ATF: Pot Users Can't Legally OWN Firearms Regardless Of State Laws

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,590
    PA
    The only powers delegated to the Feds are written into the Constitution. Other powers are reserved for the States or The People. I must have missed the part about cannibis in COTUS. This would be akin to the reason Roe v Wade was overturned. The only thing about firearms in COTUS says something about “shall not be infringed”. Unless I missed something…
    The 10th ammendment and overall concept of default rights and limited federal powers is one of the largest obstacles to tyranny, and critically important. The ONLY powers and duties the federal government has are those imposed on it by the people through the constitution, in every other case state rights do indeed trump federal law. In the case of arms, the ONLY power the federal government has is to preserve our rights, and striking down state gun laws as unconstitutional.

    In the case of cannabis, it was pretty much agreed until 1969 the federal government had no authority to do anything other than tax it. Even that was found to be unconstitutional because it was an obvious scheme to ban it, and not a tax for revenue generation in good faith. The CDS and actual ban didn't happen till 1970, and even then the report required to demonstrate cannabis indeed was dangerously addictive with no medical use basically proved the opposite, and that it should not be a scheduled drug at all.

    Of course that has been ignored by the government, and till recently a majority of citizens. Billions have been spent in a war against millions of citizens ever since. Between all the schemes, all the court cases finding them unconstitutional, the government's own studies and the lack of constitutional authority in the first place, federal cannabis policy is indeed a case where the federal laws are invalid, and state laws or the right of the people do indeed over-rule it. Or someone can ignore all that for personal reasons, and agree with the totalitarian "ends justify the means" approach of our drug policy. That is the mechanism that has spread to every aspect of lives as the government continues to "discover" crisis after crisis, of course requiring unprecedented powers and funding to enforce policies that have no basis in constitutional authority.
     
    Last edited:

    Doco Overboard

    Ultimate Member
    My personal policy and constitution is to teach my children the dangers of drug and alcohol use and to stay away from any jerk off who tries to make them think its okay or good for them to do dope and drink booze especially to excess becuase more than likely their a loser.

    Especially the part where It explains how anyone that continually tries to spend billions of words, or dollars attempting to justify the benefits of pot smoking or unnecessary med use is a particular type of deviant to be wary of.
    Whether that influencer is the state or local government, some would be guru on a public forum or someone from a Dr.s office or Jesus Christ almighty himself.
    You question that Mother F8ckr.
     

    traveller

    The one with two L
    Nov 26, 2010
    18,149
    variable
    The only powers delegated to the Feds are written into the Constitution. Other powers are reserved for the States or The People. I must have missed the part about cannibis in COTUS. This would be akin to the reason Roe v Wade was overturned. The only thing about firearms in COTUS says something about “shall not be infringed”. Unless I missed something…



    Article VI

    All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


    Now you can argue that the various drug control acts are an improper application of federal powers under the the commerce clause, but I would expect that this has been tested in the supreme court a few times. As long as we can agree that a law that has been properly passed and tested in the courts is constitutional, yes the federal prohibition of certain drugs supercedes respective state laws. Now if you are in the 'this law doesnt apply to me because I disagree with it' camp, well then I guess we are on two separate tracks.

    And again, this is not me loving the ATF, agreeing with the law or it's application. I am just pointing out that it is a coherent application of the laws as they are currently written. Get enough libertarians in Congress that this can be wrapped into a must-pass spending bill and it can change. Until it does, we are stuck with what we have.
     
    Last edited:

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    6,936
    Anne Arundel County
    The 10th ammendment and overall concept of default rights and limited federal powers is one of the largest obstacles to tyranny, and critically important. The ONLY powers and duties the federal government has are those imposed on it by the people through the constitution, in every other case state rights do indeed trump federal law. In the case of arms, the ONLY power the federal government has is to preserve our rights, and striking down state gun laws as unconstitutional.

    In the case of cannabis, it was pretty much agreed until 1969 the federal government had no authority to do anything other than tax it. Even that was found to be unconstitutional because it was an obvious scheme to ban it, and not a tax for revenue generation in good faith. The CDS and actual ban didn't happen till 1970, and even then the report required to demonstrate cannabis indeed was dangerously addictive with no medical use basically proved the opposite, and that it should not be a scheduled drug at all.

    Of course that has been ignored by the government, and till recently a majority of citizens. Billions have been spent in a war against millions of citizens ever since. Between all the schemes, all the court cases finding them unconstitutional, the government's own studies and the lack of constitutional authority in the first place, federal cannabis policy is indeed a case where the federal laws are invalid, and state laws or the right of the people do indeed over-rule it. Or someone can ignore all that for personal reasons, and agree with the totalitarian "ends justify the means" approach of our drug policy. That is the mechanism that has spread to every aspect of lives as the government continues to "discover" crisis after crisis, of course requiring unprecedented powers and funding to enforce policies that have no basis in constitutional authority.
    Has SCOTUS ever thrown out a Federal law specifically on 10A grounds? There are rulings on occasion, like with the original GFSZA, that revolve around lack of constitutional authority, but I can't recall an instance where something other than 10A was used at least in part for a ruling. 10A is a set of rights without redress.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,625
    I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding of the regs in MD is if you have a pot license (that feels strange to say or type), you have to surrender it and wait a year before you are allowed to purchase a firearm. I'm not sure where those regulations are promulgated.
    The ATF also takes the view that if
    You gave up a cannabis card more than 365 days before, you can legally possess firearms.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,625
    The 10th ammendment and overall concept of default rights and limited federal powers is one of the largest obstacles to tyranny, and critically important. The ONLY powers and duties the federal government has are those imposed on it by the people through the constitution, in every other case state rights do indeed trump federal law. In the case of arms, the ONLY power the federal government has is to preserve our rights, and striking down state gun laws as unconstitutional.

    In the case of cannabis, it was pretty much agreed until 1969 the federal government had no authority to do anything other than tax it. Even that was found to be unconstitutional because it was an obvious scheme to ban it, and not a tax for revenue generation in good faith. The CDS and actual ban didn't happen till 1970, and even then the report required to demonstrate cannabis indeed was dangerously addictive with no medical use basically proved the opposite, and that it should not be a scheduled drug at all.

    Of course that has been ignored by the government, and till recently a majority of citizens. Billions have been spent in a war against millions of citizens ever since. Between all the schemes, all the court cases finding them unconstitutional, the government's own studies and the lack of constitutional authority in the first place, federal cannabis policy is indeed a case where the federal laws are invalid, and state laws or the right of the people do indeed over-rule it. Or someone can ignore all that for personal reasons, and agree with the totalitarian "ends justify the means" approach of our drug policy. That is the mechanism that has spread to every aspect of lives as the government continues to "discover" crisis after crisis, of course requiring unprecedented powers and funding to enforce policies that have no basis in constitutional authority.
    At the time, the ends that were justified was criminalizing and disenfranchising millions of dirty hippies and minorities. Quick way to under cut the liberal vote by millions. At least if you believe the original architect of Nixon’s war on drugs based on his own words (John Ehrlichman). The outcome certainly matched it. There was the side benefit of all of the tax payer funded labor from the industrial prison system getting lots of unwilling workers.
     

    [Kev308]

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 23, 2020
    3,777
    Maryland
    The older I get the funnier it seems that only generally good people try to stay with in the laws. The government at all levels decide what laws they will follow, criminals and politicians what laws they can get away with ignoring. That is why city prosecutors will allow some laws not to be prosecuted, sanctuary cities and/or states. States allowing and even taxing what is federally illegal. Truly a sad state of affairs all around of which we are stuck in the middle. Seems many of the younger generations see this and have decided just to say screw it. Can't really say I blame them, sometimes I just feel like a chump for striving to play the game of life by the rules.
    Today I had to test a backflow preventer on an irrigation system. When the customer was paying the bill, they asked me why they had to do this yearly at a high cost, when their friends down the street have the same thing installed a year earlier but never get summoned to file a yearly test report on their backflow?

    I told them, "Your backflow is in the system because you had your work inspected, and theirs was installed either without a permit or before the backflow program was started. You can feel good knowing that you did things the right way, unfortunately for you its costly."

    Playing by the rules can be for suckers, but at the same time it benefits the most people because the rules are known and can be navigated. Nothing worse than succeeding and then have the rug ripped out from underneath you because the goal posts moved.

    I've said it many times on here, 2020 showed everyone what a sham all this is. As long as you are not trampling someone else to get ahead, just discreetly go about your own path.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,625
    Today I had to test a backflow preventer on an irrigation system. When the customer was paying the bill, they asked me why they had to do this yearly at a high cost, when their friends down the street have the same thing installed a year earlier but never get summoned to file a yearly test report on their backflow?

    I told them, "Your backflow is in the system because you had your work inspected, and theirs was installed either without a permit or before the backflow program was started. You can feel good knowing that you did things the right way, unfortunately for you its costly."

    Playing by the rules can be for suckers, but at the same time it benefits the most people because the rules are known and can be navigated. Nothing worse than succeeding and then have the rug ripped out from underneath you because the goal posts moved.

    I've said it many times on here, 2020 showed everyone what a sham all this is. As long as you are not trampling someone else to get ahead, just discreetly go about your own path.
    Sometimes you get building, plumbing, or electrical permits. Sometimes you just do the damned work because you know you are complying with code and best practices and a $55+ permit and time and annoyance of filing for a permit and meeting with an inspector 1-2 times is even more time and cost than the work being done.

    If it was my job, everything by the book. Since it isn’t…well I’ve gone the permit route many times in the past. And certainly skipped it other times. Sometimes because a permit wasn’t allowed. Local government is always fun. Live in the city and the homeowner might be able to pull an electrical permit after a test, but isn’t allowed to pull a plumbing permit (no matter how minor the work). Live 100ft away in the county and maybe you can pull a plumbing permit after a test, but you can’t pull an electrical permit.

    My BIL lived in MoCo. He could do any residential electrical after a short homeowner exam, but could not do any plumbing work himself period (he had a plumber pull permits for him and let him do the work as the plumber’s “apprentice”).

    HoCo here, I could do 120v electrical work as the homeowner after a short test, but I can do any plumbing work I want so long as it’s within the house and who cares if I do septic or well work. I can get a permit for that. 240v work? Hells to the no! No homeowner permit for you! But I can get my own building permit for any residential construction I want. At worst the county will tell me I need a structural engineer to sign off on certain things (rare). Simply replacing a water heater like for like requires a permit…but the county won’t do an inspection on a water heater replacement. So WTF is the point of the permit?
     

    BradMacc82

    Ultimate Member
    Industry Partner
    Aug 17, 2011
    26,177
    Just had to politely toss 2 out yesterday, came in looking at magazines, but stunk so badly we couldn't/wouldn't overlook it - shop stunk of pot for at least 25/30 minutes afterwards.

    Our own views aside, we can't have that in the shop. Until the feds change it, it's how it is.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,625
    Fees. And hopefully scare the ones not getting the permits to do the work correctly....yeah, I heard in my head how dumb that sounds too.
    Lol. Yeah, I've had the same thought and it sounds just as dumb in my head too. At least if they were doing an inspection I could understand. Otherwise it is literally about extracting money. I mean, I guess it means you could hold a dishonest contractors feet to the fire if they don't get a permit. But they are also probably the ones skipping town with your money anyway. So who cares if the county can go after them for not filing a permit? Usually it is the homeowner anyway who is on the hook with the work that wasn't permitted, not they've let the county know and the county is going to make the homeowner get it fixed or get someone to pull the permits and have it inspected.

    I once asked the electrical inspector, "so in theory, what happens if I didn't get a permit and just did the work?"

    His answer, in summary was they can pull my occupancy permit and force me out of my house until I get the proper permit and have it inspected. And that might involve hiring a "remote inspection" company who specializes in doing things like imaging in your walls to make sure the wires are run correctly and what not. Often to the tune of several thousand dollars for the 3rd party inspection work. Or, demo the walls so the work can be inspected.

    My follow-up was, "so how often have you seen the county do that".

    "I've seen it happen" was his only response. Which makes me think it is exceedingly rare. Granted, have an insurance claim and there is unpermitted work that is discovered, especially if the adjustor can pinpoint the unpermitted work as causing or contributing to the damage, you are up a feces filled creek without a method of propulsion.

    The number of houses I've fixed things in for a friend, family member, or coworker where someone did obviously unpermitted work or the houses I've inspected considering an offer to buy where major work was done, obviously unpermitted would probably be at least a third to half of houses I've been in and looked up their skirt that were built before the mid-90s. The older, the more likely. Hell, my first house, a townhouse built in 1991 (actually same age as my current single family home) did not have any un-permitted work that I could tell. But it DID have lots of work done not to code, even to the code as it stood in 1991 when I started getting into it and doing projects. A number of the outlets were not properly terminated. I found some light switches (definitely the original light switches) that were not grounded. Multiple wires under one staple, etc. Nice job Ryan homes!

    That was my early intro into "inspectors sometimes just pay lip service at inspecting job sites, so why should I care so much about permits so long as I am sure I am following code and best practices?" Heck, I had to argue with the county inspector back and forth about NEC for the kitchen renovation I did. I put two outlets in the window box because the windows were effectively countertop height (1.5" up, just enough to trim out the windows, not enough to put in an electrical box) and would not allow outlets in the wall. The inspector insisted because of spacing that I put in outlets somehow (no space more than 2 linear feet along the front of the counter top from any outlet). I found some outlets, UL approved, that were designed to go face up in a window jamb extension/frame. I talked it over with him and he was uncomfortable with it and I pointed out, it allowed the kitchen to comply with the 2ft spacing portion of code, and they were NOT in the countertop, so it didn't violate code about outlets being in the countertop. Then when he inspected we went back and forth for a solid 20 minutes about it. His excuse for giving me a hard time was he didn't want the final inspector to give me problems that it might violate NEC because it was non-standard. I asked him if he'd be my final inspector. Well, yeah, unless I am on leave. SMH.

    "non-standard" in this case meant something he didn't normally see. I showed him the UL listing for the outlet/box combos, even unscrewed one and pulled it up so he could see the box was watertight, wires properly secured, it was on a GFCI protected circuit, properly terminated inside of the combo box/outlet, pointed out in the code book in my hands that it complies with the spacing requirement, was not too high off the counter top, within easy reach, was not in the surface of the countertop, and that the NEC did not require outlets be perpendicular to the wall, that placing one in a window box didn't violate some other section of code, and the drilled hole in the window framing was smaller than the maximum hole size for a 2x4 (even a structural one). It was getting to the point I was wondering if I needed to call his boss over it before he finally relented and approved the rough wiring inspection (he did not, in the end, give me any grief on the final).

    I will give him a small credit, he made me install an outlet in part of the garage addition I built because he didn't think the outlets I put in were sufficient. Even though it complied with NEC at the time, they were adopting the newest NEC the next year, and he was going to make me comply with the "1 accessible outlet per vehicle" requirement in the new code. Basically I hadn't put any next to the bay, only at the front, which he didn't consider accessible (somehow?). The other side, I put a couple of outlets down the side. It was annoying and I was cussing him because of needing to climb all around to get another outlet in and wired. In the end though, he was right on usability. It would have been a pain running an extension cord 20ft from where the one outlet was located if I needed power at the ass end of the car. A little learning experience for me years ago (now I install moar outlets than the minimum whether needed or not).
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,625
    @lazarus

    I didn't read your last post, as I'm stupid, and on my phone browser, and it was long

    Pot is a 4473 disqualifier

    Right or wrong, that's how it is

    What is the haiku of your last time, if I may make so bold
    TL;DR version is inspectors and permitting departments get me a on a tear. The only small t tyranny worse than local government are HOAs. Code is important and following it is important, and I’ve tripped over more examples of people not getting permits and inspectors not following code or conducting proper inspections over the years I have a hard time taking permitting requirements seriously even if I take code seriously.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,433
    He's discussing building permits vs building standards vs building inspectors of various competency , and variable honesty vs different jurisdictions having totally different cultures about building permits & inspections thereof .

    The corelation with Weed and Firearms is ..... Indirect at best . Speculating , but perhaps about different levels of Government having different and conflicting standards and procedures for building standards / practices ?
     

    [Kev308]

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 23, 2020
    3,777
    Maryland
    He's discussing building permits vs building standards vs building inspectors of various competency , and variable honesty vs different jurisdictions having totally different cultures about building permits & inspections thereof .

    The corelation with Weed and Firearms is ..... Indirect at best . Speculating , but perhaps about different levels of Government having different and conflicting standards and procedures for building standards / practices ?
    I just got him heated and passionate about inspectors and permits from a comment I made about how being a rule follower doesn't always benefit a person and isn't necessarily a qualifier of them being a good person.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,310
    Unless you're perfect in every way, and continually monitor the Acceptable Thought Index daily and modify your behavior accordingly, the only reasonable thing to do is to kill yourself. Now.

    Eruby knows . . .
     

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,070
    Messages
    7,221,429
    Members
    33,138
    Latest member
    RamDoug

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom