Marijuana is illegal under federal law even in sta

So we all know that marijuana is not legal from the Federal Gov. eyes and is a felony I beleive, if over so much but is against the law. My question is if the people that use it and if truthful shouldn't be able to buy a firearm. I application has that question on it for buying a gun. Right?

So these people voting for this and using the product are taking their rights away to purchase a gun. I do know there are many people that didn't know that it is a federal offence. They voted this to happen and never realized the federal gov. doesn't recognize it as being legal.

Question 11 e.

^ thanks 330. I haven't bought a gun for many years but I thought that was a question.

Interesting...

I can spend half my paycheck buying enough whiskey to pickle an elephant and the other half buying a gun... I can even have all those bottles of whiskey in my car when I pull into the gun store parking lot to go buy the latest and greatest scary, black, semi-auto death machine...

And as long as I am not slurring my speech, stumbling around, and reeking of booze I can buy a firearm.

Why don't we just add a field sobriety test, BAC, and pee test, on top of the background check? If the tests show any traces of anything, booze, dope, prescription meds, you're denied.

Reckon that will stop gun crime and keep criminals from getting guns?

Mike

Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms was my buddy's bachelor party, and never should have been a government agency.

Don't give anyone any ideas!

Just because it's "illegal" in some states doesn't mean it gets prosecuted. Lots of things are illegal that never get enforced.

I know a guy who legally arrested a guy with 252 lbs of marijuana. Prosecutor said "meh...it's only weed".

Locally our mayor stopped the police from arresting people (well OK...just the black people) for selling weed on the street corner.

So yeah...it's illegal...but not really.

So there ya go.

Why did they keep arresting the white people ?

Because they can't be racist, NvHermit!

Im pretty sure that in the past pot heads never lied to buy a gun ,what makes yoy think they do now?

Give drug companies control over marijuana so they can mark up the price 10,000%.

Honestly, it probably is just about economics, not race. Most minorities utilize public defenders which drains resources and results in negative income to the "legal system". Whereas when whites are arrested, especially the larger drug dealers, there is a much greater likelihood they will hire their own lawyer and actually pay fines.

Notice I used the term "legal system" and not "justice system". My attorney friend told me that "legal system" is the correct term to use because it is not about justice, but it is a system that revolves around law, for the purposes of making money.

Here is the deal in Maine. This very question comes up in alot of conversations. If you have a green card (medical mary J user card) there are no records open to the public that shows who has the card. With it being legal now in Maine most dont bother with a card but many still do for there own reasons. So if you admit to having a green card you would not be allowed to purchase OR POSSES a firearm due to Federal regulations.
A few years ago in the town where I live a couple had a party. The couple were caregivers and had a large fenced in mary jane grow. Some guys at the party came back later in the early morning and robbed the care givers of several lbs of Mary Jane. Cops were called and cops were successful at recovering the Mary Jane that was stolen. Cops returned the mary Jane to caregivers .
I saw one of the cops later that week and I asked "How often is it that you return pot to the rightful owners?" He shook his head and said "Thats a first for me"

Missouri Just passed medical mj under certain medical circumstances.
I said this very thing before it passed.. Anyone that has a condition that qualifies and gets the card, will not be able to purchase a gun any longer. Still illegal on the Fed level.

Only if you admit to having a card. How else would anyone know? Also, there is a situation where you could get a card but not be a user. I guy I knew (he has passed now) had a brain tumor. He had a card. He has never had a drivers license. Another guy got his green card so he could pick up and transport the Mary J for the guy that had the tumor. The 2ed guy did not smoke but thought that was the only legal way to get the guy his MJ without taking a chance on getting busted for illegal possession.

boehner is lobbying for legal marijuana at the federal level it won’t be long now

I believe your a Felon if when Busted, you have just ammo in possesion in the Governments eyes.
Let alone a firearm.
Could be wrong .
Just the impression i got when looking into Caregiver /Grower card.

Be a quick way for a political party to commit suicide after voting "recreational use", into state law in michigan.
So maybe why its not being pursued.

Back to original question ,
I believe if you answered "YES" to the question , you forfeit your right to purchase.

^ that is how I understand it also.

No one answers yes to that question or any others that will keep you from passing that's just common sense.

^ but it's lying.

...to the government.

Conservatives have the opportunity to advance the cause of freedom in regards to the second amendment simply by eliminating that question. Would be better if they eliminated the back ground checks (but the gun control group NRA supports them), or legalize marijuana on the federal level. I am confident conservatives will bungle this just as they did the gay marriage issue. If it isn't obvious to you that Republicans do not want smaller government by now, it is time to admit to yourself that you also want bigger government.

That's right I didn't say it's the thing to do but that's how the cookies crumble. If you made 150k and only 100k of it was able to be taxed would you valuintaly tell the IRS about the other 50k?

Waggler. Has nothing to do with economics (at least your theory). It's all "politics" and almost nothing right now is more political that race.

Met and have known a lot of drunks over the years. Met and have known many pot heads too.
Never saw a pot head blow a gasket and break up a bar cause someone took a second look at his girl.
Can't say the same for drunks. Me and my friend Jack Danials have witnessed many of those. Just ask him.
Don.

Which is why a lot of folks are foregoing the medical marijuana card in favor of still using your favorite neighborhood dispensary .

I've been wondering if this is a super-sneaky attempt at gun control, but I hate to think they are that smart. Here in MN, they want raise the age to use tobacco to 21, outlaw flavored vaping products and legalize weed.... WTH?..

Potheads shouldn't be running around with guns, anyhow.

They are a menace to society.

w

Every time there is a legality discussion about MJ in Wisconsin I have to laugh. Our state leads the nation in deaths by DUI with alcohol. When our drunks(and there are many) finally kill someone their record will often show 5+ previous arrests and little if any jail time. My sister has fibromyalgia and has been using Rx marijuana ointment. Her quality of life due to better pain control makes it worth it...
law or no law. Nobody with an altered state of mind due to ingested drugs/alcohol should be using a gun. As I speak I wonder how many deer hunters with back pain etc popped a few legally prescribed oxycodone pills on their way to the stand. Call me an old hippie but this pot debate, now in it's 6th decade, has become ridiculous.

Sorry. I forgot to turn the sarcasm font on.

Mike

I think "unlawful user of" would by definition not include legal medical mj users. I agree no one should use a firearm while under the influence but if I fire a joint tonight then go fire my gun tomorrow I'm not "under the influence of anything"!

I don't see a problem.its a simple choice-which is more important to you -having a gun or getting stoned stupid.Can't do both,legally(unless your Canadian)

Gasp! How have you poor folk up in Canuckistan stemmed the tidal wave of blood that inevitably follows both activities being legal?

Mike

[quote=walleyed]Potheads shouldn't be running around with guns, anyhow.

They are a menace to society.


Couldn’t see anyone running around anywhere with anything while baked . Lol

Just saying...

Boco so do you think a terminally ill person who gets a green card to have some comfort in death gives up their right to defend what life they have left if say someone breaks in? Don't seem right to me. Maybe if you have a loved one who can ONLY get relief from mj you might change your mind. Handful of narcotics which just incapacitate you don't stop the pain or a few puffs of a plant you grew for them (cause you loved them regardless of the law) which gave them REAL RELIEF and allowed them to enjoy life again for their final days. That's huge for someone who had spent over a year incapacitated most days with pain. Does a lot to change ones perspective on this plant. I don't believe someone should be forced to choose between protecting their life but not being able to live it and being able to live what's left but not being allowed to protect it.

What would Hillary do?

802 read Boco's post again... It's legal in Canada.

Mike

I had a friend back in the late 70's who had turned over a new leaf in his life and decided to join the Marines. During the process of him signing up, he thought he would be honest and admit on the paperwork that he had smoked marijuana in the past. The recruiter folks weren't at all happy that he was honest on the forms, and told him to come back in a few weeks and start the process over again, and answer the questions "correctly". So much for honesty.

I have a real problem accepting that a person forfeits his Second Amendment rights because he might smoke an occasional joint or even just vape the stuff for medical reasons.

I think there would be a good, interesting Constitutional challenge to this law, with the right plaintiff.

Jim

Still thinking about the hypothetical lawsuit. You'd want to try to buy a gun...try to buy a gun, I mean, Answer the question about pot in the affirmative. Then, when you're refused the gun, is when you would want to sue BATF.

They may decide to prosecute you for illegally buying a gun, but that might only strengthen Fifth and Fourteenth amendment claims, to go along with a claim that the government is unconstitutionally depriving people of Second Amendment rights.

It might also flush out the NRA for the kind of organization it really is. I believe the NRA has become more of a Republican/conservative organization that a gun rights organization. If the NRA refused to help support the hypothetical lawsuit,
we'd know I'm right.

Jim

James I seem to recall reading that NRA was the author of the anti gun rights laws we have now, why would they change to a gun rights organization for this?

It is also illegal on the Federal level to disregard the Constitution. If people really want something bad enough as a whole, it will eventually be okay. Alcohol prohibition failed because people like booze. Same with people illegally entering the U .S. Same with folks wanting to smoke weed. Same with Adam wanting to marry Steve. Same with driving 85 mph on the Interstate.

Oh man, I love driving 85 on the interstate...

But anyway, from the "banker" side of this there are certainly a lot of logistics to consider. When states legalize the sales those companies that sell it have some challenges ahead in how to address those federal and state clashes. For example, where does a company do its banking for the weed receipts? The regs are just recently trying to figure this out. Companies have to get creative if banks cannot accept their business in a traditional manner. And then without the traditional banking accounts and transfer systems available, how do those companies pay the state and the IRS for payroll taxes, income taxes, etc.
It has been interesting to watch develop.

Jim

I visited a dispensary in Colorado last year, just because I wanted to see one. I cant partake even if I wanted to, because of my job. But I saw they take credit/debit cards, and asked them how it works. They said they found a work-around for that, it was basically a seedy pay-pal type thing. They pay some company, who handles the money with the bank, and on your receipt it would just say the name of this pay-pal type company. As far as being able to purchase a gun after using marijuana, if you can use opiates and alcohol and buy guns, why not weed? Obviously one should never handle firearms when under the influence, but that shouldn't even need to be said.

I'd support legalization if you can help me out in one area.

Johnny likes to have a drink at night before bed. He pours his whiskey, enjoys it while watching tv, and then goes to bed. The next day, Johnny goes to work and has an accident on his forklift in the warehouse. Immediately, they are going to draw blood to check for intoxication for liability reasons. This determines if Johnny was sober at the time of the accident. His blood is clean, and all is well in that area. Insurance covers his medical costs and work deals with it how they will.

Bobby likes to smoke pot. He does it often, but never on the job. Bobby smokes a joint, goes to bed. The next day, same warehouse, Bobby has an accident. They immediately draw his blood to check for intoxication for liability reasons. This determines if Bobby was sober at the time of the accident. Bobby's blood isn't clean, it shows levels of THC. All is not well. Bobby isn't covered by insurance, and work fires him. Why? Because you can't prove that Bobby wasn't high at the time of the accident.

Transfer this to any situation really in the work place, or even in terms of gun related incidents. Show me a test that will prove his is or is NOT high at the moment things happened, I'll get on board. Until then. No. Our nation is built on a structure of laws and liability. Doesn't matter if you don't like it or don't approve it is what it is. Until you can address this factor, legalizing is going to create more problems than it solves.

In my mind the above senario has been the main hurdle concerning legalization. But again, if an employer chooses to make initial and subsequent random testing a condition of employment...

Mike

^^^^^^
That is why a pot smoking acquaintance of mine voted against the Initiative when it came up for a vote in Washington because it set a legal level of 5 nanograms as the amount of intoxication. He said that prior to legalization there was no set level, and that 5 nanograms is much too low of an amount for intoxication; (I don't know that).

you guys need to get the hippies in the 70's out of your mind and realize what it is today i believe.stereotypes hurt everyone,look at us trappers.

Businesses and insurance can work out these details without government intervention. In fact, while government has been interventing by keeping it illegal the business and insurance hasn't had to work out a solution to the problem.

ZING!
This is a truthful statement and I hope it stings the buttholes of those who keep dumping cash into the gun control groups.

Pee/spit/hair tests only look for metabolites of THC, not actual THC. The metabolites can be stored in your body for a long time after use, up to 6 months for a pee test, and basically forever for a hair test if you never cut your hair. A blood test can detect actual THC and is a better measure of intoxication. We can debate all day about what a reasonable level of intoxication is to provide a reasonable amount of safety for drivers. Perhaps one day a better less intrusive measure of pot intoxication will come out, remember there used to be no way to measure alcohol intoxication either.

I thought they could do a saliva test to see if you had smoked pot within a certain time fram?

It grows like a weed up here

Absolutely not Finn, I will never condone creating a problem and then assuming someone else will fix it the way "it should be fixed". That literally is the equivalent of " Pass the healthcare bill now and read it later"


Matt28, There may be such a test, but I am unaware of it, please educate me.

There was a thread on here started Nov. 10, about using a prescription cannabinoid called CBD, and this issue seems to have flown over everyone's head at that time.

Cannabis in all forms is still illegal federally. Admitted use of cannabis or its derivatives precludes your buying of a firearm -- prescription or not. Folks who are taking prescribed cannabinoids should be careful about declaring that in a public place.

I too think it is a little bit silly that you can use all the alcohol (a liquid drug), and all the prescribed opioids you want, but can't use cannabis. With the legalization in many states, that part of the background form should be changed (or the restrictions on cannabis removed at the federal level).

Actually, I don't understand why some of these anti-gun regulations were not address when Republicans controlled both houses of congress (Along with concealed carry reciprocity.) With the Democrats in charge now in the House, it may be too late.

I am not sure that they can do it. I just thought it was what the plan was when the talk was going on about legalizing it completely. All I know for sure is that they can get a hair follicle test and go back 3 months for sure.

THC metabolites can be detected in saliva for 1-3 days for occasional users, and up to a month for heavy users. It's how they used to test kids when I went to tech school. They'd randomly pick something like 5 kids every week and pull them out of class. You had to take all your stuff with you, because of you failed, you weren't allowed back.

What level of arrogance does it take to assume that it is government's job to insert itself into a business/employee/insurance relationship? Why would some argument that has about 9th level importance to legalization be off-putting enough to keep it illegal?
Here, I thought of a solution to the problem in about 15 seconds of thought; Businesses can make their own decisions about policies concerning drug use of their employees.

I will provide you with understanding Hal. Republicans say they are against gun control, but by both sins of commission and omission have shown they are all for gun control. They want government to be the arbiters of who has guns and who doesn't. They want to control the levers of government. Simple really.

When you carry on like this, it erodes your position.

What position? I'm just another dum dum on the bus.

Perhaps you should set in the back.

I am in the back, I am the minority here.

Just a poor Finnish American oppressed by the patriarchy. Gotta speak truth to power and Hal.

There ya go again... Spouting that dad-blamed free market nonsense.

( I actually alluded to that a few posts back. It's OK though... I forgive you)

Mike

I thought businesses did?
They want insurance to cover their employees and to get it, they can't have impaired employees . Pretty much what i was told for my insurance.
(all these frivalous lawsuits and such)

Free market will enable insurance companies to adjust their policies or be replaced by insurance companies that will cater to business needs.

Hippie, I've seen it both ways. A lot of construction outfits don't test unless mandated by the customer or insurance.

There was a guy in my area several years back that won a bid for concrete work in the oil fields. Customer required UA's and he lost his whole crew.

Mike

Yep Mike, insurance companies are driving most of this testing B.S.

There needs to be a remedy or there's gonna be problems legalizing it.

The thing that I've noticed is there are folks who don't need to be in certain lines of work... Period. Which is to say that even if they were 100% straight and sober I still wouldn't trust them.

And I've know guys who "partake" regularly and are some of the best employees a guy could ask for.

I think it boils down to keeping insurance and OSHA off of employers backs.

Yes, something needs to be figured out.

Mike

How it would work is each person carry a liability policy for $1million (or XX) like subcontractors always have to and sign a no sue contract with the employer, and be self insured. Let OSHA supervise the State Department and Congress.

Didn't your mama ever teach you the difference between "set" and "sit"?

How about an editor then?

Jim

I think its all going to work out. I doubt anybody wants employees under the influence of any drug except nicotine while at work. The exception might be actors, musicians, writers and few not coming to mind at the moment. You would think a blood test to determine levels of marijuana intoxication, maybe even a breath test would not be too difficult to come up with. Just need real world testing like was done with ethanol. Test people while sober with various coordination tests and cognitive/problem solving. Give them a measured dose of thc and test again. Do the blood/ breath test at each stage as well. Nobody is doing it because any consumption is illegal.