It’s Complicated: The conflicting laws around guns and weed

Submitted by CTInsideInvestigator t3_11jztxt in Connecticut

Connecticut’s laws regarding firearms and marijuana are moving in one direction, while the federal government and the federal court system are either at odds with those laws or moving in the opposite direction.

So, what does all this mean for a resident in Connecticut, where one can legally purchase and use marijuana either for medicinal or recreational use, but that same substance remains illegal at the federal level, who wishes to obtain a pistol permit or purchase a firearm?

https://insideinvestigator.org/its-complicated-the-conflicting-laws-around-guns-and-weed/

17

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

phunky_1 t1_jb5phb8 wrote

I would rather have someone who smoked weed owning a gun than an alcoholic.

The federal government stance on this is dumb IMO.

40

Fiend_Nixxx t1_jb6jzdn wrote

Exactly. And let's not forget legal prescriptions for narcotics. I'll take the weed smoking gun owner over the legal xanax and legal alcohol purchase one any day.

10

happyinheart t1_jb5ve6e wrote

The fact is Connecticut's government just wants to do everything it can to prevent any type of gun ownership.

Connecticut: Weed is illegal federally, but we will allow dispensaries to open and sell it recreationally

Also Connecticut: Owning guns and using weed is illegal we must enforce these laws.

It's already one of the most expensive states to obtain a permit, which must be held to purchase any firearm or ammunition. Also the state law says that police departments have 60 days to approve or deny a permit application but multiple governors and attorney generals have shown no interest in enforcing this law on police departments. Some process the paperwork promptly and you have your permit in 2 weeks. Some sit on it for 6 months or longer.

21

M3lusky t1_jb6rlaz wrote

Was an 8 month turnaround when I got mine years ago. It's inexcusable. Happily, these anti-freedom fucks have been getting their asses blasted in the courts post Bruen.

10

Justinontheinternet t1_jbbpd1n wrote

9 months for me 6 months for my wife. Never committed a crime never been late on taxes. So much for 8 week issue or deny that's literally embedded within our constitution.

3

Pruedrive t1_jb51wyg wrote

They will (probably) revise the state transfer paperwork to take out language about weed.. but you'll still be more than likely committing perjury on the federal forms if you partake in the devils lettuce, and want to obtain a firearm.

It's a interesting time to be alive, why cannabis federally remains in the same schedule of drugs as heroin, is well beyond me. Why we use this as a discriminator for who can exercise this right is equally as baffling.

18

Mathews1297 t1_jb55okr wrote

From my understanding, in the atf application it asks if you are a user or had been a user of illegal substances. They keep it broad and cannabis would fall in that umbrella because federally illegal. It’s what kept me away from trying.

4

Mr_Smith_411 t1_jb5i7ig wrote

Check no. States have rights, and if it's not illegal in your state, it's not illegal (imo but I'm not a lawyer). "have you ever been arrested for a felony" if you weren't convicted (or got youthful offender or accelerated rehab) check "no", this was advice from an attorney.

2

Toybasher t1_jb5l400 wrote

The background check form actually has a little thing mentioning it's still illegal federally even if legal in your state.

3

Mr_Smith_411 t1_jb5n2o5 wrote

When I got mine it wasn't legal anywhere. If you want to tattle on yourself, go ahead. Half that form is designed to self incriminate. F 'em. You on a pot "list" somewhere?

3

jamalamadangdong t1_jb6ejs4 wrote

I meeeeeean if you purchase from a dispensary don’t they take record of it? They put caps on how much you can purchase in a given amount of time so it wouldn’t surprise me

1

Mr_Smith_411 t1_jb6fb7w wrote

I purchase lots of alcohol and food I don’t eat or drink. Last I knew it wasn’t illegal to keep booze in my house for guests.I don’t know of any law says I can’t offer adult guests at my house a gummy.

4

jamalamadangdong t1_jb7qiit wrote

Oh I'm not justifying the rule. Just noting that I'm fairly sure they take record of your purchase

1

Mr_Smith_411 t1_jb7rfcc wrote

And I'm just saying they can take a record, it doesn't mean the purchaser used it. I have several bottles of liquor at my house I never drink. I buy and keep them specifically for friends that come over.

2

jamalamadangdong t1_jb9m0fv wrote

Wait, so why do you buy extra bottles if you’re not drinking them?

1

Mr_Smith_411 t1_jban6fz wrote

And.. They're not "extra" bottles... I don't drink Crown Apple, but a buddy of mine does. So looking at my purchase history of Crown Apple would lead you to the wrong conclusion of what I drink, but there's always a bottle in my house for Jimmy.

2

Mr_Smith_411 t1_jba6qsw wrote

So my friends who come over have their favorite drink while we sit around the firepit.

1

Toybasher t1_jbbdq17 wrote

Never used the stuff, never plan to. (nor do I touch alcohol. Family has a huge history of addicts in it so I'd rather not start drinking/using substances.)

I personally think we should deschedule Marijuana from the controlled substances at least, as it doesn't seem much worse than alcohol, and I imagine far more accidents happen because booze was mixed with firearms compared to marijuana being mixed with firearms.

1

Mr_Smith_411 t1_jbbhuib wrote

I'm not proposing mixing them either, but having a glass of wine with my wife out to dinner doesn't prevent/jeopardise my pistol permit, nor should any other legal activity.

1

1234nameuser t1_jb61uni wrote

I read the form, despite the Federal disclaimer, the form clearly does not ask you to answer on the basis of either Federal or States rights.....it just leaves an empty assumption that you will be answering based on their federal disclaimer.

You can read the form, understand it's illegal under federal law, yet still check the box on the basis of your understanding under states rights. The form doesn't say anything about that.......just have a good lawyer ;)

2

Mr_Smith_411 t1_jb62wbj wrote

The feds dont grant permits. That's the states. They're trying to get you to self incriminate.

3

Mathews1297 t1_jb5ii0m wrote

There was but I forgot what state, recently Supreme Court ruled that cannabis users shouldn’t/couldn’t be discriminated against their 2nd amendment rights. But that’s good to know that’s what I assumed before until I heard otherwisw

1

No-Coast-Punk t1_jb77pew wrote

Opiates are actually at a lesser schedule than weed. "Heroin" was actually a registered trade name.

Meth is also less illegal.

2

IStanHam t1_jb5zlvm wrote

a friend of mine who is disabled regularly uses marijuana for pain, and has been doing so since its been medically legal. she's applying for housing now, unfortunately housing for people with disabilities comes with the caveat that there can be no marijuana use on the premises, nor in your car, or at all while living there, due to the federal laws. Unbelievably ass backwards

18

ConcentrateFlimsy412 t1_jb6eadt wrote

I have the same problem except I use weed anyway I constantly get letters saying I'm gonna be evicted and it has yet to happen

3

PhilipLiptonSchrute t1_jb6guwj wrote

The owners of the property aren't anti-weed, they are anti-smoking. Like it or not, there is a difference. Smoking in the car is a stretch, but they're well within their right to not want smoke damage in their units.

You could fill your jars with edibles, your medicine cabinet with suppositories, and put tinctures in your bedside table and it wouldn't be a problem at all.

3

gregra193 t1_jb5dua9 wrote

I don’t think it’s complicated at all— legal guidance from ATF says any marijuana user cannot legally buy or possess a gun, no matter what state they are from.

Medical or recreational…neither are recognized by the Feds.

https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download

15

1234nameuser t1_jb61717 wrote

Agreed, not complicated at all..........the US governemnt has a LONG history of blatant discriminatioin & bigotry

13

WellSeasonedUsername t1_jb6aqk9 wrote

That’s where gun laws come from. Wasn’t until the Black Panthers started buying firearms, then gun laws popped up

10

gewehr44 t1_jb8krst wrote

New York's 'Sullivan Act' gun control laws was passed during a time when there was a large migration of southern Europeans (mostly Italian). Same bigotry

1

Comfortable_File3359 t1_jb6m4dd wrote

well if state laws mean nothing to feds… then we have a bigger problem than marijuana. We have a federal government that is violating our constitutional rights. And if the feds don’t law why should we?

1

gregra193 t1_jb6mycq wrote

The DOJ has enforcement priorities. They have bigger fish to fry than the 40+ states and territories that have legalized medical or recreational.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Arguably DOJ is protecting states rights by not interfering with what states have chosen to do.

2

spitlead t1_jb98d42 wrote

They do not have bigger fish to fry lol. They are a political organization. The head of doj is a political appointment that sets the direction. If we elected a hardcore antidrug prez that installed a doj head that was also, you can bet your ass they would be suing and arresting state officials en masse.

0

happyinheart t1_jb5vpmd wrote

Marijuana is still a schedule 1 drug and the federal government says that it can only be used in specific and controlled testing. Yet Connecticut has opened retail dispensaries. They are ignoring one law and supporting another. They are just picking and choosing what they want.

−1

gregra193 t1_jb5xr7n wrote

I don’t blame Connecticut at all. Many states, actually most, have legalized medical or recreational cannabis. The DOJ has a long-standing policy that they won’t interfere with states for this.

The ATF has a 10+ year long-standing policy that purchasing or possessing a firearm as a marijuana user is not allowed. I think both rules are pretty clear.

8

spitlead t1_jb98p8n wrote

Ct state regs go much farther. Ct disqualifies you from gun ownership for drug misdemeanors, they took it way further than the fed.

1

happyinheart t1_jb5ykl0 wrote

I do blame Connecticut for not being consistent with it comes to pot.

−8

gregra193 t1_jb5z7yn wrote

You’re kidding me!

Should we have criminalized marijuana so that gun owners who don’t read up on federal law don’t accidentally buy marijuana and possess it along with their guns?

People need to read the law and familiarize themselves with it before purchasing or possessing a firearm.

It’s simple— don’t use or possess cannabis if you also want to buy or possess a gun.

5

happyinheart t1_jb5zofc wrote

No, the opposite. Should keep marijuana legal and like sanctuary cities no report any of it to the ATF or government. Stay consistent.

−2

Sinking_The_Sea t1_jb5ztbx wrote

Yes, this is exactly the point.

The US operates under a federalist system in which the federal government has the ultimate authority to decide what is legal and what is illegal. However, state governments are given a good amount of autonomy to “test out” policies at a large (but not federal) scale.

A great example of this is women’s suffrage. There were several state that allowed for women to vote prior to the 19th amendment.

This is an example of functioning democracy. Ideally the federal government will recognize that drug decriminalization is a good thing, and will change the federal law to reflect this.

3

Bruislanders t1_jb6vb01 wrote

what’s the difference between owning a fireman if you are a weed smoker and owning a firearm if you indulge in drinking alcohol? im genuinely curious.

8

Justagreewithme t1_jb7map9 wrote

The ability to enforce. We really need to make both alcohol and marijuana schedule 2 or 3 substances.

−4

[deleted] t1_jb6h3b9 wrote

If the state can ignore federal drug law? , why can't the state ignore federal gun laws?

I'm serious.

4

Pruedrive t1_jb6nraq wrote

Cause guns are bad.. mmmmkay.

Also..

"Am I a joke to you..?" ~Your dog.

Edit: Lol I read that fast thought you said why can't "I" ignore federal gun laws?.. carry on.

Aren't states like Texas doing just that?

6

KJK998 t1_jb590g6 wrote

Answer is simple.

No gun laws. No weed laws.

3

Pruedrive t1_jb5bsmr wrote

The founding fathers were pretty fond of both guns and weed.

10

KJK998 t1_jb62vg3 wrote

Intellectuals

7

Pruedrive t1_jb63o0l wrote

Young dreamers.. the weed probably helped them dream up half this shit. The guns just made it possible.

4

KJK998 t1_jb63vpp wrote

Well I wish they were in the judiciary committee meeting today.

Can’t wait to paint a chamber flag on all my handguns 🤣

4

Pruedrive t1_jb64kdw wrote

Yeah a lot of the proposed legislation is just baffling. As the resident lefty, who happens to actually support the second amendment, it really shows that none of these chuckle dicks actually understand the first thing about firearms... and it makes me embarrassed to be associated with them.

6

roo-ster t1_jb5g7uf wrote

...and owning other human beings.

"American exceptionalism" is rooted in the lie that the Founders were geniuses who were perfect.

−9

Pruedrive t1_jb5hdbz wrote

Yes people can be right and wrong about things.. doesn't invalidate anything I wrote.

2

Prudent-Ball2698 t1_jb5bhq5 wrote

Exactly. Gun laws as well as weed laws only fuel the criminal justice machine with money from innocent people and slave labor

5

ThePermafrost t1_jb5bv59 wrote

I suppose if you get rid of all guns we don’t need gun laws.

−9

Pruedrive t1_jb5cpjs wrote

You do realize in the absence of guns and gun laws.. guns will be produced due to demand, likewise with zero legal restrictions on their functionality (read: everyone gets a suppressed fullauto short barreled phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.) Really not a well thought out statement you made there.

8

keepitupxxx t1_jb6fjh7 wrote

Listen basically just do not have them together an if you may help it not even in same condo🤔

1