Marijuana Users In Mass. Can't Buy Guns

[crispnipz]

Marijuana Users In Mass. Can't Buy Guns

I know it's not news per se, but this article includes the ATF weighing in WRT MA pot law. It hasn't come to a head yet, but there needs to be a resolution between state law and federal law on this subject. It is ridiculous that a right granted at the federal level is in jeopardy for someone who does something legal at the state level--especially because there is rarely, if ever, federal enforcement at the personal level.

This subject continues to come up and will happen more and more as states legalize.

 

[Mass-diver]

Even medical users with an Rx are banned. You can be on oxy all day long, but if your doc ok’s pot for you, you can’t own guns.

It will be fixed......eventually

 

[SKumar]

Really bad stuff. I don't see why they don't ask anything about alcohol since it's the #1 cause of belligerent handling of firearms. Can they not ban all alcohol users too?

 

[dlarge]

Really bad stuff. I don't see why they don't ask anything about alcohol since it's the #1 cause of belligerent handling of firearms. Can they not ban all alcohol users too?

Suitability.

 

[Matt_SERE]

Really bad stuff. I don't see why they don't ask anything about alcohol since it's the #1 cause of belligerent handling of firearms. Can they not ban all alcohol users too?

Because they are already taxing, at many different levels, those drugs and alcohol that are legal.

 

[not new guy]

Marijuana users certainly can buy guns in MA, it’s the ones who decide to sign up for a license to buy it who have problems.

 

[robmcd]

I am aware of a MA certified instructor applicant who was denied because he holds a MA medical marijuana card. I think this is the tip of the iceberg.

 

[JAD]

Really bad stuff. I don't see why they don't ask anything about alcohol since it's the #1 cause of belligerent handling of firearms. Can they not ban all alcohol users too?

The 4473 does not ask about alcohol use because alcohol is not within the scope of the definition of the term controlled substance.

See 27CFR 478.11.

Controlled substance. A drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 802. The term includes, but is not limited to, marijuana, depressants, stimulants, and narcotic drugs. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in Subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended

Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.

Published data reflects that at the state level, 31 states (+ Puerto Rico and DC) have laws prohibiting certain people from possessing firearms based on alcohol abuse. Several different terms are used to effect this. In 13 states the term habitual drunkard is used to described the prohibited category. Some states use unlawful use/ consumption of alcohol language. Some other states use other criteria, such as convictions for crimes such as public intoxication, as the basis. See Norris, Price, Gutheil, and Reid (2006) publication "Firearms Laws, Patients, and the Role of Psychiatrists".

 

[StevieP]

Marijuana users certainly can buy guns in MA, it’s the ones who decide to sign up for a license to buy it who have problems.

This. Hard. pay cash. And NOT at a licensed dispensary (like that'll happen), either. Stay on the down-low. Grow your own is the best way to stay off the grid if you must also apply for an LTC that's granted based on your perceived suitability.

At least, that's what "a friend" told me.

Edit 1: lol at anyone thinking that marijuana is in any way, shape, or form "controlled."

2: "has lost the power of self-control". Have they ever smoked pot? Ever?

 

[Uzi2]

Marijuana Users In Mass. Can't Buy Guns

I know it's not news per se, but this article includes the ATF weighing in WRT MA pot law. It hasn't come to a head yet, but there needs to be a resolution between state law and federal law on this subject. It is ridiculous that a right granted at the federal level is in jeopardy for someone who does something legal at the state level--especially because there is rarely, if ever, federal enforcement at the personal level.

This subject continues to come up and will happen more and more as states legalize.

Please clarify this " federal level GRANTED RIGHT.????

My right to keep and bear arms was never granted by any government, local, state or federal.

 

[Radtekk]

I'm sorry, since when is alcohol NOT a controlled substance? Legal age, manufacturing regulations, standards, a FEDERAL AGENCY with "alcohol" in its name... It's an addictive substance, a medically recognized depressant, alcoholism is a medical/psychological condition, the list goes on...

 

[Buck F]

It’s not illegal to have an MMJ card and own or buy a gun, it’s illegal to lie about it on the 4473. There are plenty of guns to be had legally, even in MA, without filling out a 4473. EFA10, anyone? There are also plenty of ways to get MJ without a card and soon it will be easier and legal.

 

[Palladin]

You just figuring this out?

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Marijuana users certainly can buy guns in MA, it’s the ones who decide to sign up for a license to buy it who have problems.

From private sellers? If you fill out a NICS, you're lying.

Doesn't change being a prohibited person in possession either way.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Alcohol has and is causing more problems than Marijuana. Yet, the failed .GOV can't seem to get it. What a pile of horse shit.

 

[jct61765]

Really bad stuff. I don't see why they don't ask anything about alcohol since it's the #1 cause of belligerent handling of firearms. Can they not ban all alcohol users too?

It didn’t work out well last time.

 

[SKumar]

Alcohol has and is causing more problems than Marijuana. Yet, the failed .GOV can't seem to get it. What a pile of horse shit.

Same with tobacco, but you don't see them stopping that easy tax money anytime soon.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Just do what you want and don't pay any mind to all this happy horseshit. Jack.

 

[not new guy]

From private sellers? If you fill out a NICS, you're lying.

I could imagine someone inclined to break the law and smoke in the first place wouldn’t care much about lying to the government on a stupid form.

Now must be a pretty good time to be a smoker. It’s everywhere, popular opinion has turned in favor, and getting caught with it is no big deal in places like MA. No enforcement makes things a whole lot less risky.

 

[Sprocket]

Soma a la Huxley = Federally Prohibited Person...

 

[gunofthrones]

oxygen users are banned too.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

There's been some talk at the state of revoking firearms license of people who also hold medical cannabis cards the same way the state is doing for people with FLRB relief. But we haven't actually seen it happen. Again state and federal law are different and a firearms license is not, per se, possession of a firearm WRT 922.

A few years back Oregon sheriffs tried to deny carry permits to Oregon residents with medical cannabis cards. They lost all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court denied cert.

As a matter of principle, this is worth fighting.

 

[not new guy]

Federal legalization would be a good strategic reelection move.

 

[crispnipz]

I am aware of a MA certified instructor applicant who was denied because he holds a MA medical marijuana card. I think this is the tip of the iceberg.

Really? There is a prominent 2A attorney in MA (not sure if it's okay to name names here) who says on his website to call him if someone is denied an LTC because of a medical marijuana card. This instructor should really give the attorney a call!

An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time...

This is very interesting, I have been wondering how the law defines "user of" in reference to that question on the purchase form. If an otherwise-lawful and law-abiding firearms owners is at a bachelor party in Las Vegas where marijuana is legal at the state level, and one of their friends record and post a video of this person smoking marijuana and posts it on social media, is that enough to be an "inference of current use drawn from evidence of a recent use"? Furthermore, would the government or a government attorney seek to prosecute based on this?

Please clarify this " federal level GRANTED RIGHT.????

My right to keep and bear arms was never granted by any government, local, state or federal.

This is true and I should have clarified. Not granted by the federal government, granted by God. It was a knock at the state laws regulating (limiting) 2A when that should be the jurisdiction of the federal government per the Constitution.

Federal legalization would be a good strategic reelection move.

Oh I really hope so, the left's heads would truly explode!

 

[Frizzle Fry]

I could imagine someone inclined to break the law and smoke in the first place wouldn’t care much about lying to the government on a stupid form.

Now must be a pretty good time to be a smoker. It’s everywhere, popular opinion has turned in favor, and getting caught with it is no big deal in places like MA. No enforcement makes things a whole lot less risky.

I get that - and I'm pro recreational use. It's not even breaking the law to smoke in MA.

However, PSGWSP if you get screwed - zero sympathy if you knew you were committing fraud. At the rate the ATF gets called out for stupid crap, and the more-than-occasional LEO powertrip, not to mention the general disdain for lawful gun owners? Just not smart; sorry. Tax evaders can become PP, they don't get any sympathy for their rights being restricted. I think the most pro-pot judge is still gonna think anti-gun.

 

[Radtekk]

Alcohol has and is causing more problems than Marijuana. Yet, the failed .GOV can't seem to get it. What a pile of horse shit.

Get it? Sure they do. Care?

 

[brain_8972]

So let me make sure I have this right. The state can overstep the feds and deny me the right to buy a gun because of the way it looks, but the state doesn't have the power to let me legally purchase pot because of a federal law....

 

[Uzi2]

Really? There is a prominent 2A attorney in MA (not sure if it's okay to name names here) who says on his website to call him if someone is denied an LTC because of a medical marijuana card. This instructor should really give the attorney a call!



This is very interesting, I have been wondering how the law defines "user of" in reference to that question on the purchase form. If an otherwise-lawful and law-abiding firearms owners is at a bachelor party in Las Vegas where marijuana is legal at the state level, and one of their friends record and post a video of this person smoking marijuana and posts it on social media, is that enough to be an "inference of current use drawn from evidence of a recent use"? Furthermore, would the government or a government attorney seek to prosecute based on this?



This is true and I should have clarified. Not granted by the federal government, granted by God. It was a knock at the state laws regulating (limiting) 2A when that should be the jurisdiction of the federal government per the Constitution.



Oh I really hope so, the left's heads would truly explode!

Wrong again friend.....you need to do some serious and lengthy reading and get up to speed.

The 2A is a specific prohibition on the federal government from infringing in any way on the people's right to keep and bear arms. It places the right beyond the perview of the federal government. Every federal gun law is unnconstitutional.......every last damned one of them.

 

[Peicemaker]

This is why ANYONE, regardless of whether or not they own guns, was a moron for applying for a MMJ card. Talk about unnecessary and avoidable government oversight in your personal life... You don't tell the government when you buy a bottle of liquor or a pack of smokes, do ya? Stupid.

 

[Peicemaker]

Federal legalization would be a good strategic reelection move.

It would bring a whole new, and rather large, contingent of people who smoke weed and want it legal, but otherwise DGAF about politics or voting onto the trump train for 2020. Might bring over a bunch of center left people who's hatred of the drug war is central to their political ethos too.