoans could answer no to 11e for the same reason as coffee. It's legal in their respective state, and it's not addictive.

Personally, the whole form thing is a buncha hooey. Just run the background check, see that I've never been arrested and convicted of any crimes, and give the proceed. Being proactive eventually crosses a line from being done in a productive manner and becomes tenuous.

The guy at Bill's is wrong and misinformed and should read his ATF Open letter before he sticks his foot in any further.

Coffee, Alcohol, Cigarettes, etc. are not "Controlled Substances" .

(6) The term "controlled substance" means 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.


http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/802.htm

http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/21/13/I/A/802

Next time you see this guy at Bill's tell him he is an Idiot.

[jshuberg]

A person cannot have their constitutionally protected rights stripped from them without due process of law. Period. End of story.

This should never survive a constitutional challenge, especially after the Heller ruling. Only a judge has the power to strip an individual of his fundamental rights. The implication that a marihuana user is automatically a prohibited person is itself a crime against the constitution and the people. Anyone enforcing this illegal law has violated their oath and should be charged and imprisoned for civil rights violations.

At some point we need to start going on the offense, and I don't mean suppressors or stand your ground laws. I mean the full restoration of 2nd amendments protections as a fundamental right that is beyond the ability of the government to legislate away or infringe. Any politician who presumes to infringe on any of our fundamental rights should be charged with human rights violations and sentenced accordingly.

[steve4102]

A person cannot have their constitutionally protected rights stripped from them without due process of law. Period. End of story.

This should never survive a constitutional challenge, especially after the Heller ruling. Only a judge has the power to strip an individual of his fundamental rights. The implication that a marihuana user is automatically a prohibited person is itself a crime against the constitution and the people. Anyone enforcing this illegal law has violated their oath and should be charged and imprisoned for civil rights violations.

At some point we need to start going on the offense, and I don't mean suppressors or stand your ground laws. I mean the full restoration of 2nd amendments protections as a fundamental right that is beyond the ability of the government to legislate away or infringe. Any politician who presumes to infringe on any of our fundamental rights should be charged with human rights violations a sentenced accordingly.

Try Again.

A "Prohibited Person" is prohibited from possessing any Firearm or Ammunition. Smoking pot, by Law, Make one a Prohibited Person, as does certain Mental Illnesses, previous felony convictions, domestic abuse and the list goes on.

[jshuberg]

Negative. They can make any lists they want, label all kinds of behavior or activities as constituting being a prohibited person. A person has a right to due process of law, and only a judge has the authority to strip an individual person of their fundamental rights. Any laws to the contrary are blatantly unconstitutional.

California has tried using "prohibited person" lists to eliminate firearms ownership by making being late on paying your taxes, or failing to pay traffic tolls or parking tickets result in your becoming a prohibited person. Those in office who have passed these laws are themselves criminals, as they don't have the power to strip anyone of any of their rights. That power is reserved to the judiciary, and only through due process of law.

Despite recent trends, fundamental rights are beyond the scope of congress to restrict. This is especially true of the 2nd amendment, as rather than the wording "congress shall pass no law..." found in the rest of the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment uses the wording "shall not be infringed", which is a more absolute protection against the government violating the rights of the people. The protections in the bill of rights are simply off limits to congress, and when they presume to pass laws to infringe the fundamental rights of the people, those laws are themselves illegal and those who passed them are human rights violators.

We the people need to embrace our rights, and demand that our government cease violating them without due process of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause

[steve4102]

Prohibited Person as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Under the GCA, selling of firearms to certain categories of individuals is prohibited.
As quoted from 18 U.S.C. 922 (d):
It shall be 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— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) 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)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The Law is clear. If you have the $funds$ and want to challenge it be my guest. It would be an interesting exercise to be sure.


That said, telling someone or encouraging someone to Violate Federal can be dangerous and irresponsible advice.

[jshuberg]

There is a difference between explaining the law, and advocating that someone break it. Please reread my posts.

The fact remains that any declaration that someone is a "prohibited person" without that individual having the opportunity to argue his case before a judge is unconstitutional. It is a violation of the due process clauses of the 5th and 14 amendments. Also the requirement that a person answer the questions on form 4473 section 11 is potentially a violation of the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination. Prior to the Heller ruling there was a question as to whether the right of an individual to keep and bear arms was protected by the 2nd amendment. Post Heller, we know that the individual right to keep and bear arms is protected, and as such any legislative restrictions on that right that do not involve due process of law are unconstitutional.

You'll also note that 18 U.S.C. 922 (d) applies to the transferor of a firearm, not the transferee. Even if this statute were lawful, it does not prohibit a pothead from owning a firearm, it prohibits a person from knowingly transferring a firearm to a pothead. Specifically, it is a restriction on the selling FFL, not on the potential owner. If I were a pothead (which I am not) and was refused the sale of a firearm by an FFL due to my refusal to answer the questions in section 11 of form 4473, I could simply buy a firearm from a private individual, and keep my mouth shut during the transaction that I was a pothead. Going this route, no federal law has been broken regarding the transfer or ownership of the firearm. FFL's have have "opted in" to regulations that do not apply to private citizens (form 4473, etc). The letter you posted from the BATFE was to FFL's, not individual persons.

Currently MN 624.713 Subd 1.(10)(iii) does prohibit a person who is an unlawful user of any controlled substance from owning a pistol or "semi-automatic assault rifle". This is also unconstitutional as again there has been no due process of law on the restriction of the right. However, in your hypothetical scenario where MN decriminalizes the medical use of marihuana, a person with a prescription would no longer be an unlawful user under state law. A pothead would be able to purchase a pistol from a non-FFL without any state or federal firearms laws being broken, provided he didn't notify the seller he was a pothead. This, despite the fact that both state and federal law are in violation of multiple protections in the bill of rights.

I have no standing (nor the funding necessary) to challenge the notion of "prohibited persons" because I don't fall into any of the prohibited person categories. There is no reason for me to not fill out section 11 of form 4473, as I am not incriminating myself in any way by doing so. At some point in the future, depending on the outcome of the next election or two, and the makeup of the courts, I would expect a challenge to the constitutionality of denying a person sale or ownership of a firearm without due process of law. Hopefully the courts will rule appropriately and honor the protections guaranteed the people in the bill of rights.

I am not a lawyer and don't advocate anyone break the law. If a pothead or other "prohibited person" wishes to own a firearm without breaking the law (other than being a pothead in the first place), I suggest you contact a lawyer. What I specifically am advocating is that we all understand the law, and recognize that both state and federal firearms laws are in violation of our constitutional protections.

End of rant.

[steve4102]

US Federal Law says it is Illegal to possess a firearm if you are a user of Pot. A Fact and a Law that has passed Constitutional Muster.

Answering "yes" on line 11e is your "Process" you just confessed and admitted to being a "Prohibited" person. Done and done.

[jshuberg]

US Federal Law says it is Illegal to possess a firearm if you are a user of Pot. A Fact and a Law that has passed Constitutional Muster.

Please provide a cite to both the statute, and the case law that found it constitutional. And reread my post. Again. And thank you.