Democrats want to Legalize Marijuana

[Route 45]

I just question those who do both; or would do both. I am just curious what is more important to some; their 2nd amendment or freedom to smoke pot. Unless the feds change the law, you cannot buy and use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see form 4473 referenced in the 2nd Amendment.

With several of the states basically telling the federal governent to go **** itself with regards to marijuana legality, should the citizens therein not share a similar sentiment towards the feds with respect to the abridgment of their natural second amendment rights via the same marijuana prohibition?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Are the laws meant to stop use or sale, to police what gets done inside the home or attempt to prevent setting up in the business of feeding off the misfortunes of others

People mentioned using weed as an excuse to search a vehicle, but are you allowed to use intoxicating substances behind the wheel?

And do you think LE would be so anxious to search the vehicles of pot smokers unless it was quite likely that they were involved in more than just 'personal freedom'? I think if only one out of a hundred had other contraband that they wouldn't bother, but I read about traffic stops that uncover large quantities of drugs just about every week

You don't have to be smoking it for a dog or depending on the MJ/amount/packaging for a person to smell it. I believe you mentioned you imbibe in alcohol once in a while, and not knocking you for that. But do you have a nip or two between the store and home? Or perhaps the person driving is a designated driver and passenger(s) are having a puff or two on the way to the bar or perhaps the nearest Taco Bell and/or White Castle?

Heck you don't even have to smoke it or have ever transported it in your car for an K-9 to get a hit on it. Parked in a parking lot and in the next car over they're toking up and the winds blowing towards your car...

Why are some LE so quick to arrest someone with nothing else on them?

Can we change this example to pineapple? The thought is disturbing. And people who like pineapple are weird anyway. I’m sure there are way more “pineapple” people who would shove pineapple up their asses than “coconut” people.

One plus is the pineapple has a handle for extraction a la gerbil v hamster.

 

[Ziggidy]

I think this is perhaps the first time I've read on INGO that your 2nd amendment rights are only valid if you fill out a 4473. I thought natural right and all that.

If I wanted to smoke weed and wanted to buy guns and didn't want to lie on a form, I'd just buy guns from individuals and bypass the 4473. No need to lie on the form, conundrum escaped.

I truly believe you know the point I was making. As I stated before, there are other ways to obtain a gun; however, you cannot legally buy a gun that requires a 4473 completed - IF - you smoke pot, regardless if the states says it is ok.

Is that clearer?

I don't care if y'all like pot, I never said it should remain illegal. I said I was not for it but never said the law should never change. I was just posing the question to all those who favor the law change how they would handle the 4473 question. I never expected an answer but wanted to see the hypocrisy of claiming what a "legal gun owner" would mean to some.

Allot of sidestepping and allot of conversation direction change. So many circles, so little time.

 

[Ziggidy]

I don't see form 4473 referenced in the 2nd Amendment.

With several of the states basically telling the federal governent to go **** itself with regards to marijuana legality, should the citizens therein not share a similar sentiment towards the feds with respect to the abridgment of their natural second amendment rights via the same marijuana prohibition?

I think if anyone really read my posts, they would know what I am speaking about. I am not defending the legalization of pot nor am I supporting any change to legalize it.

I just find it interesting to see people get weirded out when asked about lying on the 4473 form. Try to figure out if a local misdemeanor is more important than a federal offense.

 

[KLB]

I think if anyone really read my posts, they would know what I am speaking about. I am not defending the legalization of pot nor am I supporting any change to legalize it.

I just find it interesting to see people get weirded out when asked about lying on the 4473 form. Try to figure out if a local misdemeanor is more important than a federal offense.

You keep asking that as if we would be going out and smoking. I for one would not, so your question is meaningless. Most people don't buy guns, so for them it would be meaningless as well. I imagine those that do both would lie.

Which brings to mind, I wonder why the Ds haven't tried legalizing it at the national level. Seems like their is enough support for them to try it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I truly believe you know the point I was making. As I stated before, there are other ways to obtain a gun; however, you cannot legally buy a gun that requires a 4473 completed - IF - you smoke pot, regardless if the states says it is ok.

Is that clearer?

Clearer than:

I am just curious what is more important to some; their 2nd amendment or freedom to smoke pot. Unless the feds change the law, you cannot buy and use.

But I don't really understand your point. That you'd have to lie on a 4473 as it stands now to smoke weed and buy at an FFL? Did anyone claim otherwise? I think Phylo answered you pretty well. If it's legalized at the federal level, the question would go away most likely. If it's legalized at the state level but not the federal level, you'll either have to lie or to buy guns either way. You somehow tied that to the 2nd amendment and which is more important.

Try to figure out if a local misdemeanor is more important than a federal offense.

What changes if it's legalized at the state level? Instead of both you just get the second? Again, I'm not sure what point you think you're making. Do you think the misdemeanor is what's keeping us from smoking weed right now?

 

[jamil]

I truly believe you know the point I was making. As I stated before, there are other ways to obtain a gun; however, you cannot legally buy a gun that requires a 4473 completed - IF - you smoke pot, regardless if the states says it is ok.

Is that clearer?

I don't care if y'all like pot, I never said it should remain illegal. I said I was not for it but never said the law should never change. I was just posing the question to all those who favor the law change how they would handle the 4473 question. I never expected an answer but wanted to see the hypocrisy of claiming what a "legal gun owner" would mean to some.

Allot of sidestepping and allot of conversation direction change. So many circles, so little time.

I don’t see why this question is controversial or potentially exposing hypocrisy.

There’s a difference between “should be” and “is”. On a gun forum, I’m pretty sure everyone pretty much has a disfavorable opinion of the 4473. It should not be the law. But it is. Marijuana being illegal should not be the law. But it is.

So, if Indiana made Marijuana legal, how would that impact that question on the 4473? Well that’s federal. I thinknwhat your question gets at, is that you seem to assume that the people who want to legalize MJ actually want it for selfish reasons, because they want to smoke it themselves, legally.

I don’t drink alcohol and I don’t take drugs. I think people should be free to do so, but with the only restriction, as long as doing so does not infringe on other people’s rights. Drink all the alcohol you want. You should get buried under the courthouse if you drive impaired, for example, and harm someone else. Same goes with Marijuana.

It’s as everyone else has said, if you do smoke, and it’s legal here, and that question is on the 4473, you have a dilemma. Either don’t smoke pot or don’t buy guns, or buy a gun from a private individual so that you don’t have to break the law by lying on the form.

 

[jamil]

I think if anyone really read my posts, they would know what I am speaking about. I am not defending the legalization of pot nor am I supporting any change to legalize it.

I just find it interesting to see people get weirded out when asked about lying on the 4473 form. Try to figure out if a local misdemeanor is more important than a federal offense.

Can you list the people who are weirded out? I missed those. What I have seen is a few people who have answered the question. It’s really not that big a deal. You can believe that mj should be legal while simultaneously believing that you shouldn’t lie on a government form.

 

[phylodog]

I just find it interesting to see people get weirded out when asked about lying on the 4473 form. Try to figure out if a local misdemeanor is more important than a federal offense.

The only thing weirding people out is your repeated demand that someone provide you an answer you can attack. Whether your intention or not, your repeated question comes across like a trap you're hoping someone will fall into, particularly considering it's insignificance to the topic being discussed.

 

[Leadeye]

Every towed vehicle must be searched, although technically it's an "inventory" and not a search. The differences are only relevant in the realm of case law. In common parlance, both are searches.

That said, the whole OVWI thing is another red herring. I note alcohol is legal yet driving while drunk is not. Making possession of marijuana and sale of marijuana legal does not change OVWI statues. Note OVWI also applies to prescribed medicines, which are also legal. Nobody is advocating for repeal of OVWI laws.

Did not know that. A 30 foot motorhome beached at the end of my county road was towed Saturday evening. Even with a hazmat suit I wouldn't want to be the guy doing the search on that one.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Every towed vehicle must be searched, although technically it's an "inventory" and not a search. The differences are only relevant in the realm of case law. In common parlance, both are searches.

That said, the whole OVWI thing is another red herring. I note alcohol is legal yet driving while drunk is not. Making possession of marijuana and sale of marijuana legal does not change OVWI statues. Note OVWI also applies to prescribed medicines, which are also legal. Nobody is advocating for repeal of OVWI laws.

OVWI applies to OTC meds as well correct? Along with pretty much everything else that can be intoxicating.

And I've wondered something about vehicle inventories. If there is a locked case they force it open if they don't have the key to inventory the contents? Or would they just inventory a locked case?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

OVWI applies to OTC meds as well correct? Along with pretty much everything else that can be intoxicating.

And I've wondered something about vehicle inventories. If there is a locked case they force it open if they don't have the key to inventory the contents? Or would they just inventory a locked case?

IC 9-13-2-86"Intoxicated"

Sec. 86. "Intoxicated" means under the influence of:

(1) alcohol;

(2) a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1);

(3) a drug other than alcohol or a controlled substance;

(4) a substance described in IC 35-46-6-2 or IC 35-46-6-3;

(5) a combination of substances described in subdivisions (1) through (4); or

(6) any other substance, not including food and food ingredients (as defined in IC 6-2.5-1-20), tobacco (as defined in IC 6-2.5-1-28), or a dietary supplement (as defined in IC 6-2.5-1-16);

so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of a person's faculties.


****
Strictly an inventory, we would not force a locked container. I'm honestly not sure the current state of case law on it, but personally if I'm breaking something I'm seeking a warrant first absent a very unique set of circumstances. Puppies just got locked in an airtight container sort of unique circumstances.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The only thing weirding people out ...

And the coconut thing.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Strictly an inventory, we would not force a locked container. I'm honestly not sure the current state of case law on it, but personally if I'm breaking something I'm seeking a warrant first absent a very unique set of circumstances. Puppies just got locked in an airtight container sort of unique circumstances.

Thanks much. That's kinda what I figured.

 

[BugI02]

If it becomes legal by federal law, why would they - or better yet - what justification would the feds have for keeping the question on the form? If it's legal there would be no unlawful users so the question no longer makes sense.

Why would you think it would be removed rather than altered?

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.

I would expect it winds up just being altered to:

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

That would include alcohol, by the way. Get an OMVI and the case could be made, and in fact has been where maintaining a clearance is concerned, that you are 'addicted' to a depressant (alcohol is a CNS depressant). I don't see why legalization should alter that trajectory if your impairment is weed rather than alcohol

RKBA will remain a right under attack from the left regardless of MJs status and that clause IMO would be too potentially useful for them to drop it entirely. You have only to look at the worst of the 'red flag' laws in deep blue states to see they would cheerfully strip that right from the 'wrong' people who run afoul of the law, why would you think they would treat your ability to purchase firearms any differently

 

[BugI02]

Every single one of these pot threads turns out the same.

Indeed



Do they have woad in Indiana?

 

[BugI02]

Ultimately, in the end, it's killing us all.

Spend the first nine months of their life trying to get out of it and then the rest of their life trying to get back in it

 

[Ziggidy]

The only thing weirding people out is your repeated demand that someone provide you an answer you can attack. Whether your intention or not, your repeated question comes across like a trap you're hoping someone will fall into, particularly considering it's insignificance to the topic being discussed.

I’m not trying to trap anyone. As I said, I didn’t expect an answer.

Nothing will change if it is legalized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[phylodog]

Why would you think it would be removed rather than altered?

I would expect it winds up just being altered to:

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

That would include alcohol, by the way. Get an OMVI and the case could be made, and in fact has been where maintaining a clearance is concerned, that you are 'addicted' to a depressant (alcohol is a CNS depressant). I don't see why legalization should alter that trajectory if your impairment is weed rather than alcohol

RKBA will remain a right under attack from the left regardless of MJs status and that clause IMO would be too potentially useful for them to drop it entirely. You have only to look at the worst of the 'red flag' laws in deep blue states to see they would cheerfully strip that right from the 'wrong' people who run afoul of the law, why would you think they would treat your ability to purchase firearms any differently

I don't think a case can be made that someone is addicted to anything based on one instance of use. I wholeheartedly agree that the left will never stop coming for our RKBA. My point was that if MJ was legalized like alcohol it would be dropped from the controlled substance list altogether. Alcohol is a drug but it isn't one of the scheduled narcotics.

 

[Brad69]

MJ should be taxed and regulated like tobacco.

The ATF would do there thing keeping it in order.

You still would not be allowed to use it if in a regulated industry/Job.

Issue solved!