Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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