Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

POT States

casper1947
I thought about putting this in "Gun Rights..." but it is about IL, so what is the point.[:D]

My question is about Government data bases and how an FFL and the ATF are actually treating these in IL and other States where POT is legal?.

Question e. on f-4473 "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?". This should be a deal killer for any FFL due to Federal law.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/20/gun-ban-for-medical-pot-users-dropped-from-illinois-proposal/

How can a State decide (at least for now) that it is OK to break Federal law to own a gun?

Now a State the requires and FOID (they charge for) and an ID ($100 per year) for medical-marijuana-for-patient-card has you in 2 data bases. How hard would it be for the ATF to require access to these and enforce Federal law?

http://www.pantagraph.com/ap/state/illinois-medical-marijuana-for-patient-card/article_0bfe2502-83e3-5e33-954b-23d9020c00e9.html

The ATF had wanted the expansion of medical information that States report to be included in background checks, shouldn't this information be included?

Odd Democrats support a $100 (per year) pot card but oppose FREE voter ID cards. But that is another subject.
0

Comments

8 comments

Date Votes
  • Mossbergboogie
    That might be a supreme court case for the future.

    I would think if it is a lawful use then State law trumps a federal law that can't be tied to a constitutional power held by the Federal government.

    Not sure what argument one would have for the federal governments role in naming substances illegal.
    0
  • casper1947
    I agree completely.

    quote:Originally posted by Mossbergboogie
    That might be a supreme court case for the future.Only if they agree to hear it.

    I would think if it is a lawful use then State law trumps a federal law that can't be tied to a constitutional power held by the Federal government. Federal Supremacy? A State could (vote) define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, 1 man and 2 or more women. I don't see and constitutional authority in this issue either but they (Federal Court, DOJ) are.

    What about a State requiring ID to vote? Or if a State passed a law that it was legal to purchase a firearm on behalf of another person (straw buyer)?


    Not sure what argument one would have for the federal governments role in naming substances illegal. Interstate Commerce.


    What i find interesting is the dilemma that liberals have put themselves in. If you require ALL transfers to go thru an FFL and clearly have a law that conflicts with federal law that makes the transfer illegal how can you defend the right to transfer the weapon?
    0
  • Mossbergboogie
    quote:Originally posted by casper1947
    I agree completely.

    quote:Originally posted by Mossbergboogie
    That might be a supreme court case for the future.Only if they agree to hear it.

    I would think if it is a lawful use then State law trumps a federal law that can't be tied to a constitutional power held by the Federal government. Federal Supremacy? A State could (vote) define marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, 1 man and 2 or more women. I don't see and constitutional authority in this issue either but they (Federal Court, DOJ) are.

    What about a State requiring ID to vote? Or if a State passed a law that it was legal to purchase a firearm on behalf of another person (straw buyer)?


    Not sure what argument one would have for the federal governments role in naming substances illegal. Interstate Commerce.


    What i find interesting is the dilemma that liberals have put themselves in. If you require ALL transfers to go thru an FFL and clearly have a law that conflicts with federal law that makes the transfer illegal how can you defend the right to transfer the weapon?


    The commerce clause is an over used way of granting extra powers. By this the Federal Government has no limits on reach of regulation.

    Marriage isn't a State or Federal matter at all it belongs to the people and the non-government institutions.

    There are many silly federal gun laws that don't stop crime, or people buying things they aren't supposed to have.
    0
  • Don McManus
    If you use pot and pot is legal, you are not an 'unlawful user' of it.

    The Federal Government has no dog in this fight. As of September, 2011, the DOJ thought it did, but it now has the lost court cases to confirm it does not.
    0
  • fyrfinder
    I have always been taught that Federal law is the least restrictive, and
    states could make laws that are only more restrictive and not less restrictive.

    So pot being illegal at the federal level would need to be illegal at the state level also ...

    [8D]
    0
  • Don McManus
    quote:Originally posted by fyrfinder
    I have always been taught that Federal law is the least restrictive, and
    states could make laws that are only more restrictive and not less restrictive.

    So pot being illegal at the federal level would need to be illegal at the state level also ...

    [8D]



    You have been well conditioned by the overlords in D.C.
    0
  • casper1947
    quote:Originally posted by fyrfinder
    I have always been taught that Federal law is the least restrictive, and
    states could make laws that are only more restrictive and not less restrictive.

    So pot being illegal at the federal level would need to be illegal at the state level also ...

    [8D]



    Actually i think that is backwards. Immigration comes to mind.
    If the courts have validated this as a State Right Issue, GOOD.

    Per DEA
    Schedule I
    Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:
    heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

    http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ds.shtml

    Firearm Possession Prohibition

    Federal law (18 U.S.C. ? 922[g][1-9]) prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms,
    ammunition, or explosives. The penalty for violating this law is ten years imprisonment and/or a
    $250,000 fine.
    Further, 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(2) (probation) and 3583(g)(2) (supervised release)
    makes it mandatory for the Court to revoke supervision for possession of a firearm.
    Specifically, 18 U.S.C. ? 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/
    transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:
    (1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
    (2) a person who is a fugitive from justice;
    (3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance

    http://www.rip.uscourts.gov/rip/supervision/firearmpossessionFirearmPossessionProhibition.pdf

    Question e. on f-4473 "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?". This question references 18 U.S.C. ? 922
    0
  • blogdog37
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    If you use pot and pot is legal, you are not an 'unlawful user' of it.

    The Federal Government has no dog in this fight. As of September, 2011, the DOJ thought it did, but it now has the lost court cases to confirm it does not.

    The Feds only eradicate five percent of the Mexican Cartels Billion dollar crop in only one state California, it sounds good when the do a million dollar bust, however a Billion is a bunch of millions, look it up.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?