Weed and guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
HiBC I agree that my howling at the moon will not change anything, other than making me feel better and the neighbors nervous. I also agree that we have to know the law, especially if it is pernicious and oppressive. This one really gripes me. Ok, I am done now.:o
 
IMO,the discussion of pot vs booze vs prescription drugs,the war on drugs,etc is all a waste of keystrokes.Its all opinion.It won't take the handcuffs off.
Click to expand...
And that's the reality we have to deal with at the moment.

Is marijuana all that bad? Should it be taken off Schedule 1? Those questions are pretty much outside the scope of this forum.

However, if we want to clear up the huge potential legal liability this poses on users in states in which it's "legal," the only way to do that is to fix the situation on the federal level.
 
There will always be choices in our lives that we must make. I love a cold beer with my roasted peanuts at the steakhouse. I leave my guns at home because of the ccw laws. My wife doesn't drink and she also has her license so our protection is in her hands. Maybe that is selfish of me but it's the truth.

When I was young and visited family in Colorado and Wyoming we would hike up the mountains and get our rocky Mountain high. I must admit the higher elevation had a extra effect on this flatlander. Now I have a family and those things are just memories. After a successful elk hunt I would love to sit on the side of the mountain with my peace pipe and take in the moment. I don't do it because I'm a responsible person who obeys the law and teach my kids to do the same wether I agree with it or not. With today's technology there is no excuse in not knowing the law in the area you live.

Life isn't fair and of course the powers that be will never be fair. I love my family and I love my guns so I do everything in my power to protect them.
 
I am not a lawyer, but from what I have read in Federal law it appears that if a person has not used marijuana within the past year of purchasing a firearm, then he is not considered a "current user" and did not lie on Form 4473. Evidence of such use may include a conviction or drug test during the past year, that is, the year before the transfer. If a person started using a drug after the firearm transfer it does not appear to be an issue with respect to having previously signed Form 4473 before drug use.

I have not been able to find any Federal laws pertaining to simple possession of both firearms and marijuana, except in the case of drug trafficking. Does anyone know if such laws exist, assuming the firearm is legal and the drugs and firearms are not both physically on the person, or involved in a drug trafficking crime?
 
b92fs said:
Boy, you guys worry about a lotta' CRAP! Screw the Feds/laws! People been shoot'n and partying for years, isn't gonna' stop because of some court decision!
Click to expand...
Well, yes ... some of us seem to hold the antiquated idea that in a nation of laws a good citizen obeys the laws. The concept of a civilized society is that the body of laws is a social contract -- by living in the society, we agree to follow the laws. ALL the laws, not just the laws we are willing to agree to.

The fact that some people have been shooting and smoking for years doesn't in any way make that legal, or even a good idea.

My great grandfather was a professor of law. I was raised with the attitude that if I didn't like a law, rather than ignore it I should work to get it changed or revoked. So far I'm 2 for 3 on that approach -- I have been actively involved in getting two stupid laws repealed in my state. I'm currently working on a municipal ordinance, but it's not going well. I think it's going to drop my batting average to .667 -- which would be great for baseball, but it's not so great when dealing with dumb laws.
 
Did you guys ever notice that the .gov needed a Constitutional Amendmendment to make alcohol illegal, but there was no such Amendment for drugs?
 
Only in the US. Other places alcohol has been made illegal much more easily.

It goes to consensus opinions on both. The teetotalers ran counter to the wide spread belief that alcohol should be legal. The moral brigades had to pony up a lot of political pull to make it illegal. When pot was made illegal there was wide spread agreement at the time that pot should be illegal.

Undoubtedly some of this was based on faulty information. Just recently the slightest of majorities nationwide are in favor of legalizing dope.
 
Old Bill Dibble said:
....It goes to consensus opinions on both. The teetotalers ran counter to the wide spread belief that alcohol should be legal. The moral brigades had to pony up a lot of political pull to make it illegal. When pot was made illegal there was wide spread agreement at the time that pot should be illegal.

Undoubtedly some of this was based on faulty information. Just recently the slightest of majorities nationwide are in favor of legalizing dope.
Click to expand...
Laws, the conventions of society, notions of what is or is not proper or appropriate behavior will always be something of a hodgepodge.

Human society is made up of.....surprise.....humans. Human beings will behave as human beings -- sometimes non-rationally and influenced in varying degrees by emotions, beliefs, hopes, fears, values, wants and needs. And each person's spectrum of emotions, beliefs, hopes, fears, values, wants and needs will be in some ways more or less different from that of everyone else.

It's been thus since we started to walk erect, and it's not going to change. We can accept that, try to understand it as best we can, and look for ways to deal with reality. Or we can be frustrated when things don't work out the way we'd like them to because the world isn't constituted the way we think it should be.
 
Just for a little history, that plant was once raised as a cash crop. Not to smoke folks it was used to make a fine rope. Hence the expression, " Smoke a rope.".

Now some of us just having a little fun or having need of it for medical reasons find yourselves barred for life from bearing arms. Not that I agree with that little legal quirk of law, quite the opposite. Changing that law is going to be a tough row to hoe.
 
One can have a prescription for a number of mind altering pain relievers and still legally buy firearms. Does the same apply to the other mind altering chemicals used to relieve the symptoms of insomnia, depression, hyperactivity and other treatable emotional disorders?
 
Can they completely "remove" it without congress or just reclassify it as a ll or lll?
Click to expand...

If they completely remove a federal ban they will be in violation of the Single Convention of Narcotic Substances that identifies THC by name as well as other international conventions. The exception would be if it were classified to include a medical usage and place it on a different level of schedule. Currently it has not been approved to treat any known condition or disease at the Federal Level.

It would also still be illegal for importation without a change to Federal Code 21 USC 802.

Actually, it isn't. The DEA can remove it from Schedule 1 with the stroke of a pen. The President has the authority to order that.
Click to expand...

Actually the DEA can't. The AG is the only one with the authority to change the drug schedule. I guess the President could order the AG to change it. See USC 21 811. That part of the code also covers the reasoning for changing the schedule the AG is supposed to use a guideline.
 
steve4102 said:
Can they completely "remove" it without congress or just reclassify it as a ll or lll?
Click to expand...
Under the Controlled Substances Act (specifically 21 USC 811(a)) Congress granted the Attorney General the authority to adopt regulations in conformity with the Administrative Procedures Act (5 USC, Chapter 5, subchapter II) regarding or changing the scheduling of controlled substance, including removing a controlled substance from all schedules.

Twenty-one USC 811 (b)and (c) set out the procedures for evaluating controlled substances for the purposes of placing them in a schedule and factors to be considered.
 
Old Bill Dibble said:
....Actually the DEA can't. The AG is the only one with the authority to change the drug schedule....
Click to expand...
The DEA reports to the AG as an agency in the Department of Justice and is primarily responsible for enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. So the DEA would be the agency conducting the rule making.
 
My point being the DEA can't do it with the stroke of a pen. The AG is required by law to be the one doing it.
Click to expand...
My bad. The irony is, from the current administration's viewpoint, this would be an easy win and legacy builder.

It's not like they're afraid of throwing executive orders around, and this would have greased the wheel for many voters. I'm still wondering why they didn't take the opportunity.

Unless, of course, they'd have to go back and support a new law banning gun ownership to those ingesting a (now) legal substance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top