ATF says pot users cannot own, buy guns
This is a discussion on ATF says pot users cannot own, buy guns within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; It's really the DEA who shamelessly continues (for political reasons) to keep it classified as a Schedule-I narcotic which has no legitimate medicinal use.
September 30th, 2011 11:23 PM
It's really the DEA who shamelessly continues (for political reasons) to keep it classified as a Schedule-I narcotic which has no legitimate medicinal use.
The medicinal usage has been well documented for several decades now and the drug really should be reclassified as a Schedule-II or Schedule-II narcotic.
The DEA had an opportunity to re-classify it recently, and chose not to because of all the bogus medical claims popping up in California. A bunch of young drug abusers claiming need because of glaucoma or chronic back pain with no evidence to support their claims yet unscrupulous doctors are writing them prescriptions anyway.
So DEA said, nope. It's still a Schedule-I. Also, they have a large tobacco lobby pressuring them to keep it classified as it is.
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
October 1st, 2011 12:44 PM
Id like to point on, Depending on how many pot users light up a day, they are prob stoned out of their mind all day depending on how much they consume? Whats the point to say oh dont worry you can possess a firearm while not under the influence but dont even think about touching your firearm while you are high, There is no way to regulate it, their is no way to regulate medical pot either, I live in Montana and Im tired of reading in the newspapers of kids getting caught in school with pot that they got from their parents that are medical users or sellers to medical users! Their are other medical means out their besides pot, like my post or bash it, I dont care. Im tired of the state and federal gov not regulating it.
“What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pike
October 1st, 2011 04:03 PM
In my area I read about kids taking those other drugs from their parents. Instead of going after people who are acting responsibly maybe we should go after those parents and those kids who are not?
Originally Posted by guardmt
This is the same argument the antis use to go after guns. Go after the guns instead of only the people that abuse them.
October 2nd, 2011 12:18 AM
We all know that in the last 40 years American ingenuity and commercial focus have greatly increased the potentcy of "cannabis". Say what you will, todays weed is a very potent, psyhco-active drug. I have no problem keeping "weed" as a control'd substance, and I believe it should be more of a focus for enforcment especially on the road and operating vehicles...The fact is you cannot earn a family wage job, operate trucks commercially on the streets, or work in transportation, or in the chemical industry, in most refinerys, hold a licence granted by the Federal government, or dam near anything else that is important and matters in public and use weed. MY problem is a Federal agency, BATF claiming the right to "regulate" to convert state rights..I live in a State that has voted a number of times to legalize medical use..Im sure Washington and California and Oregon will work this out to thier satisfaction.
Medical weed users can't buy a new gun from a FFL dealer ?? OK , isnt that a question on the paperwork for a new pistol...you a user ? SO WHAT
October 2nd, 2011 12:23 AM
Am I missing something? I filled out the forms yesterday and as I recall the drug question asks if you are "addicted".
"Give a man a fishk, an' 'e'll eat fer a day. Teachk 'im ta fight, an' 'e'll feast on da meaty marrow of hisk foes fer a lifetime!"
- Coxswain Ulrich
October 3rd, 2011 12:40 PM
I saw the question being asked as to why the federal commerce laws come into effect when something is grown within a state.
It's very simple. The plants, and their finished product were banned in their entirety. That means, they were supposed to have been destroyed. If that was not done, then anything remaining, remained in violation of federal law.
That means, any state that allows for medical marijuana, had to obtain it illegally. At least according to the laws on the federal books. There is nothing complicated as to why having marijuana is illegal in the US. Irregardless of any individual state's standpoint.
As a few have already stated, it doesn't matter if marijuana has any legitimate uses. It is banned by the federal government, and a federal law enforcement agency is enforcing that law. Right or wrong, it is what it is because the elected officials passed a law. A law that has not been struck down, or repealed.
October 4th, 2011 12:58 AM
Originally Posted by Sig 210
Barkin' is right in that it is the placement of medical marijuana on the schedule of drugs that triggers the ban and the stripping of 2A from medical marijuana users.
Originally Posted by Bark'n
The local "entertainment" papers here have lots of ads about contacting doctors and getting the best special on medical marijuana. Not doubting that there are recreational users who claim a medical need. But there is little need to fabricate a diagnosis if doctors of questionable ethics are prescribing medical marijuana for any little thing.
Do you have a supporting link, etc.?
It's interesting that there is such a weak rationale for outlawing marijuana. From various sources on Wikipedia:
The people that studied marijuana during the legislation said that making possession of small amounts of it a crime is not good law.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was enacted into law by the Congress of the United States as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
. The legislation created five Schedules (classifications), with varying qualifications for a substance to be included in each.
In the 1970s, many places in the United States started to abolish state laws and other local regulations that banned possession or sale of cannabis. The same thing happened with cannabis sold as medical cannabis in the 1990s. All this is in conflict with federal laws; cannabis is a Schedule I drug according to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified cannabis as having high potential for abuse, no medical use, and not safe to use under medical supervision. Multiple efforts to reschedule cannabis under the Act have failed, and the United States Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop and Gonzales v. Raich that upholds the federal government's regulation and criminalization of cannabis, even for medical purposes.
Part F of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
established the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse—known as the Shafer Commission after its chairman, Raymond P. Shafer—to study marijuana abuse in the United States. During his presentation of the commission's First Report to Congress, Shafer recommended the decriminalization of marijuana in small amounts, saying:
[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance.
Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
October 4th, 2011 04:58 AM
If you take a deep breath of fresh air, you might notice that the political hysteria that some factions raise about DRUGS is
remarkably similar to the hysteria which not-so-coincidentally a lot of the same factions are always trying to gin up over GUNS.
I do not recognize any legitimate authority of the the Federal or State government to dictate what I MUST put into my body,
or what I MAY NOT put into my body.
Whether it is alcohol, vaccines, pot, heroin, vitamin B-12, or Dr Zeus' Magic Elixir....
I do not recognize any legitimate authority of the Federal or State government to dictate what weapons I may or may not
own, carry, or utilize in a responsible manner.
Do you drug warriors REALLY believe that every, or even MOST drug users are smoking, snorting, popping, and shooting up
and so totally insensible all day, every day? That is just about the exact argument that the Anti-Saloon League, and the WCTU
had in stampeding the country into the disaster that was Alcohol Prohibition. How did that work out for us?
Freedom is dangerous. Adults manage automobiles, alcohol, prescription opiates, power tools, and heavy motor vehicles.
Some people screw up, and people die. People always die.
Sometimes we can hammer someone who is blameworthy, but sometimes the only person suffering is the person who made bad decisions....
It is the height of arrogance to get between a person and the consequences TO HIMSELF, of his own actions.
Children demand that their mommy take away the scary monsters of alcohol, heroin, marijuana, guns,
and most importantly FREEDOM and make everything safe. Only children believe that the world CAN be made safe.
I wish that this were only a harmless matter of discussion, but The drug war is using BILLIONS of our tax dollars every year,
and doing far more damage than it prevents.
October 4th, 2011 01:20 PM
And if it were legal today, like it was back in the 1700/1800s, then we wouldn't have people bashing in heads. The only reason they do it now is because prohibition has made it expensive and profitable. Take away the profit, take away the motivation to kill for it. Worked back in 1933 and it would work today, but too many organizations see their bottom lines getting hit, so they keep up the lobby pressure.
Originally Posted by guardmt
Search tags for this page
atf marijuana ban
atf says medical pot users can't buy guns
atf strips away gun rights for pot smokers
can i buy a gun in texas with a marijuana arrest
federal atf says mmj users can?t carry weapons
marijuana and federal and own gun
medical marijuana users can't buy guns, atf says
medicial maj ijuana ant btaf
mi marijuana gun laws
michigan marijuana gun law
nra medical marijuana
nra medical marijuna law
Click on a term to search for related topics.