Buying Legal Pot Will Get You On The Federal Database

[HuntMaine]

So? What's more important is that he is a high-profile individual who breaks this law, but is otherwise lawful. If the ATF wanted to send a message, they would nab him or someone like him.



It's not rolling the dice, nobody has been prosecuted for this and I doubt they would because:

1. they want distributors
2. they don't want to create a situation where some people get prosecuted for this and others don't

Millionaires have different rules. But good luck

 

[HuntMaine]

I spent 8 years there, but I was in a very remote area. Don't get get all in a ruffle about anecdotal strawman non-sequitur.

Ok so I’m only 23 years but they hand them out and people are prosecuted each year. I don’t like Ruffles I prefer Doritos

 

[crispnipz]

Millionaires have different rules. But good luck

You're right. But sometimes the govt can "make an example" out of a celebrity to discourage law-breaking. Like the British rapper who was just arrested by ICE.

 

[HuntMaine]

You're right. But sometimes the govt can "make an example" out of a celebrity to discourage law-breaking. Like the British rapper who was just arrested by ICE.

Nash I don’t see it. Dan has broken laws before and he just flies away in his Gulfstream. I have no doubt the ATF likely in a state mi Mass will make an example out of some poor SOB. That’s how mass rolls. Crucify a law abiding guy as they have before to scare the masses.

 

[firestorm]

You're right. But sometimes the govt can "make an example" out of a celebrity to discourage law-breaking. Like the British rapper who was just arrested by ICE.

The other side of it is if the ATF thinks the law is vulnerable at all they would want to only hit little people with it. Someone like him has the money and time to hire good lawyers, and appeal things as far as he has to. I don't know that's what is happening, but it is a thought.

 

[crispnipz]

Nash I don’t see it. Dan has broken laws before and he just flies away in his Gulfstream. I have no doubt the ATF likely in a state mi Mass will make an example out of some poor SOB. That’s how mass rolls. Crucify a law abiding guy as they have before to scare the masses.

That would have the opposite effect: It would embolden "the masses." You would get people protesting and whatnot. It could actually be a good thing to force this conversation more into the mainstream and force Trump's hand.

I find it interesting that you're so adamant in your position about this but neither you nor anyone else can provide a single example of a firearms owner, famous or not, being charged under this law for buying or possessing recreational marijuana in a legal state in compliance with that state's law. Colorado is relatively gun-friendly and has had recreational marijuana since 2012 I believe. I guarantee at least 1 person, just in Colorado, is a gun owner who has purchased and consumed from a recreational dispensary there.

The other side of it is if the ATF thinks the law is vulnerable at all they would want to only hit little people with it. Someone like him has the money and time to hire good lawyers, and appeal things as far as he has to. I don't know that's what is happening, but it is a thought.

Heller wasn't a rich guy as far as I know but he sure took the time and money to fight.

 

[firestorm]

That would have the opposite effect: It would embolden "the masses." You would get people protesting and whatnot. It could actually be a good thing to force this conversation more into the mainstream and force Trump's hand.

I find it interesting that you're so adamant in your position about this but neither you nor anyone else can provide a single example of a firearms owner, famous or not, being charged under this law for buying or possessing recreational marijuana in a legal state in compliance with that state's law. Colorado is relatively gun-friendly and has had recreational marijuana since 2012 I believe. I guarantee at least 1 person, just in Colorado, is a gun owner who has purchased and consumed from a recreational dispensary there.



Heller wasn't a rich guy as far as I know but he sure took the time and money to fight.

It doesn't always come down to that, but it is probably a consideration. I am not saying that's why this is being allowed in that case, it's just a possible scenario.

 

[HuntMaine]

That would have the opposite effect: It would embolden "the masses." You would get people protesting and whatnot. It could actually be a good thing to force this conversation more into the mainstream and force Trump's hand.

I find it interesting that you're so adamant in your position about this but neither you nor anyone else can provide a single example of a firearms owner, famous or not, being charged under this law for buying or possessing recreational marijuana in a legal state in compliance with that state's law. Colorado is relatively gun-friendly and has had recreational marijuana since 2012 I believe. I guarantee at least 1 person, just in Colorado, is a gun owner who has purchased and consumed from a recreational dispensary there.



Heller wasn't a rich guy as far as I know but he sure took the time and money to fight.

You just need to read the Ruling by BATF and the Form both we clear, very clear. I’m pointing that out but your argument since no one has been arrested it can’t be. Ok go with that good luck

 

[crispnipz]

You just need to read the Ruling by BATF and the Form both we clear, very clear. I’m pointing that out but your argument since no one has been arrested it can’t be. Ok go with that good luck

I have read the ruling and the purchase form. What I'm saying is that we have had 6 or so years of legal recreational pot in the USA and not a single person has been popped--why would they start now? Yes it's the letter of the law but in the same way a cop would generally not pull someone over for 1MPH over the speed limit, this would likely not be prosecuted unless there's another reason to.

 

[HuntMaine]

I have read the ruling and the purchase form. What I'm saying is that we have had 6 or so years of legal recreational pot in the USA and not a single person has been popped--why would they start now? Yes it's the letter of the law but in the same way a cop would generally not pull someone over for 1MPH over the speed limit, this would likely not be prosecuted unless there's another reason to.

I have no doubt that our AG will use this at some point to drive Chiefs to start categorizing those who have admited tonuaing or those that have Medical uses, non suitable. It would be easy, you violate Federal law, you’re unsuitable for A firearms license. Of course right now every Federal Employee or those that have jobs that require testing for security reasons are still screwed, period.

 

[kelton]

I have no doubt that our AG will use this at some point to drive Chiefs to start categorizing those who have admited tonuaing or those that have Medical uses, non suitable. It would be easy, you violate Federal law, you’re unsuitable for A firearms license. Of course right now every Federal Employee or those that have jobs that require testing for security reasons are still screwed, period.

How can the AG enforce Federal law and how does the AG control PD's if there's not a state law against it

 

[HuntMaine]

How can the AG enforce Federal law and how does the AG control PD's if there's not a state law against it

Very easy, if you break the federal law you can be classified as unsuitable. Similair in the way if you work for a Company in Mass who’s HQ requires a drug test. Doesn’t mean shit if Mass allows it. Plus if you lie on a transfer form it’s done in the state and again you could be found unsuitable. Frankly I could give a shit less about who and who doesn’t smoke but I could see them using it as a Trojan horse to restrict more. But like I said go for it.

 

[kelton]

Very easy, if you break the federal law you can be classified as unsuitable. Similair in the way if you work for a Company in Mass who’s HQ requires a drug test. Doesn’t mean shit if Mass allows it. Plus if you lie on a transfer form it’s done in the state and again you could be found unsuitable. Frankly I could give a shit less about who and who doesn’t smoke but I could see them using it as a Trojan horse to restrict more. But like I said go for it.

If I don't buy a gun (fill out the form) I haven't done anything illegal, unless there is something on the LTC (renewal) application regarding Cannabis I would say the AG would be SOL

 

[HuntMaine]

If I don't buy a gun (fill out the form) I haven't done anything illegal, unless there is something on the LTC (renewal) application regarding Cannabis I would say the AG would be SOL

Actually you break federal law by doing it anyway , the transfer is just one documented way to out you.

 

[kelton]

Actually you break federal law by doing it anyway , the transfer is just one documented way to out you.

Where did I say anything about a transfer, only renewal of LTC

 

[HuntMaine]

Where did I say anything about a transfer, only renewal of LTC

Purchase line 11E. Since you broke federal law you’d be unsuitable and your chief could deny you.

 

[kelton]

Purchase line 11E. Since you broke federal law you’d be unsuitable and your chief could deny you.

So I purchased a firearm in say 2016 (filled out the form), and I purchase Cannabis in 2019 the form is not a contract or a promise

 

[HuntMaine]

So I purchased a firearm in say 2016 (filled out the form), and I purchase Cannabis in 2019 the form is not a contract or a promise

So if you claimed you used you are in violation and if you lied and didn’t you’re in violation. Pretty simple but like I said smoke away. Personally I don’t and nor would I in these circumstances.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

.....and I just saw an article the other day... MA state officials baffled why the illegal market for mary jane is still so robust.

 

[kelton]

So if you claimed you used you are in violation and if you lied and didn’t you’re in violation. Pretty simple but like I said smoke away. Personally I don’t and nor would I in these circumstances.

If I didn't scan my ID in 2016 to buy Cannabis when I filled out the form (to purchase a firearm) but did scan my ID in 2019 to buy Cannabis, you're saying my signature (from 2016) is a felony 3 years later because I scanned my ID (2019) to purchase Cannabis

 

[HuntMaine]

If I didn't scan my ID in 2016 to buy Cannabis when I filled out the form (to purchase a firearm) but did scan my ID in 2019 to buy Cannabis, you're saying my signature (from 2016) is a felony 3 years later because I scanned my ID (2019) to purchase Cannabis

Duuuudddde. If you smoked and bought at anytime and didn’t say you did then you violated federal law. It’s really clear.

 

[kelton]

Duuuudddde. If you smoked and bought at anytime and didn’t say you did then you violated federal law. It’s really clear.

My example was not using not using in 2016 when the form was signed, but to start using in 2019, like I said the form is not a contract

 

[HuntMaine]

My example was not using not using in 2016 when the form was signed, but to start using in 2019, like I said the form is not a contract

Sure ok your right

 

[kelton]

CH 4 WBZ is doing some piece tonight @ 11 regarding mail order pot (Federal law vs. State repeal)

kinda weak I-Team: Post Offices Confiscate Record Number Of Marijuana Packages

 

[smokey-seven]

My example was not using not using in 2016 when the form was signed, but to start using in 2019, like I said the form is not a contract

Quite correct, but you can never buy another gun without committing perjury.

 

[Broc Tuah]

[

A lot of people smoking pot are young and probably never occurred to them they may want a gun someday. Should they ever realize the importance of being armed, it will be too late for them to retroactively change their mind about their prior pot habit.

I talked a co-worker out of getting a card for that reason. He keeps saying he will go get his LTC.

 

[Broc Tuah]

An article in the Boston Herald today said that the pot shop opening on Tuesday in Northampton will be using an ID scanner. A spokesperson for the shop is quoted as saying that the scanner will not store buyer information — maybe that is correct and maybe it is not.

I'm sure the scanner will not store any information. But where will it send that information?

That info will get stored, just not in the scanners internal memory.

So, the spokesperson wasnt lying.

 

[kelton]

Quite correct, but you can never buy another gun without committing perjury.

Correct

You would have to use the black market for your firearms purchases... oh the irony

 

[smokey-seven]

I'm sure the scanner will not store any information.

After personally investigating different scanners, they all store the data scanned. Where it goes from there is the question.

 

[HuntMaine]

Pot heads are funny.
Driver took hit off bong before crashing head-on into van, police say