CT: Smoke pot, lose guns, period. Here's the officlal letter. Can MA be far behind?

[308rifleman]

I just don't get it. Applying for and possessing a "medical marijuana" card is prima facia evidence you are violating federal law, or that you intend to do so. To get the card, you have to confess to the state government your intention. If you actually use marijuana, you cannot truthfully complete a form 4473 in a way that lets you own a firearm (Question 11 b asks:

2. 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 ordecriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.)
   
   

Why would anyone who cares about the exercise of their Second Amendment rights do that?

Wife and I went to Vegas last month to visit some friends who moved there a few years ago. Medical marijuana dispensaries are everywhere! If it is against federal law, why aren't heavily armed DEA raid teams storming these places and arresting their owners/operators? As for firearms, take your pick. Right down the street from our friends' home is a firearms store called Gun Mountain. I have never seen so much Class 3 items under one roof in my entire life!

 

[Carl in Ct]

He violated CT statute 53a-217. I'm not a lawyer but it seems like it has nothing to do with federal law. Not sure why the dumb asses in CT even mentioned it in the letter when the guy is a prohibited person under CT law anyway. Just to add more confusion I guess.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just a guy reading the statute so it's very possible I missed something.


CT general statutes (look at the bold parts):

Sec. 53a-217. Criminal possession of a firearm, ammunition or an electronic defense weapon: Class C felony. (a) A person is guilty of criminal possession of a firearm, ammunition or an electronic defense weapon when such person possesses a firearm, ammunition or an electronic defense weapon and (1) has been convicted of a felony committed prior to, on or after October 1, 2013, or of a violation of subsection (c) of section 21a-279

Sec. 21a-279a. Penalty for illegal possession of small amount of cannabis-type substance. (a) Any person who possesses or has under his control less than one-half ounce of a cannabis-type substance, as defined in section 21a-240, except as authorized in this chapter, shall (1) for a first offense, be fined one hundred fifty dollars, and (2) for a subsequent offense, be fined not less than two hundred dollars or more than five hundred dollars.

(b) The law enforcement officer issuing a complaint for a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall seize the cannabis-type substance and cause such substance to be destroyed as contraband in accordance with law.

(c) Any person who, at separate times, has twice entered a plea of nolo contendere to, or been found guilty after trial of, a violation of subsection (a) of this section shall, upon a subsequent plea of nolo contendere to, or finding of guilty of, a violation of said subsection, be referred for participation in a drug education program at such person’s own expense.


So do they have to have been caught twice to become a prohibited person in CT? That's what it seems to say to me. If so did the guy who got the letter get caught twice? If so why wouldn't CT just rely on it's own statutes to declare him a prohibited person? Maybe he only got caught once so CT is trying to enforce a federal law. That's funny since CT has openly refused to enforce federal immigration law.

 

[not new guy]

It refers to his "recent incident," not a conviction.

It refers to a conviction as being disqualifying, I was just wondering what he was convicted of.

- - - Updated - - -

I just don't get it. Applying for and possessing a "medical marijuana" card is prima facia evidence you are violating federal law, or that you intend to do so. To get the card, you have to confess to the state government your intention. If you actually use marijuana, you cannot truthfully complete a form 4473 in a way that lets you own a firearm (Question 11 b asks:

1. 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 ordecriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.)
   
   
   

Why would anyone who cares about the exercise of their Second Amendment rights do that?

Agreed that the 4473 poses a problem for the medical weed crowd, but what if you're already full up of guns when you get your MJ card, and never have to answer the form? Or what if you get the card but decide to stop smoking/eating weed thereafter? The phrasing on the 4473 is all present tense.

 

[bill o]

I just don't get it. Applying for and possessing a "medical marijuana" card is prima facia evidence you are violating federal law, or that you intend to do so. To get the card, you have to confess to the state government your intention. If you actually use marijuana, you cannot truthfully complete a form 4473 in a way that lets you own a firearm (Question 11 b asks:

1. 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 ordecriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.)
   
   
   

Why would anyone who cares about the exercise of their Second Amendment rights do that?

Holding a medical marijuana card is a confession of violating federal law, as having a drivers license is confession of DUI.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Holding a medical marijuana card is a confession of violating federal law, as having a drivers license is confession of DUI.

What's the old gun comparison? Having a willy means you might be guilty of rape?

 

[Suppressor]

Using dope makes you a prohibited person under federal law, which is why the ATF asks the question on the 4473. If you use dope and possess a gun, you are in violation. If you state your intention to use dope by getting a license from the state, a federal law enforcement officer could take that as probable cause to search you. Dope is illegal under federal law, and federal law preempts state law. You are an illegal drug user, and thereby barred from exercising your Second Amendment rights. And rightly so.

 

[bill o]

Using dope makes you a prohibited person under federal law, which is why the ATF asks the question on the 4473. If you use dope and possess a gun, you are in violation. If you state your intention to use dope by getting a license from the state, a federal law enforcement officer could take that as probable cause to search you. Dope is illegal under federal law, and federal law preempts state law. You are an illegal drug user, and thereby barred from exercising your Second Amendment rights. And rightly so.

Wow

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Using dope makes you a prohibited person under federal law, which is why the ATF asks the question on the 4473. If you use dope and possess a gun, you are in violation. If you state your intention to use dope by getting a license from the state, a federal law enforcement officer could take that as probable cause to search you. Dope is illegal under federal law, and federal law preempts state law. You are an illegal drug user, and thereby barred from exercising your Second Amendment rights. And rightly so.

Wholly ****ing dog shit !

 

[drgrant]

I just don't get it. Applying for and possessing a "medical marijuana" card is prima facia evidence you are violating federal law, or that you intend to do so.

Some retarded court might have said that but that doesn't make that factually true. Simply having a plastic card doesn't prove that someone has ever used MJ.

That's as absurd as saying because someone has the CAD files for an M16 drop in auto sear on a computer, that means that they intend to create an illegal machine gun.

The law says nothing about "intending to use" anything. the word "user" is critical. Problem is currently the kopsch and the courts have taken creative license
with that prohibition to suit their fancy.

So you want them to arrest anyone who has a copy of the anarchists cookbook, too? Everything in there is pretty much illegal. Obviously someone who has that book is up to no good.

-Mike

 

[Carl in Ct]

Part of the question here is if CT should be enforcing federal law, especially when it has declared itself a sanctuary state and is refusing to enforce federal immigration law (or even assisting or cooperate with ICE agents). Dannel "Dumb Ass" Malloy was just on Tucker Carlson saying that the federal govt needs to do it's own work so CT won't help with immigration law.

So why should a CT resident recognize CT's desire to enforce one federal law while is refuses to enforce another? They shouldn't. If CT is refusing to enforce a legal, constitutional federal law then it should be forced to forfeit it's right to enforce any federal law. Can't have it both ways. If CT feels that federal immigration law is illegal and/or unconstitutional they need to fight that in court before they just decide to ignore it.

The CT statutes I listed show that anyone who uses pot is a prohibited person with regards to firearms under CT law but it might be only if they violate that law twice. It's not really clear to me but that seems to be what it's saying. My bet is he didn't get caught twice because the letter only refers to once incident, not more than one. So CT is playing the part of retarded liberal hypocrite state again.

 

[not new guy]

Some retarded court might have said that but that doesn't make that factually true. Simply having a plastic card doesn't prove that someone has ever used MJ.

That's as absurd as saying because someone has the CAD files for an M16 drop in auto sear on a computer, that means that they intend to create an illegal machine gun.

The law says nothing about "intending to use" anything. the word "user" is critical. Problem is currently the kopsch and the courts have taken creative license
with that prohibition to suit their fancy.

So you want them to arrest anyone who has a copy of the anarchists cookbook, too? Everything in there is pretty much illegal. Obviously someone who has that book is up to no good.

-Mike

Agreed. The 9th circuit strikes again.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/31/federal-gun-buying-ban-upheld-for-medical-marijuan/

 

[Carl in Ct]

OP, your buddy who got the letter really needs to contact their state representative and state senator. Most likely they are anti-gun moonbats but this is not just a gun right, it's a question of the state running afoul of the law. By that I mean CT refusing to enforce one federal law that doesn't fit their agenda but actively looking to enforce another that does fit their agenda. He may even try bringing it to the attention of some other gun friendly state pols.

My state rep is Doug Dubitsky and my state senator is Cathy Osten. Both are endorsed by the NRA. Doug is the leading gun rights advocate in Hartford as far as elected officials go and senator Osten is actually a Dem but she served in the military and has a good voting record regarding gun rights. Try contacting both of them. They may be willing to help or at least fight the issue as a general state wide problem even if your buddy isn't one of their constituents. I have had good luck with them both responding to me.

Rep. Dubitsky's contact info:
http://www.cthousegop.com/dubitsky/contact-me/

Sen. Osten's contact info:
http://www.senatedems.ct.gov/osten-contact

 

[StevieP]

Using dope makes you a prohibited person under federal law, which is why the ATF asks the question on the 4473. If you use dope and possess a gun, you are in violation. If you state your intention to use dope by getting a license from the state, a federal law enforcement officer could take that as probable cause to search you. Dope is illegal under federal law, and federal law preempts state law. You are an illegal drug user, and thereby barred from exercising your Second Amendment rights. And rightly so.

"Rightly so?" Really?

 

[Nick Fury]

Using dope makes you a prohibited person under federal law, which is why the ATF asks the question on the 4473. If you use dope and possess a gun, you are in violation. If you state your intention to use dope by getting a license from the state, a federal law enforcement officer could take that as probable cause to search you. Dope is illegal under federal law, and federal law preempts state law. You are an illegal drug user, and thereby barred from exercising your Second Amendment rights. And rightly so.

A perfect example of how one can be a dope or on dope yet not even possess a medical card.

 

[Spanz]

they don't call it dope for nothin'!

 

[bigblue]

I got nothing.
Wasn't expecting this to be another out yourself thread for the statists but there it is. And rightly so.

 

[42!]

I'm still waiting for the answer, what was the conviction? The letter says conviction.

 

[Win]

Traitorous law. These legislators should face charges

 

[Mass-diver]

Using dope makes you a prohibited person under federal law, which is why the ATF asks the question on the 4473. If you use dope and possess a gun, you are in violation. If you state your intention to use dope by getting a license from the state, a federal law enforcement officer could take that as probable cause to search you. Dope is illegal under federal law, and federal law preempts state law. You are an illegal drug user, and thereby barred from exercising your Second Amendment rights. And rightly so.

Out yourself thread?

People who think they can choose what substances a free man can eat/smoke/drink disgust me. So make fake conservative, statistics on NES these days. How about worry about yourself and your family and leave everyone else along. It's called liberty.

 

[SpaceCritter]

Dope is illegal under federal law, and federal law preempts state law.

Not under a proper reading of the Tenth.

 

[KBCraig]

I think legalized pot is a terrible idea . . . .

Why would anyone need a pistol that holds more than 10 rounds? Why would anyone need more than 3 shots while hunting?

 

[KBCraig]

I just don't get it. Applying for and possessing a "medical marijuana" card is prima facia evidence you are violating federal law, or that you intend to do so.

No, it doesn't. In many states' medical systems, caretakers, providers, and growers have to apply for and be issues cards. In some of those states, being a "user" disqualifies applicants.

So it's entirely possibly to have a medical marijuana card while not only *not* partaking, but being prohibited from doing so.

 

[KBCraig]

The phrasing on the 4473 is all present tense.

Ain't it, though?

And because people pointed out that you can't be "addicted to" marijuana, and that "current user of..." doesn't apply unless you have a spliff hanging from your lip as you fill out the 4473, ATF made up some arbitrary definition of "current".

It's been a few years and I don't remember the cutoff date, but it was utterly pointless.

 

[kingfisher]

The confusion in this thread continues to persist, so I'll try to help. If anybody hasn't read post #42 and #48, that would be a good place to start.

It refers to a conviction as being disqualifying, I was just wondering what he was convicted of.

It refers to his "recent incident," not a conviction.

I'm still waiting for the answer, what was the conviction? The letter says conviction.

I believe the "recent incident" resulted in this person being "convicted of a federal prohibitor..." so they refer to the same thing.

He was caught with a small amount of weed (a roach). He got a ticket for that (which apparently is not a crime in CT, more like a speeding ticket), and then he paid the fine. That resulted in the loss of his gun rights because drugs are a federal prohibitor.

I have no personal knowledge or expertise, but I did follow the directions in the OP to read about the source of the letter. I've tried to summarize it, but you all can do the same:

You can read this information over at AR15.com, hometown, CT.

 

[AllaSnackbah]

**** Connecticut, the entire state needs to be nuked from orbit, especially the southwest corner all the way up the southern coast.

 

[jcetto0351]

Using dope makes you a prohibited person under federal law, which is why the ATF asks the question on the 4473. If you use dope and possess a gun, you are in violation. If you state your intention to use dope by getting a license from the state, a federal law enforcement officer could take that as probable cause to search you. Dope is illegal under federal law, and federal law preempts state law. You are an illegal drug user, and thereby barred from exercising your Second Amendment rights. And rightly so.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com