quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
While I don't agree with it being illegal, this is simply enforcement of the law - Clear as day on a 4473 that it's illegal under Federal Law.

"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 of course Hawaii, being a liberal anti-gun state, would like to collect them all (the guns, that is).

The 4473 has to do with receiving a firearm, "You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by Federal or State law." I am sure there are specific laws about possession of both but the form 4473 doesn't have anything to do with firearms already in a person's possession.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
While I don't agree with it being illegal, this is simply enforcement of the law - Clear as day on a 4473 that it's illegal under Federal Law.

"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 of course Hawaii, being a liberal anti-gun state, would like to collect them all (the guns, that is).

But having a card isnt illegal only the use and having a card doesnt mean a person is using.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Don't people get prescriptions they elect not to fill?

Let that sink in a moment.

BATFE and now Honolulu have decided possession of what is essentially a prescription makes you a prohibited person.

Here in the State of Florida a Doctor cannot "Prescribe" medical cannabis, they can only make a "Recommendation" after taking a required course and becoming certified. That along with a Compassionate Use Card issued by the Dept of Health, you may then receive your medical cannabis from a Dispensary.

quote:

Originally posted by just1tym:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
Don't people get prescriptions they elect not to fill?

Let that sink in a moment.

BATFE and now Honolulu have decided possession of what is essentially a prescription makes you a prohibited person.

Here in the State of Florida a Doctor cannot "Prescribe" medical cannabis, they can only make a "Recommendation" after taking a required course and becoming certified. That along with a Compassionate Use Card issued by the Dept of Health, you may then receive your medical cannabis from a Dispensary.

And kiss your 10-.22 and Rem 870 and Jennings .25 goodbye?

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
This means medical marijuana cardholders cannot pass background check form 4473 and, therefore, cannot legally purchase a firearm.

Form 4473 asks if the would-be firearm purchaser is “an unlawful user of…marijuana.” No one who answers “yes” to that question can purchase a gun.

Yes, you can't purchase a firearm. But where does it say you can't own one?

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
While I don't agree with it being illegal, this is simply enforcement of the law - Clear as day on a 4473 that it's illegal under Federal Law.

"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 of course Hawaii, being a liberal anti-gun state, would like to collect them all (the guns, that is).

The 4473 has to do with receiving a firearm, "You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by Federal or State law." I am sure there are specific laws about possession of both but the form 4473 doesn't have anything to do with firearms already in a person's possession.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
This means medical marijuana cardholders cannot pass background check form 4473 and, therefore, cannot legally purchase a firearm.

Form 4473 asks if the would-be firearm purchaser is “an unlawful user of…marijuana.” No one who answers “yes” to that question can purchase a gun.

Yes, you can't purchase a firearm. But where does it say you can't own one?

18 USC 922 g, with irrelevant other prohibited categories of people removed, reads:

It shall be unlawful for any person— who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The phrase "possess in or affecting commerce" is using the typical stretched and twisted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to justify a federal prohibition of the possession of firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
So it's basically a federal violation.

Interesting that the City (effectively County) Police Chief is so fired up to enforce federal law.


-------------------------------------

No, he's fired up to confiscate guns. It is just handy for him that being a user of drugs (including weed) makes you a person who cannot possess a firearm under Federal law.

But, as Sig2340 noted, having the card isn't the same thing as having used weed. This may founder on that rock.

Fenris is right. He wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:


18 USC 922 g, with irrelevant other prohibited categories of people removed, reads:

It shall be unlawful for any person— who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The phrase "possess in or affecting commerce" is using the typical stretched and twisted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to justify a federal prohibition of the possession of firearms.

You saved me from typing that.

4473 mirrors the statute. The statute makes users of illegal drugs persons who may not possess firearms.

While I don't smoke anything or use any illegal drugs this seems retarded. Is it supposed to be a legitimist reason or more likely a reason to take away something a group of people doesn't agree with?

Wrong on many levels and a slippery slope.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
So it's basically a federal violation.

Interesting that the City (effectively County) Police Chief is so fired up to enforce federal law.

No, he's fired up to confiscate guns.

Exactly. Pretty transparent, too.

Hawaii's un-American attitude regarding the RKBA has caused me to lose all interest in ever visiting the place. To the point I wouldn't go for free.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:


18 USC 922 g, with irrelevant other prohibited categories of people removed, reads:

It shall be unlawful for any person— who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The phrase "possess in or affecting commerce" is using the typical stretched and twisted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to justify a federal prohibition of the possession of firearms.

You saved me from typing that.

4473 mirrors the statute. The statute makes users of illegal drugs persons who may not possess firearms.

Well that's straight up retarded.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
No, he's fired up to confiscate guns.

Of course that’s what it is (although I believe it’s a she).

What’s ironic is that unless Hawaii has a gun possession statute that’s essentially identical, a local police chief is using a Federal law for a local purpose. That might seem okay, but many local chiefs and sheriffs have justified their refusal to become involved in illegal immigration issues for that very reason: “We don’t enforce Federal law.”

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:


18 USC 922 g, with irrelevant other prohibited categories of people removed, reads:

It shall be unlawful for any person— who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The phrase "possess in or affecting commerce" is using the typical stretched and twisted interpretation of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to justify a federal prohibition of the possession of firearms.

You saved me from typing that.

4473 mirrors the statute. The statute makes users of illegal drugs persons who may not possess firearms.

I knew that the 4473 phrase would be based on laws (even if people don’t like it), thanks for inputting it.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

4473 mirrors the statute. The statute makes users of illegal drugs persons who may not possess firearms.

Well that's straight up retarded.

I don't think marijuana should be an illegal drug, that is for damn sure. As a libertarian, I have doubts that there should be any illegal drugs.

BUT, if you think some drugs should be illegal because they are dangerous and lead to all sorts of bad behavior, then making users of illegal drugs people who can't have guns seems reasonable, as a general rule - with, perhaps, some exceptions or carve-outs. Should meth-heads have guns?

Colorado now has retail sales to the general public. Much harder to police than a Med MMJ card.

As a Colorado LEO I cannot ask if an individual has a MMJ card. It is a class 2 misdemeanor for me to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
They picks and chooses.

Which is more dangerous? Gun owner that smokes ganja or illegal aliens?

Actually what is worse, a gun owner smoking the weed, or the gun owner knocking back fifths of Jack Daniels?

This is dumb. Many will just hand over the medical card and start buying their marijuana illegally from the local Chong.

Next it will be people on prescribed pain pills.

quote:

Originally posted by prefontaine:

< snip. >

Next it will be people on prescribed pain pills.

The .gov will have a hard time claiming use of prescribed analgesics (e.g., "pain pills") AS PRESCRIBED is the same as addiction. .Gov at all levels recognizes the difference in law, policies, and scientific studies.

Addiction is different from dependence. Addiction is the compulsive use of a chemical for its psychoactive effect (e.g., the rush that comes with shooting heroin or smoking crack). The addicted person does not use analgesics like hydrocodone as prescribed because at the prescribed dose is such there isn't a psychoactive response (e.g., a euphoric experience).

Dependence, however, is the state where the person has an adverse physiological response (not a psychological response) to cessation of ingestion of a chemical. For example, a Type I diabetic develops dependence on insulin in controlling their blood glucose concentration (BGC). Cease using the insulin and there is a corresponding rise in BGC which may have an adverse physiological consequence that affects the person.

quote:

Originally posted by scratchy:
Colorado now has retail sales to the general public. Much harder to police than a Med MMJ card.

Are you real sure about that? ID scanners at the door and about five million cameras. If that's not something that can be easily "policed" in any capacity of the word, I don't know what can be.

Last year the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that people could not be refused a CCW license based on the fact they own a medical MJ card.

http://www.green215.com/blog/o...-users-can-have-guns