New 4473 in the Mary Jane states....
- Thread starter alinwa
- Start date
Rubicon Prec.
New member
While I in no way think it is the government's business what you do to your own body, nor do I agree with forfeiting an inalienable right over that, 11e is a pretty simple yes or no question. The bold part of the question makes it very clear that marijuana is still unlawful in the eyes of the fed.
C
CMaier
Guest
the state has the true authority not the fed, it is how our country is built.
in this question the fed has not moved with the states.
i do not smoke, but do know of one case where the answer was listed
as a smoker, and of course it was denied.
i do not know if she appealed and let the state over ride.
i would assume most just do not tell the truth.
whole the fed has grown out of control, again
the state has the ultimate authority.
IMHO
in this question the fed has not moved with the states.
i do not smoke, but do know of one case where the answer was listed
as a smoker, and of course it was denied.
i do not know if she appealed and let the state over ride.
i would assume most just do not tell the truth.
whole the fed has grown out of control, again
the state has the ultimate authority.
IMHO
Ohh Yeahh...."simple yes or no" with a question structured by the Gub'mint...
Insert "beer" into the question f'rinstance and suddenly it aint so simple in some folks' mind.
Please understand that people out here smoke weed like the rest of the country drinks beer......Main st Battle Ground, the nearest town to me, the largest billboard on the strip is "Cannabis Country Store," glass cases full of prime bud.
So a guy pauses acros't the street to smoke a doob, legally, right out on front of the police station, comes in to buy a gun and sees this;
11-e
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.
And he asks me....."how do I answer this?"
What do you tell him?
(Also understand that there still ARE people like myself who don't lie for convenience)
you're a bigoted fellow aren't you......do you also comment on "fat people?"
Gents,
Technically, use of marijuana is not against federal law, as there is no federal law that prohibits use. Federal law covers possession, sales, transportation, etc. Now...one would logically infer to use, one would have to possess. Maybe not. Here in the people's republic, use of a controlled substance...take meth for example...is a misdemeanor (trouble), while possession is a felony (bigger trouble). In this case, our logical inference doesn't hold up. If it did, use would be a felony. To possess, you must have physical possession of a manipulative amount of the drug. By the way...the minimum weight/quantity of marijuana for a federal filing? 100 kilos or 100 plants.
As far as addicted to marijuana, I don't know that it has ever been proven to be addictive. And "are you addicted to" is kind of a subjective question. Good luck proving that. Lots of drug addicts and alcoholics out there that aren't addicted. Just ask them.
If you live in a state where marijuana use is legal, and you use it in accordance with the law, it's not unlawful.
Justin
Technically, use of marijuana is not against federal law, as there is no federal law that prohibits use. Federal law covers possession, sales, transportation, etc. Now...one would logically infer to use, one would have to possess. Maybe not. Here in the people's republic, use of a controlled substance...take meth for example...is a misdemeanor (trouble), while possession is a felony (bigger trouble). In this case, our logical inference doesn't hold up. If it did, use would be a felony. To possess, you must have physical possession of a manipulative amount of the drug. By the way...the minimum weight/quantity of marijuana for a federal filing? 100 kilos or 100 plants.
As far as addicted to marijuana, I don't know that it has ever been proven to be addictive. And "are you addicted to" is kind of a subjective question. Good luck proving that. Lots of drug addicts and alcoholics out there that aren't addicted. Just ask them.
If you live in a state where marijuana use is legal, and you use it in accordance with the law, it's not unlawful.
Justin
jackie schmidt
New member
This reminds me of all of the people who say that the Federal Income Tax is not constitutional and you don't have to pay them.
Just try NOT paying them.
There are two old truths that stand the test of time. 1: don't take advice on how to handle large Blue Crabs from someone with missing fingers,..2: don't take advice from someone about not paying axes who wrote the book from a Federal Prison cell.
Federal Law trumps State Law. It's that simple. However, the Federal Government, depending on the sway of the Justice Department, can choose not to enforce certain laws if it so chooses.
This is kinda what is going on with the pot laws, and to a great extent, the immigration laws.
Last edited:
Rubicon Prec.
New member
haha!
C
CMaier
Guest
show me where "income" is defined by the irs ?
show me where it says i have to file.
i have read the code it is not there.
to beat up on people the read the law the irs, with no court or rearing will impose
a 500 dollar civil penalty any time they want.
now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
show me where it says i have to file.
i have read the code it is not there.
to beat up on people the read the law the irs, with no court or rearing will impose
a 500 dollar civil penalty any time they want.
now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
Wow! Thank you, that is a really good answer which I can understand..... now, you say "technically" that the simple statement on the 4473 is wrong, flawed.....(the 4473 states that use or possession is unlawful)
So I can safely say that THERE IS NO FEDERAL LAW prohibiting use?
T
TRA
Guest
"NUTS" A truck driver was taking the chance of federal drug possession, if it was prescribed by his doctor and was in the truck drivers truck. NEVER LISTEN TO THOSE THAT SAY THEY CAN"T BUST YOU.
Like Jackie said...the fed trumps the state.............unless..... the state wants to trump the fed. Almost all drug and firearms laws are trumped both ways.
In truth, what FEDERAL gun ownership restrictions have been imposed on the shooting public over the last 8 years????????????? Most can do today things that were only a dream 8-10 years ago.
There's a whole lot of speculators who lost 10's of millions trying to monopolize the ohio pot distribution. Now the state is going to do it and make it available to any vendor who wants it.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
CMaier
Guest
there are some states that have taken on big brother.
guns built and sold in state do not require fed background check.
some states are doing this.
we need to continue to take power away from the fed.
you do that by not letting them control money..tax money.
guns built and sold in state do not require fed background check.
some states are doing this.
we need to continue to take power away from the fed.
you do that by not letting them control money..tax money.
Last edited:
jackie schmidt
New member
The only thing I can say is, .......try not paying your taxes. See what happens.
Gents,
OK...my bona-fides first. I'm rapidly approaching my 27th year as a deputy sheriff, most of which has been spent in drug/gang units, to include my present assignment for the past 10 years working a federal drug and gang task force with a very large federal agency. As a deputy sheriff, I am able to enforce state law, and as a special federal officer, I am able to enforce federal law. As such, I've done both, and spent quite a bit of time in and around both legal systems and have a pretty good idea of how they work, what will fly, what won't fly, etc. The above experience is what I based my opinion on.
My opinion, if you live in a state where it is legal to smoke marijuana and you partake in accordance to that particular state's law, you can, legally and with a clear conscience, check the "No" box on question 11e. My reasoning is detailed above. "Semantics" one might say, but the legal system is full of semantics. How may times have you heard "Got off on a technicality". A lot of those technicalities are trivial, semantic nonsense. Further, speaking from my experience in the Central District of California, if I took a case in which I alleged that a subject lied on his 4473 because he smoked weed as allowed in the state, and checked "No" on question 11e, the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) I tried to get to prosecute the case would throw me out of his office. Right on my head. And if, by chance, I got an AUSA to file such a case, the judge would throw both of us out of his courtroom. Right on our heads.
Prosecutors...especially those of the federal ilk...want, pardon the pun, "smoking gun" cases. A prosecution such as that above, in my opinion, is not one of those.
But I've been wrong before, so I made some calls. The first was to my brother, he too a police officer (Irish Welfare Program) of some 12 years, with a master's degree in criminal justice. He shared the same opinion as I.
One of my co-workers? Same thing.
Next, I called an AUSA I've worked with and presented the question to him. He said as worded, in the context of our discussion, 11e was "ambiguous", and my opinion had merit and was "defensible". He also said he would throw me out of his office if I brought him such a case. Right on my head. Other things he said of note was that there is no federal statute for use/under the influence of a controlled substance...and remember, 11e is worded "unlawful user", and that if a federal probationer/parolee fails a drug test, they will "allege" possession during the violation hearing. Technically, they could "allege" possession in our scenario, but see above comment about getting thrown out of his office. Also, there is an edict...at least in these parts...that the AUSA's office will not file on medical marijuana possession cases. The feds aren't too wound up about personal use marijuana. He did say, and I would agree, that 11e needs to be clarified in re: our scenario.
Last but not least, I called an ATF agent I know. He said the ATF's opinion on this was that "use" and "addiction" were the same thing, i.e., if you used, you were addicted, so despite the fact that it maybe legal in your state and you only smoke once a month, in the ATF's eyes, you were addicted. When I started laughing uncontrollably, he said, "I know. Try proving THAT in court". He agreed that there was a snowball's chance in hell of getting such a case filed.
I do know, given our original question, that if you answer yes, you will not be getting your gun.
TRA,
In re: your advice..."NUTS" A truck driver was taking the chance of federal drug possession, if it was prescribed by his doctor and was in the truck drivers truck. NEVER LISTEN TO THOSE THAT SAY THEY CAN"T BUST YOU", I'll refer you to a quote by Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president. He said...
..."Don't believe everything you read on the internet".
And gents...that is what I know.
Justin
Holey Freakin' KOWWW Justin..... now that's what I'm talkin' ABOUT!
Thank You.
You see I live in a state full of well-meaning stoopid people. We recently passed a law which in essence states "if you loan a shotgun to your bro-in-law for a spring turkey hunt you must go find an FFL and call in a background check on them first..."
So, a few things have happened.
#1, I've called in TONS of background checks (WITH the patients' express permission of course) to the FBI, they chastise me severiously and my meek and 'umble reply is "but thirr.....it's THE LAW in my state...."
#2, I'm a licensed Firearms Safety Instructor so we go to "IST's" (In Service Training) every now and again. At the last IST the deputy AG came in and told us all to "ignore the law!"
Of course me, being me, required it in writing.....a letter from the Attorney General stating that I'm above the law in this regard.
SOOOO, step number 2 in this liddle scenario I moved to the next logical level.....I live on a property which is adjudicated and sanctioned as a "range" for use by state funded and sanctioned Hunter Education classes..... ie "Range Days." And on this property we sometimes SHOOT, fam'blies and friends, kith and kin, inlaws and outlaws of all sorts and descriptions.....Heartbone Of America stuff. Kinda' like the Bocephus ranch...Sometimes we have apple pie, made from Gravenstein's, Auntie Evie's Secret Recipe.... and when we do this I asked, "Are We Still Exempt From The Law Of The State?" Can I hand my 12ga RemChester over to my beloved brother in law to bust some clays or do I need to call for permission first??
At this point the fellow(s) I've talked with have given up. Their "advice" is to "keep a low profile" which of course makes me turn around and shout it over a bullhorn. (I got the same advice when I went for my FFL to which my reply was (and is) "just let them TRY STOP ME!!"
I'm An American.
I Poke The Bear, every chance I get.
Because I believe in my heart that "All That's Required For Evil To Prevail Is That Good Men Do Nothing"
(If history repeats itself I'll get some PM's pleading with me to "keep it down on the innernet guy, cuz you're gonna' get us all in trouble!" )
LOL
al
Thank You.
You see I live in a state full of well-meaning stoopid people. We recently passed a law which in essence states "if you loan a shotgun to your bro-in-law for a spring turkey hunt you must go find an FFL and call in a background check on them first..."
So, a few things have happened.
#1, I've called in TONS of background checks (WITH the patients' express permission of course) to the FBI, they chastise me severiously and my meek and 'umble reply is "but thirr.....it's THE LAW in my state...."
#2, I'm a licensed Firearms Safety Instructor so we go to "IST's" (In Service Training) every now and again. At the last IST the deputy AG came in and told us all to "ignore the law!"
Of course me, being me, required it in writing.....a letter from the Attorney General stating that I'm above the law in this regard.
SOOOO, step number 2 in this liddle scenario I moved to the next logical level.....I live on a property which is adjudicated and sanctioned as a "range" for use by state funded and sanctioned Hunter Education classes..... ie "Range Days." And on this property we sometimes SHOOT, fam'blies and friends, kith and kin, inlaws and outlaws of all sorts and descriptions.....Heartbone Of America stuff. Kinda' like the Bocephus ranch...Sometimes we have apple pie, made from Gravenstein's, Auntie Evie's Secret Recipe.... and when we do this I asked, "Are We Still Exempt From The Law Of The State?" Can I hand my 12ga RemChester over to my beloved brother in law to bust some clays or do I need to call for permission first??
At this point the fellow(s) I've talked with have given up. Their "advice" is to "keep a low profile" which of course makes me turn around and shout it over a bullhorn. (I got the same advice when I went for my FFL to which my reply was (and is) "just let them TRY STOP ME!!"
I'm An American.
I Poke The Bear, every chance I get.
Because I believe in my heart that "All That's Required For Evil To Prevail Is That Good Men Do Nothing"
(If history repeats itself I'll get some PM's pleading with me to "keep it down on the innernet guy, cuz you're gonna' get us all in trouble!" )
LOL
al
T
TRA
Guest
I'll defer you to a quote by Tra, Never believe anything a cop tells you.
The problem we are seeing with this legalized dope is that any doper will proclaim pot is harmless, just as any truck driver working over 100 hours a week will tell you taking prescription drugs are harmless in his case.
BTW did you claim
Federal or not it's a violation of the law. Maybe not on a reservation or some hill in OR, but it is in my world.
Don't try to tell the leos and judges where I live that, as they bust guys for handling a firearm under disability regularly.