More Half (Baked) ‘Truth’ about Guns and Marijuana

marijuana law guns

Bigstock

I love the Bill of Rights. I love the fact that this country was formed as an idea by people far smarter than me, who were wise beyond their lifetimes.

I’m also a big fan of photography. At a young age, I had a Nikon camera and I loved to take a photograph. That’s why when I read about people taking pictures and being arrested, I started tracking the blog Photography is Not a Crime. That blog was started by a gentleman named Carlos Miller after he was arrested for taking photographs of Miami police officers doing their jobs in public.

He’s since expanded his writing beyond photography. And while I admire his activism, based on a recent article he wrote in the Miami New Times, I’m not much of a fan of the quality of his research.

His article looked at the intersection of firearms and medicinal marijuana use and the legalities involved in both. The issue at hand is something that’s been covered here and other venues, but since it keeps coming up and is the subject of continual confusion, let’s take another look.

Miller’s article quotes the operator of a medical marijuana clinic in southwest Florida:

“The most common objection heard in our clinic is ‘If I become a patient, I will have to give up my guns,'” said Patrick DeLuca, who runs the Medicann marijuana clinic in Southwest Florida. “And it’s just not true.”

There’s only one problem with this. DeLuca is absolutely wrong. No matter what state law may be, under federal law, marijuana is still a controlled substance and a person is an unlawful user and prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.

Miller’s article continues to spread more fake news incorrect information.

Indeed, the veracity of the claim is complicated. Medical marijuana users can’t buy guns from licensed dealers such as Walmart, but they can purchase them from private dealers through a private sales exemption commonly known as the ‘gun show loophole”:  Although buying from a private dealer does not make it legal under federal law for a marijuana user to own a gun, the transaction can be made without filling out the federal ATF form.

Is it necessary to point out the legal bear trap in that paragraph?

The article closes with some more specious legal advice.

[Martha] Bueno, who began buying her medical marijuana on the black market after allowing her card to expire, said she will renew it now that she has obtained her concealed weapons permit and purchased a Glock 19.

But if she wanted to purchase another gun, she might have to allow her card to expire again and not admit to using black-market marijuana when applying for the gun. She prefers to support local business by shopping locally.

Miller’s article is so full of misinformation I have a hard time knowing where to begin taking it apart.

For starters, in section 18 USC 922  the use of marijuana — club card or no club card — or the possession thereof makes the person prohibited under federal law. TTAG recently featured an article by Florida criminal defense attorney Chris Rabby where he discusses this in great detail. But this section is useful here:

In Wilson V. Lynch, Rowan Wilson was a ?legal? marijuana prescription card holder in Nevada. She sued because a federal firearms licensees dealer (FFL) would not sell her a firearm, pursuant to directions from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

In September, 2011, the ATF directed all FFLs ?that regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana for medical purposes, a person is an unlawful user and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.? Any potential purchaser is required to answer that they are such a person on ATF Form 4473,  question 11.e.

Then there’s the problem of Mr. Miller’s source. He quotes a marijuana dispensary employee who is not authorized to dispense legal advice. TTAG checked with the Florida bar…there is no Patrick DeLuca on their membership rolls. The only thing DeLuca should be dispensing is Island Sweet Skunk or Purple Urkle.

DeLuca claims that a gun owner can possess a federally unlawful controlled substance. A quick reading of ATF form 4473 or five minutes of Googling make it quite clear that isn’t true.

Miller also tries to claim that the hoary “gun show loophole” — which has nothing to do with gun shows — somehow allows you to sidestep federal gun laws.

Just because you didn’t document a transaction doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Owning a firearm while in possession of a controlled substance is a felony. Mr. Miller’s argument is the equivalent of “The teacher never sent my detention slip to the office, so I didn’t really get detention and wasn’t guilty of cutting class.” And if the seller knows the person to whom he sold a gun was prohibited, he commits a crime, too.

Last, but not least, Miller’s article clearly defines the period of time that the subject of his article (Ms. Bueno) began using a federally controlled substance. He also lays out when she owned a gun and even what model it is. In short, he provides enough detail so that the ATF could begin an investigation of Bueno based solely on his piece.

Let’s also not forget that Miller hints that Bueno could (should?) lie on a form 4473 if she wants to purchase another gun (“she might have to…not admit to using black-market marijuana”). That’s a really bad idea because doing so is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

We contacted the Miami New Times after the article was published, asking them for comment on these obvious problems. We provided a short synopsis of where the article went wrong. In short, we told them the truth about gun laws.

As of this writing we haven’t gotten a response from them and they haven’t edited or retracted the piece.

I’m no lawyer, I’m a gun dealer. But I know enough law to know that this kind of bad advice could very well get someone thrown in jail if they follow it.

I admire Mr. Miller’s resolve in fighting for the First Amendment right to photograph public officials performing their jobs. But his article is full of dangerously incorrect information on the law.

Caveat lector. 

comments

  1. avatar John Boch says:

    If you’re smoking MJ regularly, MediMari card or not, you’re on thin ice if you’ve got guns.

    Or try to purchase guns.

    Thin ice defined as felony + time in federal prison.

    Especially in a Democrat presidential administration. They love MJ, but they hate guns a whole lot more.

    1. avatar Edward Williams says:

      Yes we are damned with a Democratic administration because they hate guns and damned with a Republican administration because they hate marijuana. Anyone for a libertarian president that loves both?

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        Id rather the voice of the people not be defined by a party nor their election controlled by super pacs and how much money they spend, especially since it’s polar opposites and the country is divided. How about someone who is independant? And I don’t mean the party independant, I mean actually independant. You know what, let’s just elect random people like a lottery… fuck it. Anything is better than going from a jackass like Obama to a jackass like Trump.

      2. avatar ROBERT B CHARLES SR says:

        I PREFER TO BE AN INDEPENDENT SO I CAN VOTE FOR ANYONE I CHOOSE WHO IS EITHER DOING A BETTER JOB OR IS A BETTER LIAR THAT THE OTHER GUY.

        1. avatar Jean-Claude says:

          And if you live in a state with a closed primary, you’re shut out of the decision-making process.

        2. avatar ROBERT B CHARLES SR says:

          Actually i do live in a state with a closed primary. How many times has the primary been decided by even 1000 votes? What really counts is election day. Vote Vote Vote

      3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Edward Williams
        The Libertarian Party hates guns. But they love marijuana. I will gladly provide Links if anyone wants to read about this for themselves.

        Ps. I have provided them before.

      4. avatar Drake_Burrwood says:

        In my State the number of Libertarians running for State level office was double that of the presidential election.

    2. avatar guest says:

      Irish democracy.

  2. avatar AZgunner says:

    Drugs and guns are a bad mixture from a legal standpoint. In my state, just being in possession of a firearm while committing a drug crime is an additional felony.

    1. avatar Draven says:

      and being in possession of drugs is a drug crime in many states.

  3. avatar Draven says:

    ask around on CalGuns about how many people got MM cards and then had to surrender their firearms or be charged…

  4. avatar joefoam says:

    Imagine the screeching if the same rules applied to alcohol consumption and gun ownership.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The problem is that the effects of alcohol on the human body have been studied for millennia and are well documented. The old “but in the morning, I will be sober” line applies. The same can’t be said about THC. There is no data on how long THC continues to have measurable cognitive affects after consumption. There is no easy way to control dosage. The biggest problem is that THC is fat-soluble which means that it can go back into your system if you burn off some of the weight you gained with your munchies. So even if you haven’t toked up in months, you could still get high if you lose weight rapidly. I could continue listing problems, but the simple truth is that THC is nowhere near as easy to control in your body as alcohol.

      On a side note, I can’t think of a single state where carrying a firearm while under the influence is legal. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

      1. avatar Rob says:

        It is not illega to be intoxicated and in possession of a firearm in MO. You can even be intoxicated and use a firearm in self defense. You cannot, however, be intoxicated and handle and otherwise use in either.a negligent or unlawful manner a firearm. In MO we don’t have a state level public drunkenness law, so the mere possession of the firearm while(legally) intoxicated is not a crime,

      2. avatar AnAppealToHeaven says:

        So because the effects of alcohol which show it often leads to terrible and violent actions has been well documented, that gives it some advantage over weed?
        “…So even if you haven’t toked up in months, you could still get high if you lose weight rapidly.” I have never heard of someone getting a “flashback high.” Even if that phenomenon occurred, I would take my chances being around the person with a gun who suddenly got the munchies as opposed to a drunk with a gun.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Alcohol doesn’t alter your mood, it intensifies it. People who are mellow are mellow drunks and people who are angry and violent make for angry and violent drunks. If you’re depressed alcohol will make you more depressed. THC over time causes paranoia and psychosis with heavy use. Handling a gun under the influence of either isn’t a good idea, however, a holstered gun is no more of a threat than a set of keys in your pocket – if you don’t take them out nobody will get hurt.

        2. avatar Exhaustion says:

          Honestly the issue is having laws designed to PREVENT harm based upon deleterious actions of the few rather than the many. Self-destructive actions cause collateral damage. Unfortunately(?), self-destructive behavior is an inherent/natural/immutable/god-given right. Without the ability to separate oneself from self-destructive elements (generally removal of oneself from a society overrun with self-destructive tendencies or removal of those elements), collateral damage as a result is a question of “when” rather than “if” it will occur.

          It’s always folly to attempt regulation of exceptional crimes as the exceptional nature of the problem does not lend itself to arbitrary standards prescribed by law.

          It’s always folly to attempt group control as a replacement/substitute of self-control.

          Prohibition enforced by govt will always be ineffective, regardless of whether the prohibited item is alcohol, pornography, literature, marijuana, firearms, etc.

          Our previously separate, but rapidly integrating, govt systems are NOT capable of preventing harm despite their best efforts. A less contentious example is seat-belt laws.

        3. avatar Toni says:

          yep along with helmet laws. The only case where it makes sense is if there is mandated public health and that in and of itself is an incursion of liberty. i live in a country (australia) that has mandated public health (disease) and we also have helmet and seatbelt laws and yes from experience they are an incursion on liberty as are the fines for not following those laws that have no victim. Any laws that create a crime when there is no victim are acts of treason against the populace

      3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        The fundamental difference is that THC is a drug and alcohol is an intoxicating food. If we couldn’t metabolize alcohol we’d die of alcohol poisoning within a week since the bacteria in the average person’s intestines produce a whole ounce of pure 200 proof alcohol every day (and our own cells make a small amount on top of that). That also means that abstaining from alcohol is actually physically impossible. But the fact that we metabolize it means that we either burn those 7 calories per gram or we convert them into fat in a relatively short time. Either way the intoxicating effects are then gone.

      4. avatar strych9 says:

        “So even if you haven’t toked up in months, you could still get high if you lose weight rapidly.”

        That’s not the way this works. That’s the way the government wants you think it works as a justification for revenue collection, (and Anheuser-Busch doesn’t mind you thinking this either), which 90% of what DUI really is, but it’s not how it actually works. Pot has been used at least as long as alcohol and if what you’re saying were the case it would be known. It’s also been studied extensively, but the results are not common knowledge

        The simple fact of the matter is a two-fold issue:

        First, we’re not testing for blood THC concentration, we’re testing for metabolites of THC, which last longer. A drug test almost always tests mainly for 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid which, as is a metabolite of the active ingredient in pot, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Drug tests also test for other metabolites as well, some of which last in your system far longer but none of them is d-9 THC either.

        The metabolite is not the original psychoactive product. It’s just not. d-9 THC is what gets you high, 11-nor-delta-9 does not. Further, as noted by both manufacturers of drug tests and the CDC studies on the effecacy of those tests: “Only blood-sample measurements are likely to correlate with a person’s degree of exposure (3); attempts to correlate urine concentration with impairment or time of dose are complicated by variations in individual metabolism, metabolite accumulation in the chronic user, and urine volume changes due to diet, exercise, and age.”. Due to this it is recommended that “All urine samples positive by the cannabinoid assay need to be confirmed by an alternate method that is as sensitive as the screening test…” which almost never happens because running those tests is hellishly expensive and the CDC notes this. However those tests can generally distinguish between someone who just walked through a cloud of pot smoke and someone who actually used it. They can also detect actual d-9 THC, the psychoactive compound, and indicate that the person was high at the time of the test. Again, never used due to cost and the fact that it would shoot down a lot of convictions.

        Secondly, modern testing is good enough to find concentrations so low that just 15 years ago they were undetectable. So, if it was undetectable 15 years ago and you would have been “sober” now that it’s detectable you’re magically high? No. On top of that, if you read the manufacturer’s information on drug tests and/or CDC information you find that the concentration of 11-nor-delta-9 drops to 10-20% of it’s original concentration in five days (again, other metabolites last much longer). So even if we were to argue along the lines you propose here we’d have to admit that we need expensive testing to confirm the still existing dosage and that in many cases we’re basically calling having two drinks being just as drunk as having 10-20 drinks.

        The issue isn’t how long pot lasts. Hundreds of millions of people have tested that and we know the answers. The issue is how to set an objective standard for chemical concentration measurement and link that reliably to intoxication state, which is almost impossible to do because you cannot control for all the variables in the equation and so you cannot know what the output means.

        You can see this with booze too. If you have three drinks on Friday night, three drinks on Saturday afternoon and then get up on Sunday and go to Church you can get a DUI on the way home from Church and, if you submit to a blood test that uses certain standards (which you should look up in your state btw if you drink) you can test positive for all six drinks as if you hit the bar instead of Confession because some of those tests look for alcohol AND it’s metabolites and add those numbers together. You’re alcohol free but still have the metabolites for 72 hours.

        Does that mean you were driving home from Church drunk? Did you just slam a sixer? No, you haven’t had a drink in nearly 24 hours but the test says you just had six. Here in Colorado that means you’re gonna end up handing the state somewhere on the order of $20K and paying thousands more to private vendors which the state taxes twice. I wonder why Colorado loves handing out a DUI so much?

        This is why I talk about details and nuance. They matter. In my example you’re not drunk on Sunday afternoon but by the standard you propose here for pot we could give you a felony DUI in a lot of states when you’re stone-cold sober. In fact, that happens. It happened to a friend of mine and I got to find out all about it when I became his chauffeur for a year until he could get his license back. I KNOW for a fact he wasn’t drunk because he was with me all day and got that DUI literally five minutes after he left my presence. It’s not possible in this universe that he was drunk and certainly not possible for him, even if he pounded a fifth walking out my door, to have been that drunk (0.223 according to his charges) that fast because he couldn’t have adsorbed that much alcohol that fast. His mistake was asking for a blood test rather than just blowing.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          This is why a sobriety test is preferential to a blood or breath test. In the case of hard core alcoholics they can have astronomical BACs and be perfectly normal because they’ve built up a tolerance to the alcohol. On the other hand I’ve seen people who never drank before get stumbling drunk off a single 12oz beer. if I’m driving down a 2 lane highway and you’re coming down the other way, I really don’t give a damn what your BAC is, what I care about is your ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. Anyway, THC like any other drug works the same way – you build up a tolerance. So video the sobriety test and present it to the court as evidence and if the judge/jury determine you clearly were in no shape to operate a motor vehicle on public highways, then so be it.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Gov:

          I would tend to agree with you that if we’re going to have a DUI law we should do as you suggest.

          Unfortunately that gets away from an “objective standard” and makes the entire thing subjective. Now, as per your suggestion, this would likely result in many fewer DUI convictions because someone who had one extra drink at happy hour or didn’t wait an extra 30-40 minutes after drinking won’t get nailed on that 0.08 objective standard when they’re really just as dangerous as they were at 0.079 or 0.04. A few people would probably get screwed by a subjective standard, but we cannot obtain perfection and your suggestion would be a marked improvement.

          However, the marked improvement, which is lots of people not getting DUIs the way they do under the current system, would cut off a massive revenue generation tool for the state and force them to either balance their budget or raise taxes to cover that loss, which is exactly why that will not happen.

          Same thing with self-driving vehicles, not gonna happen. Even if the technology is perfected the states and local governments are not going to lose DUI and traffic tickets to such a technology. The government’s ability to raise revenue without justifying a tax increase to voters would be curtailed and they’re not going to allow that.

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Strych, generally speaking it’s not the people at 0.08% that are the problem it’s the people at 0.26% anyway. My alternative plan would be to make a middle ground simple traffic offense and save the harsh punishment for the serious abusers. I’d say 0.08%-0.15%, but politically it probably could never get done that high, so maybe 0.05%-0.10% you get a $200 ticket, get busted at >0.10% and you’re facing the usual DUI penalties. But this still doesn’t address the marijuana issue.

          It will take a generation for self driving cars to become mainstream. The first thing that has to be worked out is the liability issue. Provided the vehicle is properly maintained, 100% of the liability of any accident is going to fall on the manufacturer and they’ll have to charge a premium for the vehicles to cover the cost. On the other hand your liability insurance should be dirt cheap. Then you’ve got the issue that 99% of people who currently drive don’t have any desire to stop driving and trust a computer. After that you’ve got the fact that the state and local governments are going to start writing the manufacturers massive fines for speeding if the vehicles don’t adhere to all posted speed limits. No more saving time by driving 8mph over the speed limit. Lots of legal and social issues have to work out for self driving cars to take over. I’d expect to see companies like Uber develop fleets of self driving taxis but the general consumer won’t be jumping on board anytime soon. Probably by 2050 though.

        4. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          People love magic gizmo tests, just like they love what the computer told them.

          The multi-layer self-dealing n protection rackets that follow are kinda what they deservenfor being shuch schmucks.

          The problem is tha the rest of us get what they deserve, too.

      5. avatar Ace says:

        The “drugs are fat soluble” story is an outdated and inaccurate theory peddled by none other than L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. It’s a bunch of 1950’s hogwash just like all of Hubbard’s other stories.

        I challenge anyone to post a recent scientific study supporting this.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          IIRC there are some metabolites of certain drugs that are fat soluble. They are not stored “in fat” but rather they dissolve into fat that’s in your bloodstream, fat which your body makes little effort to get rid of because it’s planning to use it.

          Those metabolites are excreted slowly over time as your body uses lipids in your bloodstream and therefore, with modern methods, are detectable long after the active ingredient has worn off.

          But, yeah, generally this is like the argument that LSD stays in your spinal fluid for life. Unpossible. One of the most unstable chemicals we know of survives for decades in one of the harshest environments we know of yet cannot be set out on a table for for a few months without significant degradation? You don’t even need to read the actual studies on this to know that such a claim is total bullshit because it quite literally cannot be true. (Also, it’s been studied and as you’d expect, the claim is absolutely not true.)

    2. avatar Milton Oliver says:

      that’s part of the plan you can get high but no guns. people are so gullible. I will pass and keep my guns. no weed for me.

  5. avatar pwrserge says:

    I honestly don’t get stoners. Get some good scotch and cigars, same effect, no felony record.

    1. avatar Dale E Ross says:

      Until you plow headon into some innocent family and kill them all.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        That’s where personal responsibility comes in.

        1. avatar guest says:

          Exactly the point.

    2. avatar usnr says:

      Chivas and an Oliva Masters Blend 3 is a good start, gotta luv a ligaro “buzz.”
      Nicaragua tobacco, good stuff.
      I’ve had to get by though on dipping the cigar in Amaretto when times get tough.
      Improvise and overcome!

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Isle of Jura and Diesels are where it’s at.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Five hundred bucks a bottle is too rich for this boy’s pocket…

          https://www.totalwine.com/spirits/scotch/single-malt/isle-of-jura-30-yr/p/142526750

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Their normal bottlings are in the $50 – $120 range and are perfectly adequate. The 30yo is a meme to separate fools from their money.

          I like to keep a bottle or two of this stashed away.

          https://www.totalwine.com/spirits/scotch/single-malt/isle-of-jura-16-yr/p/97662750?s=917&igrules=true

    3. avatar Q says:

      With a statement like that, I doubt you ever used cannabis. I use cannabis and used to smoke cigars while drinking scotch or whiskey and its nowhere near the same. Also your reply regarding getting high when you lose weight if using cannabis is stupid and wrong because I’ve done that before.
      Speak on something you know about dumbass.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Um… the fact that THC is fat soluble is a scientific reality. THC getting into your bloodstream from fat cells that get burned for energy is an inevitable result. I may not smoke weed, but I don’t need to smoke weed to know basic physiology.

        1. avatar Dr. J. D. says:

          Yes, cannabis is fat-soluble. No, you can not get high from weight loss. The majority of THC is metabolised through the liver. Trace metabolites can bind to fat, and cause you to test positively for much longer than normal. I am an internist and cannabis physician in Florida. When I counsel my patients, I tell them the whole story when they ask about guns, and quite a few do. Our antigun (and pro-cannabis) agriculture secretary has stated that she won’t revoke CCW permits for people with marijuana cards, if she is to be trusted. Federal reclassification of cannabis to schedule 2 would solve these issues.

        2. avatar William says:

          No, you don’t understand physiology all that much if you think you can get the same effects of THC from burning fat with THC content as you do from smoking or eating it. This is a myth perpetuated only by people who are ignorant of marijuana. It’s no different that listening to flat-earthers.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Please tell me how THC coming out of solution when the fat in your bloodstream is metabolized is practically different than the THC that hits your bloodstream when you toke up. It’s just a matter of concentration. Rapid fat loss can release all sorts of things into your bloodstream. If you have enough fat and were high enough when it formed, yes you can get high from it. (Or at the very least be impaired by it.)

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          “Please tell me how THC coming out of solution when the fat in your bloodstream is metabolized is practically different than the THC”.

          I already did. See above. You are not going to get “high” from that. It’s literally impossible from a biological, chemical and physical point of view. The THC has already been processed into other substances which are not psychoactive and THOSE are what is being tested for.

          Shorter version: 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid is what is mainly tested for. It is a metabolite of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. The latter is psychoactive the former is not. There are other metabolites that are tested for as well. Not one of them is psychoactive. The only test that will tell you the current concentration of the actual active ingredient is a combination of gas chromatography, gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, and high performance liquid chromatography all run through a series of filters to get rid of any metabolites that may be being picked up by each individual test. No one is going to do that because that’s thousands of dollars per overall testing procedure.

          To quote from the manufacturers own data, via the CDC “If an affect on performance is the main reason for screening, the urine cannabinoid test result alone cannot indicate performance impairment or assess the degree of risk associated with the person’s continuing to perform tasks.” (emphasis mine) They go on to state that if you want to know how performance is affected the ONLY way to do that is the series of tests I mention above because that’s the only way to find out the actual concentration of d9-THC, which is the actual substance that gets you high. They further note that this concentration, in and of itself, is not reflective of actual performance impairment due to personal physiology, tolerance to the substance, dosage, variables that affect the concentration such as dehydration, problems with samples etc etc etc.

          I can give you an injection of 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid and you will pop positive for marijuana on every drug screen there is and do so for weeks. You will NEVER be stoned if I do that to you because you never had any psychoactive substance in your body. How long the 11-nor-delta persists in your system is a function of your personal physiology, body fat make up, blood fats, exercise levels, consumption of various fluids, other medications and a host of other factors. Usually the metabolite will remain at detectable levels for two to three weeks depending on initial concentration but it can be as little as five days or as long as a month and a half in “normal” people.

          To use a rather disgusting metaphor: The turkey sandwich you eat today is not the same thing as the shit you take tomorrow. The fecal matter has been run through a bunch of biological processes and is no longer turkey and bread. As such, you won’t get the same nutritional benefits from eating your own shit as you got from the original sandwich.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          Dude. Never describe a sandwich again.

        6. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Please tell me how THC coming out of solution when the fat in your bloodstream is metabolized is practically different than the THC that hits your bloodstream when you toke up.”

          On this I actually know a little bit –

          When the THC in the weed gets kissed with flame (or the heat of the oven baking the brownie), it is in its most psychoactive ‘active’ form. You get *stoned*. After a period of time, it changes into a substantially less-psychoactive form. It’s a *vastly* less-intense ‘high’, that really isn’t a high. Any THC in your body tissues turns into the less-active form in short order. It still shows up in a drug screen, but it won’t give an appreciable high.

          A hundred-odd years ago I imbibed more than my fair share of seriously nice weed. After a good sleep, the next day you feel fine. The ‘high’ is gone. You’ll test positive for a few weeks, but after a few hours, the intense high is *gone*.

          It’s a night-and-day difference, Serge…

        7. avatar Pg2 says:

          Laughing out loud, serge trying to play dr again. And always wrong.

    4. avatar foo bar says:

      In a free country we shouldn’t have to answer to the government over our personal choice of intoxicating substances.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        As long as you stay home to get intoxicated you are safe. But if you play loud music and are yelling how happy you are to be stoned, your neighbors might call the cops on you. (Smile)

    5. avatar KenW says:

      Medical marijuana has some uses, for cancer patients the extract helps with appetite. I remember my MIL during her final month with pancreatic cancer was given drops to help her appetite. We looked up what it was it it was a synthetic compound that acted like THC. My neighbor with colon cancer uses medical marijuana to help with nausea and with her appetite.

      We are getting marijuana outlets pretending to be medical dispensaries. Among the ailments listed are anxiety. So it’s a given if you show up at Dr. Feelgood office you will get a prescription.

      It supposedly would help me with Crohns but I have no desire to try it again.
      I tried it one time back when Colorado started allowing legal use just to see if it did have an effect. Becoming very aware of my tinnitus was the only effect I noticed and I definitely did not want that.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        there is also a vast difference in different strains of MJ. If you are looking to get high you need the high THC content varieties. These varieties are also quite effective as muscle relaxants and pain killers. For things like assisting in recovery from cancer you want the Low THC varieties that wont get you stoned but they have high canabinoid levels. These are very different to THC and for disease states like cancer should be made into an oil form and metered dose mixed with food.
        As for drug testing by govt it is nothing but a revenue raising scam across the board. yes BAC is more accurate than the testing for MJ but most compounds from alcohol are out of your system faster than some of the compounds from MJ. However as stated by others here the compounds in MJ that they are testing for are NOT the active ones that get you high but rather have no effect on your abilities to operate a vehicle.
        Further to this under common law this sort of testing and fining/jailing is unlawful Unless there is a victim. If there is NO VICTIM there is NO CRIME. So in effect what the govt is doing is quite close to the movie “The minority report” with pre crime etc.

    6. avatar William says:

      I honestly don’t get alcoholics. Why would you drink something that so many people get addicted to and ruin their lives?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Because it’s possible to drink and not get drunk. While it may be possible to toke up and not get high, it sortof defeats the point.

    7. avatar Robert says:

      I honestly don’t get people who demand high capacity magazines. Sarcasm.

    8. avatar strych9 says:

      It’s interesting that nearly all human beings chase altered states of consciousness yet we fight about which ways are acceptable to go about such an endeavor.

      Some people like booze and cigars, other people prefer pot or nose candy while others prefer a funny mushroom or a tea with a bunch of DMT in it. Other people run or life weights until they get high.

      They all get high and they all think the other people are “doing it wrong” with half of them thinking the “wrong ways” should be illegal.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        *lift weights.

        Fat fingered that one.

      2. avatar Pg2 says:

        And almost all massively consume mind altering television. Maybe the most overlooked of all.

        1. avatar Toni says:

          Yep it is and a great tool of the shadow gov for changing the world view of the populace. “if it is on the TV it must be true” cough cough

    9. avatar Deliverance says:

      Same. I personally drink a ton of coffee and use it to wash down a bunch of ibuprofen and gives me the same feeling as a line of coke or two.

    10. avatar 4IDsoldier says:

      I can’t begin to count the number of hardcore PTSD sufferers, including myself, I personally know that have replaced the VA approved regimen of 6-10 pills a day to treat the effects of PTSD with a couple grams of high grade weed a few times a week. Now they sleep without nightmares, have fewer snaps, are emotionally more stable, have better relationships and lower blood pressure and resting heart rates.

      Nope, can’t replace that with “a good scotch and a cigar”. Lol. Forget about any other group of people in this country, if there is one group you want to be able to smoke weed medically and retain gun rights it is the US combat veteran.

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    Well in ILLinois legal potheads are coming soon…no guns but all the soma you can handle! Never involve the gubmint in yer habit-demorat plan all along😏

  7. avatar usnr says:

    I quit hunting public management areas due to alcohol intoxication and road warrior cap poppers, to hunt clubs, which around camp, we’re worse, to where my hunting buddy and I just got out own lease.
    Funny how private sales seem to rankle licensed firearm sellers. Obviously, the Forefathers, in addition to outlawing TidePod consumption, failed to reserve firearm sales to only those so entitled.
    So, the country goes nutz on weed, it’s everywhere, yet we ARM CARTELS, and enable their operations, as we wring our hands over an individual who obviously is not a career felon.
    Becoming a felon overnight is a NEW REALITY for many, and, be patient, they will thin out the gun owner ranks by any means necessary, be you a card carrying CCW/MM or a weary Veteran who becomes a threat because of his expertises.
    Frankly, I’m more concerned about LEO”s on growth hormones and steroids than than little old ladies with a pistol in a drawer at bedside.
    Smh.

  8. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    First, whoever took that pic must have been high. Looks like a Beretta 84 knockoff. Magazine inserted. Hammer cocked. Safety off. Second, I would almost always rather deal with a pot head than anyone else. They were so mellow they would put the cuffs on themselves. Unless, they were also under the influence of alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc. Then all bets were off. Last, the article was spot on as far as the legality of using marijuana and purchasing/possession/ownership of firearms.

    1. avatar William says:

      Man, when I smoke, the last thing I want to do is try and get into mischief. I wouldn’t even be in the situation to resist arrest, because my dumb ass would be watching Netflix.

  9. avatar daveinwyo says:

    So, the Founders, including Geo. Washington, who grew “medicinal hemp” and owned guns were wrong? Says “shall not be infringed”. Not shall not be infringed except for___. May be they were too high to know that you can’t beat the British?
    Been around stoners and drunks. I’ll take the stoner over the passed out drunk.
    Not all news makes the news, but you hear more about drunks killing others way more than stoners.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Probably because there’s a shitload more drunks than stoners.

      1. avatar daveinwyo says:

        Not a good response. Just fewer statistics. Just re-read my pocket constitution this morning. Seems that prohibition did not work out too well. Nor has the so-called “war” on drugs.
        All mammals have receptors in the brain for cannabis, none for alcohol.
        Outlawing pot was a democrat attempt to keep “darkies” from raping white women. No other reason.

        1. avatar Edward Williams says:

          According to what I have read the Marijuana tax act of 1937 was ruled unconstitutional and was replaced, by Nixon (not a democrat) with the controlled substances act of 1970.

    2. avatar Jedi Wombat says:

      You’re correct that hemp was a major crop back then, hemp ropes, “dancing the hemp fandango”. However, it was legal back then. When pot got classified as a schedule whatever drug (don’t know, too lazy to google it) it became no longer legal by federal law. I don’t agree with it, I’ve seen it help people, but the law is the law. Until the fed says its legal and they take that question off the 4473, you have some choices to make and priorities to set.

  10. avatar Shire-man says:

    Amazes me how many people think just because you literally can do a thing it must be legal and if you made a thing illegal you can no longer do it.
    Just because somebody may sell you a firearm in a private sale you, as a user, are a prohibited person and the transaction is very illegal. I guess its only illegal if you get caught? Is that the predominant libtard thinking? Hell, eve if ytou do get caught if you’re one of the protected classes and your politics are right you’ve done nothing wrong and the system is raaaaycisss.

    1. avatar Edward Williams says:

      No, I think that would be the conservitard thinking. You forget, liberals don’t buy guns, they are against them and want to take all our guns.

  11. avatar MLee says:

    There is a reason they call pot heads pot heads. It’s because they act like idiot pot heads. They do pot head things like not remembering anything. I know pot heads and they act like, well…pot heads. I’m a daily carry and a licensed and current pilot and I know my opinion will piss off some people, but I’d rather not be having pot heads flying planes anymore than I would them running around with a gun strapped on.

    1. avatar Fosty says:

      Would you like alcoholics flying planes?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Alcoholics generally can’t fly planes. The fact that you equate recreational marijuana use to catastrophic alcohol abuse pretty much makes my argument for me.

  12. avatar Bob Watson says:

    Potheads say the darndest things.

  13. avatar FedUp says:

    I was a fan of PINAC several years ago, but:

    I gave up on PINAC after the umpteenth time Miller’s name appeared on an article describing the video, in which the events described in the article were disproved by the video the article purported to be describing.

    Add to that the very leftist bias Carlos exhibits, and your best bet is to ignore everything he wrote and just watch the video.

  14. avatar MarkPA says:

    I wonder what would happen if someone undertook a test case. Someone who had not used pot gets a pot card. Never buys pot; never uses pot. Then, after duly notifying the ATF that he holds a pot card but does not use pot, he buys a gun at an FFL.

    Our tester might have to be persistent. He might have to call/write his Assistant US Attorney. The NRA might have to sue the AG to get him to enforce his law. Now, our intrepid pot-card holder goes to court claiming that he has violated no drug law by applying for and holding a pot card since he doesn’t use pot.

    Such a case is likely to get to the Circuit level; and, might have a shot at getting to SCOTUS.

    However it goes, the ATF would be between a rock and a hard place. Once gun owners know what the law seems to be in their home circuit they could apply for pot cards while maintaining that they do not use pot.

    If the Feds had to be dragged kicking and screaming into charging our tester they aren’t going to like going through the states’ lists of pot card holders looking for those who might have guns. Then, they will have to decide who to charge when they can’t discover whether the accused is really a user or a non-user making a nuisance of him self.

    The Feds have pretty much given up on enforcing the pot laws against individual users. We can make Nullification work for us just as the pot users and illegal immigrant sanctuary advocates do.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      An interesting idea, Mark, but I think it’s futile.

      Let’s say SCOTUS turns 6 Leftists, and 3 Conservatives.

      As much as Leftists love ‘Weed’, they hate guns magnitudes more. A 6-3 Leftist-biased SCOTUS would sit on their hands on that one…

  15. avatar Anymouse says:

    No such thing as a legal “private dealer.” If you’re buying and selling with the intent of making a profit, you need an FFL. Private sales are only allowed if you’re disposing of part of a collection that you didn’t acquire with intent to sell

  16. avatar jwm says:

    I’m a sober person. I don’t do alcohol, tobacco or drugs.

    I get a kick out of watching drunks and potheads call each other out for their habits. Sucks from a freedom point of view, but funny.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Alcohol and weed are both crutches. Alcohol is mostly a social crutch and weed is mostly your life isn’t interesting enough crutch.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      You can drink and not be a drunk. It’s easy. It’s much harder to smoke pot and not be a pothead.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Drunks are the last to know or admit they have a problem. And even if you have it under control neither habit, booze or pot, is good for you.

        Bottom line is. Booze or pot shouldn’t matter. Or both, for that matter. If you’re not hurting others you should have the right to partake. Or not.

  17. avatar Jon in CO says:

    At least here, CBI has a listing of card holders and black lists them from the CBI check. (Our NICS goes through state and federal here) Weed is legal all around here, so unless you’re consuming ounces in short time periods, I don’t see a reason to bother with a card. “Medical” is about half the price of “commercial”, so that’s why people do it. Even if you smoke everyday, no card, the question on the form says “user of”. Did I use it before the check? Maybe. (5th amendment kicks in here) However, it’s not perjury to say you’re not a user of, at least at the time of process.

    I’m not a lawyer, I don’t play one on TV, and I have no actual knowledge of law and how it’s interpreted for this situation. With that said, I think the state would have a difficult time proving you did anything wrong in a prosecution of a case like that. Granted, if you walk into the LGS, reeking of weed, and a pipe in your hand, I’m sure they’ll tell you to take a hike. Until they start drug testing people on 10 day holds, I don’t see how anything could happen.

    The question with this (until the law is fixed) is: What is more important to you? Weed, (cheap weed in my state’s case) or your CCW and 2A rights?

    1. avatar foo bar says:

      The real question is which of the enumerated powers in the Constitution says the government can tell anyone what they can and can’t put in their face?

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        The same section that allows the government to force medical procedures on the public.

  18. avatar Thixotropic says:

    Legalize ALL recreational drugs.

    In a free society, we should be judged AND Adjudicated based on our words and ACTIONS not what we decide to put in our bodies.

    The ‘War on Drugs’ and the ‘War on the 2nd Amendment’ are Unconstitutional infringements on my rights.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… how did legalizing opium work out for the Qing Dynasty? Haven’t heard much from them for the past century or so…

      Libertarians are just as retarded as socialists…

      “Let’s try this obviously retarded idea [socialism / drug legalization], surely it won’t blow up in our faces like it did for everyone else who has ever done it…”
      10 years later
      “Get away from that rat carcass! That’s my dinner.”

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “Yeah… how did legalizing opium work out for the Qing Dynasty?”

        Weeeell…

        The sociopathic side of my cold, black heart would be fine with it, actually. As I understand it, Fentanyl isn’t a particularly difficult synthesis for someone with some college-level organic chemistry and fair bench skills. The precursors for it aren’t that difficult, either. China seems to have a decided lack of interest in cutting off the raw materials for it.

        I look at it this way – Those susceptible to the addiction should have cheap access to it. It will thin out the ranks of the weak in short order. Call it chemical Darwinism, if you like…

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          So… how’s that plan working out in shitfrancisco?

  19. avatar David Deplorable says:

    I have guns to protect my family. Having a bunch of weed at home isn’t going to protect my family. Not much the bad guys are trying to get high which probably isn’t the case.

    So choosing between guns and marijuana is easy for me.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      Unless having the weed allows you to overcome the effects of MS when otherwise you would be sentenced to a wheelchair or bed. But hey, government knows best, right?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Oh what fucking planet does THC fight MS? Potheads love to make up complete bullshit without any medicall research to back it up.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          It doesn’t ‘treat’ much of anything, it just makes existing with the disease a bit easier…

        2. avatar DeeAnn Simpson says:

          My ex had MS. He would shake the house with his constant convulsion. One hit on a pipe, he’s playing wi-golf with his one hand and laughing at his competition. He was bed-ridden, tri-plegic for 10 years. Yes, MMJ would have kept my youngest son from being on the street getting his father’s most important medicine. Has a record that has affected his life. Because he loved his father. Now, he only has me, mom.

          Don’t talk about something you don’t know anything about.

  20. avatar IAmNotTheHulk says:

    Use what works for you, I’ll do me, but don’t preach, especially if you have zero relevant experience on any of it. Freedom, it isnt for the faint of heart. As long as you are causing no harm to anyone the gubberment should MIFB. My journey my choice.

  21. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Real men stick with Jim Beam and anything in .30-06.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Beverage and caliber wars in one? That’s edgy, dude. 🙂

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        Ugh.

        Jim Beam is the ‘Hi-Point’ version of spirits…

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          That’s an insult to Hi Point. At least they make a serviceable pistol. Jim Beam makes a serviceable paint thinner.

  22. avatar "Glock"enspiel says:

    So Mamma don’t take my Kodachrome away…

  23. avatar Edward Williams says:

    It should also be made clear that if you are addicted to any controlled substance, even if you have a doctor’s prescription, it would appear you cannot buy a guy so all of those opioid addicts cannot own guns either. Nor anyone taking xanax or any of a number of other medications on a daily basis. It doesn’t say if you have a prescription for it, its ok. It says if you are addicted to marijuana or any depressant, stimulant or narcotic drug, check this box. Can anyone confirm this because that is just my reading of it and I am not a lawyer.

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      “Addicted” implys illegal use of the drug. If you are under a doctor’s care and use prescription drugs, you are not an addict, you are a user. The law was made to keep guns out of the hands of the hopelessly addicted heroin/morphine/opium addicts – those that might take up a gun and rob someone because they needed a fix. Cocaine and marijuana have no reason to be on the schedule 1 list, they are not physically addicting(although the mental part is strong with them).
      As I remember from many decades ago, regular users of marijuana seemed stupid or dull. There is a period of time (days or weeks) that habitual users will stay dull. From observation of my adult children and their friends, it appears to be worse with the super strains available these days. They do not seem overly aggressive, they seem rather passive. Whether or not this is enough to keep them from having a firearm in their home for protection is not my call, but maybe CCW should have some restrictions.

  24. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    “Shall not be infringed”. I don’t see any exceptions in there. Besides, there is no authority for the Feebs to have any thing to do with the medicines citizens use. Under the 9th Amendment we have the right to smoke as much pot as we want.
    Anything else and you are just another big government progressive, no different than any other gun grabber.

  25. avatar strych9 says:

    While the current issues are certainly problematic I don’t think this will last very long.

    Even Republicans are now talking about making pot legal at the national level just to take the issue away from the Democrats. Making pot legal tends to poll pretty well and it’s just going to happen eventually. Almost certainly in the next 10-15 years. If nothing else it’s just not worth the enforcement effort when the government can cut that cost, gain popularity by doing so and have something new to tax the fuck out of.

    That will lead to a new set of questions about what do we do about people who want to buy a gun but were busted under pot laws that have since been repealed.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      I can easily see the Leftists legalizing it at the federal level, but insisting the ATF keeps that question on the 4473.

      They hate guns that much, and it shrinks the pool of non-prohibited persons owning guns…

  26. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    Interesting comments, I think people are more complicated than just a yes/no paradigm concerning MJ.

    Just as I’ve seen, you have too I bet, the knuckleheads at the range doing knuckle-headed unsafe things, there are those that abuse alcohol and MJ as an escape mechanism.

    If a person is responsible before MJ or drink, I’m thinking they will be after they partake as well.

    I’m not seeing the issue other than the FEDs are involved and they refuse to move MJ off of schedule 1.

    just my opinion’

  27. avatar B.D. says:

    Quit fucking using drugs.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Quit fucking using drugs.”

      Nookie while blazed is kinda neat, actually… 😉

      1. avatar Toni says:

        “this is my rifle, this is my gun”

  28. avatar FB says:

    One may forget the fundamental rules of gun safety.

  29. avatar Jason says:

    Well, since the federal government is expressly prohibited from regulating guns or marijuana, 2nd, 10th, and what not…

    Oh wait, I forgot, we’ve been ignoring the constitution for more than 100 years now, but then I suppose that congressional authority to make laws comes from the constitution; damn I’m so confused…

    How does this work again? I guess I’ll make a sacrificial offering to the priestly legal class and see if our benevolent masters will explain things to a lowly serf like myself. It’s so confusing all of this minority report crystal ball black magic.

  30. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    Lol Alcohol is so much more dangerous than marijuana. Anyone who disagrees is ignorant and/or biased. Face the facts.

    “alcohol consumption is responsible for one in 20 deaths globally each year, according to a World Health Organization (WHO) report released Friday. Worldwide, harmful use of alcohol kills up to 3 million people annually, accounting for 5% of the global disease burden.Sep 21, 2018”

    https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/facts/alcohol/en/

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Oh please… I wouldn’t trust the WHO to find their own ass with GPS and a full set of landing lights.

      1. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

        LOL come on Serge, there are hundreds of other sources, the info is out there, you can either learn or stay ignorant. Here are two other sources I am providing you that prove my point. If you want more sources, do your own research. For the record, I don’t smoke pot, don’t drink alcohol, or take anything mood altering. Clear headed life for me.

        https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
        Global Burden:
        •In 2012, 3.3 million deaths, or 5.9 percent of all global deaths (7.6 percent for men and 4.1 percent for women), were attributable to alcohol consumption.12
        •In 2014, the World Health Organization reported that alcohol contributed to more than 200 diseases and injury-related health conditions, most notably DSM–IV alcohol dependence (see sidebar), liver cirrhosis, cancers, and injuries.13 In 2012, 5.1 percent of the burden of disease and injury worldwide (139 million disability-adjusted life-years) was attributable to alcohol consumption.12
        •Globally, alcohol misuse was the fifth leading risk factor for premature death and disability in 2010. Among people between the ages of 15 and 49, it is the first.14 In the age group 20–39 years, approximately 25 percent of the total deaths are alcohol attributable.15

        https://www.statista.com/statistics/367890/alcohol-related-deaths-facts-worldwide/
        Number of deaths per year (in millions) 3.3
        Percentage of all deaths (%) 5.9
        Percentage of total disease and injury burden (%) 5.1
        Percentage of all deaths among 20-39 year-olds (%) 25

      2. avatar DangerDave says:

        Oh god, I remember that PwrSerge dude. He is absolutely insufferable, obnoxious, and ignorant. There is no point in arguing with him, he is a brainwashed bootlicker. He’s very vocal on marijuana because it gives him a reason to automatically discriminate or discredit people in his mind. I don’t think he actually believes his own BS he spouts. What do you think would happen to you if you took a hit of weed Serge? You think you’d lose your mind or something? Lemming.

  31. avatar enuf says:

    Federal laws do need a changing alright. Until then, everyone knows they are taking a legal risk if using pot and owning guns.

  32. avatar George Washington says:

    I’m sorry, but smoking a joint has NO BEARING ON ABILITY TO HANDLE A FIREARM RESPONSIBLY….
    I don’t care what YOU say, I don’t care what a DOCTOR says and I DON’T CARE WHAT SOME FEDERAL DIPSHIT SAYS…

    If some FKN DRUNK can own guns legally, then I’M LAUGHING IN YOUR FACE IF YOU SAY MARIJUANA IS WORSE THAN ALCOHOL!

    And to take it even further…. If a DOCTOR can prescribe other medications such as OPIATES and people can still own guns, then the same should ABSOLUTELY APPLY TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA…

    I can’t STAND people who obviously have NO EXPERIENCE with marijuana that condemn something they know NOTHING ABOUT…
    KINDA REMINDS ME OF THE WAY LIBERALS ANY ABOUT GUNS….

    JS

  33. avatar anarchyst says:

    Alcohol has damaged more families than all illegal drugs…
    Alcohol IS a drug, no different from others…

  34. avatar DangerDave says:

    Yikes. It is always hilarious seeing hypocritical baby boomers who have never tried marijuana even once get so worked up about it and offer such strong opinions on something they don’t understand (hm, does that sound like a common argument from somewhere?). I get that Cold War education was some of the most effective propaganda ever produced, but even with the internet freeing up channels of information and 30 long years of hindsight & historical re-examination, there are people who somehow believe the USA was and still is the guiding force of all good things in this world forever battling against darkness and evil. And because a few politicians who had little to no scientific evidence go on were told by Henry Anslinger to ban marijuana because a few kids from border towns were smoking reefers, it was enacted into federal law.. which then became a scapegoat for Nixon to campaign on.. which then became a scapegoat again for Reagan’s War on Drugs, who was able to convince the public that crappy Mexican weed was funding the cartels. Constant lies and Schedule I classification has set medical research back decades, while Purdue Pharma incentivizes doctors to prescribe their “safe” painkiller OxyContin to as many patients as they can. Give me a break. Alcohol is way more invasive and poisonous that marijuana is and it’s not even close. I think that people who champion gun rights while loudly decrying marijuana rights is the height of hypocrisy and ignorance. Why can’t people be more Libertarian and mind their own god damn business is beyond me.

    1. avatar red_dirt says:

      Great comment, thank you.

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      While the same people say things about stoned people driving, I remind you that CCW and recreational shooting is not a good idea for anyone who is drinking or getting high. I have seen too much of this type of irresponsible behavior, and there is no way to condone it. If you want to shoot after you get high(or have a few drinks), play video games.
      Firearms are serous business.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        yep quite agree. One single drink ‘may not’ affect an adult male in using a firearm however a couple definitely will. now on that note if someone is at home having a bender in the safety of their own home and some home invader busts in and gets shot by the home owner i would defend the home owner all year. would not give a damn either no matter what drug it was. In public you still have the right to self defense no matter your state of mind and again if it is justifiable self defense then i could care less if you are drunk, stoned or whatever else. If however you turned around and used the gun (or other violent means) when it is not justifiable self defense No matter drunk, stoned or sober i would lock you up…. that simple.
        Yes you are taking a risk operating under the influence as your judgement is impaired but whether you are or not should not have a bearing on the case but rather whether it was justified or not.
        Going to the range to practice under the influence however is stupid but i would not make a law against it. If you were to harm someone doing so then you would in my mind deserve the full weight of the law against you

  35. the whole thing about making pot legal was just to get more guns from people. and people fell for it. and they say pot does not affect your brain. obviously this pot seller is anti gun and loves to spread lies. and I am a little iffy about legal pot as well. there are studies that too much is harmful to your brain. and these studies were done in Europe. and of course if smoking a cigarette is harmful I cannot see how smoking pot is not since you inhale both into your lungs. now if this was in a pill form or something like it and did not get you high but was for pain control, and given by a doctor, then I see it as something good, like cocaine or other forms of opeoids that would maybe not be addictive.

  36. avatar Eric O says:

    The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

    I’m sorry, which legislative power herein granted to Congress (as instructed by the very first sentence of Article 1) escapes that it is a misconstruction or abuse of power, such that they aren’t restricted from infringing on the right of the people to bear arms? There is no such thing as a legal federal gun control law. And thanks to the 14th Amendment, that applies to the states, as well. There is no exception that states anything akin to “unless SCOTUS, POTUS, and Congress agree otherwise,” if it did, would be living in a nation at the whims of the federal government, not a nation of rule of law.

  37. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    Robert Farago, the former editor/owner of TTAG quickly learned after the fact the legal perils of a weed impaired stoner combining their passion for cannabis and firearms, which is why he quickly deleted/purged/erased any trace of the below mind boggling bone headed October 2015 TTAG proclamation that must have seemed to him like a great idea at the time while under the influence of some potent expensive bud.

    http://www.thegunpage.com/housekeeping-the-ttag-team-creates-marijuana-website/

    Housekeeping: The TTAG Team Creates Marijuana Website” The people who bring you The Truth About Guns have launched a new website dedicated to marijuana news: mjnewsfeed.com It’s not a blog. It’s a news aggregator – with a difference. The software contains a proprietary algorithm (thank you, Nick) that automatically personalizes the content you see based on your reading preferences. (Provided you sign in with a Facebook account. If not, the site remains anonymous.) Click on the leaf to see a blurb, then decide whether or not you want to eat some more chocolate chip cookies. I mean, read the full story. Better yet, mjnewsfeed.com’s curated. In other words . . .
    Our marijuana guy scans the web and selects the freshest crop of weed news for pot-oriented surfers (are there any other kind?). He also provides an editor’s note: a summary so you can decide whether or not to click through to the story. Note: unlike other aggregators, mjnewsfeed.com doesn’t strip-off advertising from the linked story. We think that’s unfair.
    Not to put too fine a point on it, mjnewsfeed.com is like the Drudge Report. Except personalized just for you. And about pot. We’d appreciate it if you could check it out and email a link

    Source:: Truth About Guns

  38. avatar Oklahoma says:

    Marijuana is a vice not a virtue
    I wonder why the communist left Democrats are for marijuana use? Their the party who is supporting the legalization, decriminalization of DOPE smoking. Why do the socialists, communists want the American public on marijuana? Why is it that the most far left states that are against our 2nd amendment are the states most involved in distributing DOPE to the locals? How many deaths are there per year because of legal intoxicants now? Will the accidental death rate go up with more Americans becoming DOPE HEADS? Will legalizing a substance get more Americans to feel its right to use DOPE? Or will it cause Americans to feel even stronger that DOPE is a vice not a virtue. I hope to see more DOPE smoking
    Shooters at the gun range so negligent discharges and other accidental gun injuries decrease. Cause every body knows Marijuana makes your senses and memory and reaction time sharper.

  39. avatar mrvco says:

    From a federal perspective marijuana (medical or otherwise) is just as illegal as it has ever been.

    Until marijuana is finally de-scheduled by the federales, mixing marijuana and any other federal laws or regulations is going to be risky business if the feds find a reason to knock on your door fland discover your personal stash.

    In the current quasi-legal marijuana environment that exists in the majority of States now, the real issue as I see it is the paper trail created by registering with the state for a medical marijuana card. Stick to hemp derived CBD (100% legal now), recreational marijuana if available in your state (stop using and don’t possess marijuana if buying a gun) or simply be a good little rule follower until the federal laws are finally aligned with the will of the people.

  40. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

    Why is marijuana illegal? Because cocaine makes black men rape white weman. Why are gunms so restricted? Because weman shoot Blackman high on cocaine who rape them. Simple

  41. avatar 1 Corinthians 1:26 says:

    We have a huge problem in this country with people killing others under the influence of intoxicants.
    Since the will of the people is to drink, this shows the selfishness of Americans. Liberal leftist commies can cry all they want about saving peoples lives from gun related crimes. But any anti 2nd amendment snowflake is just a complete hypocrite if they don’t want to make Alcohol illegal since it kills and ruins the lives of the users. Alcohol related deaths are way more of a problem in this country than gun related deaths ever will be . And the solution to all this death from the use of intoxicants is to legalize another intoxicant:Marijuana because it’s the will of the people and we don’t care if more people are harmed because we’re self centered DOPE HEADS that want to get stoned. Its are will and are will be done!

  42. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The problem with pot smokers is they refuse to accept the consequences of their actions. And refusing to be held accountable for the results of their intoxication, loss of all inhibitions, and the stupid things they then do.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email