It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -
(3) 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));
(6) The term "controlled substance” means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Conclusion: every person in Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon and DC that “legally” uses marijuana is precluded from buying firearms, by federal law, and can be rejected when doing background checks for buying a firearm.
Same with anyone who uses marijuana under any state’s medical use permissions.
But who cares about arms-traders refusing sale to pot-heads? That in and of itself is really a non-issue. The real problem is that, slowly but surely, the government is granting itself more rights in the gun control arena. This law would have been laughed out of congress ten years ago. soon we will see legislation prohibiting the sale of firearms to any person that has EVER exhibited emotional irregularities.
Note that this is not about arms-traders (AFAIU). The law applies to anyone. If you know that someone is a “legal” (by state law) MJ user, you cannot sell, gift, or in any other way transfer to him a firearm, or you can be prosecuted, by this federal law.
The difference today is that if someone openly (because it is legal in the state) uses MJ, it is a lot harder to claim that you didn’t know he was a drug user, and thus avoid prosecution under this law.
Well, in Dylann Roof’s case, documented “use” (actually strictly speaking not “use”, but possession) was in February, and the firearm buy that FBI now says was illegal due to that use (note: not due to the arrest in February, because that was not a felony arrest, but due to being a “user”) was in April.
So two months is not long enough to not be a “user” anymore. But I guess the answer is - whatever the Federal Government wants it to be.
My question is, if they don’t want to enforce the don’t-use-marijuana laws, would they be any more inclined to enforce the don’t-give-a-gun-to-marijuana-users law? That would seem to be even harder to police.
Clearly … the US Congress wants every drunk in the land to own guns, many guns … nothing says social tranquility like drunks with guns … why if it wasn’t for the neighborhood drunks with all the guns I’m sure ISIS would have taken over by now … I think just blowing 0.08% BAC at the gun market should give you a pass on all that stupid paperwork … sheesh … this is America, drunks are supposed to have guns !!!
Yes, I’m trying to make a joke … the Federales need to change their laws concerning marijuana. A schedule I designation means it has no medical value, and that seems to be untrue. As the States enact laws allowing marijuana’s use as a medicine, researchers are becoming more free to do the actual work needed to establish it’s medical value.
I’m thinking a pot-head with a gun vs. a drunk with a gun … I’d trust the pot-head more …
“every person in Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon and DC that “legally” uses marijuana” ≠ “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”
Enforcing the don’t-use-marijuana law would entail feds actually going into the state and arresting people. Enforcing the don’t-give-a-gun-to-marijuana-users law would only mean not allowing the marijuana user to pass a background check. A lot simpler.
It’s not just the background check thing. If you know that someone uses marijuana (again, since such use is now state-legal in some states and users use openly, it will be a lot harder to claim you didn’t know) and sell him a gun, or gift it to him etc., the feds can go after you, especially if the person commits a crime with the weapon. I believe the sentence for such a sale can be up to 10 years in Federal prison and up to a $250,000 fine.