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!
  • Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    33,252
    I did read your facts. 1 in 12 (men) is less than 10%. 1/25 for women.

    There are twice as many people who smoked pot (in 2019) than ones who are habitual drunkards. This contradicts what you specifically said.


    Hello , those are two totally different metrics .

    Multiple DUI ( or other alcohol criminal offenses ) is either a hard core drinker , or extremely unlucky . aka a small % of the universe of drinkers . Compared to stat for people who toked Once in a calendar year .
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,737
    True, think it's up to 27 constitutional carry states, no permit required to carry. There are 24 states with full recreational cannabis(including MD), not much overlap, but there is some. We have a right to keep and bear arms, you don't have to be a self righteous puritan to have that right. On the practical side, criminals carry anyway, we are carrying to defend against them, and currently the majority of states agree that a citizen should not have to ask permission from the government to do that. The funny thing is that the history of gun control, essentially to keep marginalized people from having the means to defend themselves aligns with the history of prohibition, where the elites wanted to project their vision of moral superiority on the masses. The NFA and Cannabis tax were passed within 3 years of each other, mainly in knee jerk response to the problems government created through prohibition.

    Both had the same idea, government at the time basically admitted they did not have the constitutional authority to ban guns or substances, but they could tax them. In both cases they made a prohibitively expensive tax, and withheld stamps to make it impossible to lawfully comply. More recently both were under attack again in the 60s, mainly because of the fear of the civil rights movement, and a larger far more powerful government that was more comfortable asserting unconstitutional authority than during the earlier schemes. This brings us today where both rights are being reclaimed, they are important for all, even those who do not partake or own firearms. It is nothing less than turning the clock back on a century of tyranny, unfortunate that some don't see it, or happen to belive in the mission of the Puritan elite that simply want what is best for the unwashed masses.
    Only 10 is THC illegal and 2 simply decriminalized it. So there is a lot of overlap on constitutional carry states if you include medical cannabis. And the ATF doesn't care if it is medically prescribed (legitimately for a seizure disorder or, "I have a weed card for like depression, man").

    I do completely agree with your last paragraph.
     
    Last edited:

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,737
    Hello , those are two totally different metrics .

    Multiple DUI ( or other alcohol criminal offenses ) is either a hard core drinker , or extremely unlucky . aka a small % of the universe of drinkers . Compared to stat for people who toked Once in a calendar year .
    Which is true. What I was getting at is by the medical (not legal) standard of an alcohol abuse disorder, versus the ATF "not even once in the last year" for weed, more likely more MDS members should be disqualified under the plain language of a habitual drunkard than having toked once in the last year.

    Under the legal standard for habitual drunkard, probably very few of us would be. About 1 in 121 Americans get a DUI in a given year.

    My argument is, in part, that toking once in a calendar year probably doesn't make you less fit to own firearms than someone who is drinking on the regular to such a level as to be considered having an alcohol abuse disorder (alcoholic), without yet having crossed the threshold of a legal habitual drunkard.

    Based on the observed and medical effects of cannabis use, which can vary between people, someone who is an alcoholic is going to be spending more of their life impaired, and to a much greater degree of impairment, then someone who uses weed recreationally a couple of times a year. Or even someone who does use it medically at low doses for something (which is unlikely to present any impairment).
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,707
    PA
    I am. That's good, because I always seem to find myself around dangerous things like equipment, automobiles, and firearms...and never quite sure that I won't need to use them.

    I agree that it is the law of the land. Until it gets changed, it should be expected to enforced like all the other laws (popular or not) like immigration, turn signal use, not banging children, etc.
    Thing is immigration management is a constitutional duty of the federal government, the other two are not, and the states have the authority to impose those laws and prosecute them. There simply isn't a need for the federal government to interject into everything, in fact the constitution limits them to a few specific tasks, regulating firearms and substances are not among them. There is no historical basis or constitutional authority granting the federal government power to ban substances or firearms, and most states do not impose a ban either.
    Good on you I guess. I usually know when I need to use things like equipment, automobiles, and firearms. And I've never once in my life been so inebriated that I suffered from uncontrollable urges to drive vehicles, operate power tools, or whip out guns and start blazing away.
    There is such thing as responsible substance use, that is lost on many. Kinda like some lefty folks that ask "I shouldn't have a gun, I would definitely shoot people" or "what is keeping gun owners from killing everyone". Simple answer is "how about the fact there are decent responsible people, and maybe you aren't one". At this point it's laughable how all but 10 states allow medical and/or recreational use, and the FDA has approved cannabis derived medications, but it remains a schedule 1 with "no medical purpose" federally.
     

    Art3

    Eqinsu Ocha
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2015
    13,322
    Harford County
    Good on you I guess. I usually know when I need to use things like equipment, automobiles, and firearms. And I've never once in my life been so inebriated that I suffered from uncontrollable urges to drive vehicles, operate power tools, or whip out guns and start blazing away.
    I don't know when the next home invasion or family emergency is scheduled. If I did, I guess I could plan to only have my guns loaded and car gassed up for those occasions. I guess I could also impair my judgement in between the scheduled emergencies...but I just don't trust my calendar enough.
     

    Art3

    Eqinsu Ocha
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2015
    13,322
    Harford County
    Thing is immigration management is a constitutional duty of the federal government, the other two are not, and the states have the authority to impose those laws and prosecute them. There simply isn't a need for the federal government to interject into everything, in fact the constitution limits them to a few specific tasks, regulating firearms and substances are not among them. There is no historical basis or constitutional authority granting the federal government power to ban substances or firearms, and most states do not impose a ban either.
    Right or wrong, the feds will still lock you up for violating even unconstitutional laws, right? Maybe you'll get a huge payday from the courts eventually, but you won't get your time or your dog back.
     

    jc1240

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 18, 2013
    14,994
    Westminster, MD
    I may be missing something, but how is this news/why is ATF taking a beating on this? Feds never legalized pot.
     

    jc1240

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 18, 2013
    14,994
    Westminster, MD
    Edit:
    Because the ATF can *kindly go F themselves forever and always
    I'll_Allow_It_Meme_Banner.jpg
     

    traveller

    The one with two L
    Nov 26, 2010
    18,420
    variable
    Right or wrong, the feds will still lock you up for violating even unconstitutional laws, right? Maybe you'll get a huge payday from the courts eventually, but you won't get your time or your dog back.

    For now, you get shit back. Maybe down the line, congress gets their head out of their ass and passes a law to specifically remove THC from schedule 1 and make it legal to cultivate and own nationwide. They could also pass a set of laws that rescinds any federal regulation that makes someone ineligible for any federal benefit or license based on the use of THC alone.

    Until then, its disingenuous to fault the DEA and ATF for enforcing the laws as they are written.

    (me pointing this out doesn't mean I 'like the ATF' or dislike anyones dog. I am just pointing out that this is not some federal over-reach by a zealous agency. This is the agency doing what its supposed to do.)
     

    adit

    ReMember
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 20, 2013
    19,687
    DE
    Hello , those are two totally different metrics .

    Multiple DUI ( or other alcohol criminal offenses ) is either a hard core drinker , or extremely unlucky . aka a small % of the universe of drinkers . Compared to stat for people who toked Once in a calendar year .
    The metrics don't matter on the 4473.

    Only Marijuana is specifically called out as a disqualifier for ANY usage. It's not against the law to get drunk.

    g. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

    30 states don't have any habitual drunkard/alcoholic disqualifiers on the books.
    Only 3 states (and DC) have misdemeanor alcohol disqualifiers.
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,707
    PA
    For now, you get shit back. Maybe down the line, congress gets their head out of their ass and passes a law to specifically remove THC from schedule 1 and make it legal to cultivate and own nationwide. They could also pass a set of laws that rescinds any federal regulation that makes someone ineligible for any federal benefit or license based on the use of THC alone.

    Until then, its disingenuous to fault the DEA and ATF for enforcing the laws as they are written.

    (me pointing this out doesn't mean I 'like the ATF' or dislike anyones dog. I am just pointing out that this is not some federal over-reach by a zealous agency. This is the agency doing what its supposed to do.)
    Gun and substance laws have been unconstitutional from the start, we can absolutely fault anyone and everyone who seeks to enforce those laws, "Ich befolge nur Befehle" is not a defense. The racist history of these laws, using various schemes like prohibitive taxes, unavailable stamps, weaponizing procedures or making compliance impossible, midnight changes to a bill like the Hughes amendment, ignoring the Schafer commision report and probably 100s other reasons these are stolen rights in violation of the constitution. There are a couple ways to look at it, "we will not comply" and disobeying laws, or for most, begrudgingly following them, while fighting them in the courts and public protests, I don't fault either way.
     

    bcr229

    FFL/SOT
    Jul 15, 2011
    1,343
    Inwood, WV
    The metrics don't matter on the 4473.

    Only Marijuana is specifically called out as a disqualifier for ANY usage. It's not against the law to get drunk.
    It's probably called out because some states have decriminalized it. If cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. were decriminalized you would see those called out as well.

    Also the feds are prosecuting for it -
    The USSC may deal with the issue eventually -
     
    Last edited:

    Doco Overboard

    Ultimate Member
    It's probably called out because some states have decriminalized it. If cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. were decriminalized you would see those called out as well.

    Also the feds are prosecuting for it.

    Yikes!
    I get to plead guilty for new federal charges becuase My six YO took my gun to school.
    And I was high, maybe, I cant remember-O well I dont how he got the gun.
    Whatever.
    At least they're not going to charge the kid according to the article.
    Next thing you know they'll be charging people who sold a gun to someone who got in trouble, who got stoned a few times maybe and...... that person could be all jonesed- up wondering they're coming for them becuase they got triggered by something they saw on the news or on a commercial but aren't really sure when, Becuase they were stoned.
    No wonder stoners are all jammed up. Can you blame them? I sure cant, just dont pick up.
    LOL.
    This sort of thing could be the basis for a Cheech Marin and Tommy Chong reunite.
    Cheech and Chong "Up in Arms" is what they could call it.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,737
    I don't know when the next home invasion or family emergency is scheduled. If I did, I guess I could plan to only have my guns loaded and car gassed up for those occasions. I guess I could also impair my judgement in between the scheduled emergencies...but I just don't trust my calendar enough.
    I assume you also make sure your very vehicle is never disabled, like changing its oil or something. Sleep on body armor and strapped? I assume you probably also don’t sleep, never know when you might be surprised! Don’t blink either. You might miss something.

    Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough or you’ll probably miss out on a lot of life while trying to be constantly on alert and prepared for every possible thing every instant of every day.
     

    adit

    ReMember
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 20, 2013
    19,687
    DE
    It's probably called out because some states have decriminalized it. If cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. were decriminalized you would see those called out as well.

    Also the feds are prosecuting for it -
    The USSC may deal with the issue eventually -


    2020 - Oregon decriminalized possession of small amounts (aka Personal Use) of ALL drugs.

     

    Art3

    Eqinsu Ocha
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2015
    13,322
    Harford County
    I assume you also make sure your very vehicle is never disabled, like changing its oil or something. Sleep on body armor and strapped? I assume you probably also don’t sleep, never know when you might be surprised! Don’t blink either. You might miss something.

    Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough or you’ll probably miss out on a lot of life while trying to be constantly on alert and prepared for every possible thing every instant of every day.
    I do sleep pretty lightly and always keep at least one heap roadworthy. :shrug:

    No body armor, but definitely a Roscoe discretely handy near the bed...even a flashlight. You don't?
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,737
    I do sleep pretty lightly and always keep at least one heap roadworthy. :shrug:

    No body armor, but definitely a Roscoe discretely handy near the bed...even a flashlight. You don't?
    Sure thing. But you indicate you need to be condition 0 in life for everything at ALL times. I really have zero judgement if someone doesn’t want to drink, do drugs, smoke cigarettes, drink coffee (okay, that last one, those people are monsters). But you seem to believe, by your words, you must always be on alert and ready to act every second of your life. Hyper vigilance is a pretty crappy way to live life. Plus my guns could get rusty in the shower with me.
     

    Art3

    Eqinsu Ocha
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 30, 2015
    13,322
    Harford County
    Sure thing. But you indicate you need to be condition 0 in life for everything at ALL times. I really have zero judgement if someone doesn’t want to drink, do drugs, smoke cigarettes, drink coffee (okay, that last one, those people are monsters). But you seem to believe, by your words, you must always be on alert and ready to act every second of your life. Hyper vigilance is a pretty crappy way to live life. Plus my guns could get rusty in the shower with me.
    But isn't that what self reliant minded folks and prepared types should strive for? Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get me. If I knew who it was or when and how they were going to strike, maybe...no. I probably still wouldn't want to deliberately cloud my judgement.

    I think most humans can snap themselves awake in an emergency. Snapping out from under the influence...dunno :shrug:

    We don't need to be surging with adrenaline all the time, but isn't it basic situation awareness/prudence to have a plan. Maybe it's to escape, or kill everyone in the room, or something in between. When it's my family's lives on the line, I ain't gonna rely on the plans of a drunk.

    Even taking firearms out of the equation, a lot of people depend on me for varied things. About the only thing I can think of that would be more embarrassing and humiliating as a man than having to respond to a call by saying, "I'm too intoxicated to help you," would be trying to help while too intoxicated.

    I don't think I'll convert you to my "puritanical" ways, and I'm quite certain you won't talk me into having a drink. :shrug:


    Also:
    Shower-Gun-Box-7.jpg
    duh! :innocent0
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,549
    Messages
    7,286,063
    Members
    33,476
    Latest member
    Spb5205

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom