Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nothing new here.
The old form wording went like this...
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
They are just clarifying that under federal law you are illegally using MJ even if it is legal in your state.
What's new is the clarification that all use is considered unlawful for the purpose of the application. And the expansion of reporting of MMJ permits to NICS which does not apply to any other form of treatments Doctors may prescribe.
And the expansion of reporting of MMJ permits to NICS which does not apply to any other form of treatments Doctors may prescribe.
Well, all the demands for "common sense" gun legislation to weed out the crazies should take care of that. Imagine a nationwide database of everyone who has a history of mental illness, treatment for depression, etc.
So should someone with a major mental disability or a convicted felon with a history of using a gun to commit crimes have the right to own a firearm?
Well, as for the first, how many are mentally ill in the country and have had access or who have owned guns and have not committed a crime with them?
As for the second, how do you know they will commit a crime again by owning one? They paid there debt did they not (if not, keep them jailed or kill them)? Are you saying they have no right to defend themselves?
You see, the problem here is that if there is no crime committed, you have no right restricting or limiting their liberties. Anything can be justified by considering the "potential" to do harm to another, but... restricting someone before they have is nothing short or being a criminal yourself, a criminal in violating the liberty of another all because you "think" they might harm another.
That leads us down a road of thought crimes and this is something that no person who respects liberty should every see as good.
The law is further clarified
Already vetted by the ninth
An excellent tool to be used on people who should not have firearms...which surprisingly are found at many if not most places where marijuana is grown illegally.
The law is further clarified
Already vetted by the ninth
An excellent tool to be used on people who should not have firearms...which surprisingly are found at many if not most places where marijuana is grown illegally.
People that drink alcohol should not have firearms.
Unconstitutional!!!
Shall not be infringed, just got infringed further.
The government has no authority to determine who has arms. It says people and is not specific for a reason. If it were specific it would take individual liberties.
EXACTLY!
More than 70% of violent crime has an alcohol component... so let's make potheads (the people that rarely commit violent crimes) pay for it!!
The FEDs have shown they can't hit the toilet let alone create and enforce fair laws.
notmeofficer: why are you even trying? The states are deciding the feds can screw themselves. Within a decade pot will be removed from the schedules and the stupid law abolished, along with millions of expunged records.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Just buy your gun off your neighbor, the local bulletin board, etc just like most people do.
The governments attempts at controlling people and everything is failing.
THIS^^^
Except, in most states you'll still have to use an FFA to legally buy said gun. If you do not, then both you and the neighbor are committing a felony.
...However the SCOTUS already affirmed that felons receive 5th Amendment protections for lying during the completion of a 4473...
Not questioning your statement, but do you have a case cite? (i.e. Doe v. US, [year])
My recollection of the 4473 is that it has the 18 USC 1001 warning at the end, and making an affirmative false statement to the government for the purpose of receiving something of value would pretty clearly meet all the elements of that offense. I'd be interested in what the Supremes used as a thought process.
The law is further clarified
Already vetted by the ninth
An excellent tool to be used on people who should not have firearms...which surprisingly are found at many if not most places where marijuana is grown illegally.
Not questioning your statement, but do you have a case cite? (i.e. Doe v. US, [year])
My recollection of the 4473 is that it has the 18 USC 1001 warning at the end, and making an affirmative false statement to the government for the purpose of receiving something of value would pretty clearly meet all the elements of that offense. I'd be interested in what the Supremes used as a thought process.
Thanks, R-3.
Haynes v. US 1968
The NFA only applies to those who may legally possess firearms. While a prohibited person may be prosecuted for possession of a firearm, they cannot be prosecuted for attempting to acquire through legal channels or failure to register where needed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
