ATF: Michigan Concealed Carriers Can No Longer Buy Guns Without a Background Check Because of Marijuana Legalization

marijuana law guns

Bigstock

Like a number of states, concealed pistol license holders in Michigan are exempted from the requirement to undergo a NICS background check every time they purchase a new firearm. That’s because permit holders have already undergone an extensive background check and fingerprinting in order to be issued a permit in the first place.

Michigan has had that exemption from the ATF since 2006, but yesterday the ATF rescinded it.

Why? Because recreational marijuana is now legal in the state. Voters approved legalization in 2018 and retail sales started December 1, 2019.

While buying and using weed may not be a state crime in the big mitten, it’s still illegal as far as the feds are concerned.

You can get a medical marijuana card for purchasing through dispensaries and the state doesn’t penalize CPL holders for having one. It’s also legal to grow small amounts yourself and possess certain quantities. As far as the state of Michigan is concerned, marijuana use isn’t a disqualifier for gun possession or concealed carry.

That is NOT, however, the position of the ATF. Question 11e on form 4473 still asks if you’re an illegal user of a controlled substance. The form even includes this specific caveat:

Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

In short the ATF doesn’t care that weed is now legal in Michigan…it’s still a Schedule I federally controlled substance.

Now, because the state of Michigan is issuing CPLs to people who use marijuana, the ATF sent the following letter yesterday notifying all of the state’s FFLs that Michigan CPL holders are no longer exempted from the background check requirement.

We talked to Michigander and TTAG contributor Josh Wayner who holds a CPL about the change. He isn’t happy.

This new advisory by the ATF is yet again an assault on Michigan’s state sovereignty and singularly targets the most law-abiding among us. The citizens of Michigan voted to legalize marijuana in our state, and as a result of federal overreach, the government has decided to put upstanding citizens, who have the lowest rate of crime here, under the microscope for doing what is legal here if they choose to.

It is ridiculous to require a person to get an extensive background check and criminal history review as well as fingerprints to get a CPL, only to have them waste time and money getting checked again and again when the state already revokes CPLs for any number of crimes. If you mess up, you already lose the ability to use your CPL in place of a background check.

This is a redundant abuse that only targets the most legitimate among us. Note that the ATF doesn’t seem to care about private sales here. They are inadvertently going to drive more gun sales off the radar with this stupid power move.

comments

  1. avatar Dinsdale says:

    Wait for the real ID. Lots of overreach coming your way.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      How is it “overreach” when states are blatantly ignoring federal law and issuing IDs to people who shouldn’t have them?

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        Idle curiosity what part of the Constitution grants the ATF the right to intervine in the states decision?

        1. avatar Kage McGuire says:

          Abe Lincoln and almost every President since have been whittling away states rights. The Federal Government can do whatever it wants regardless of what states and their citizens think.

        2. avatar Don from CT says:

          Its called the Interstate Commerce Clause. Google it. Its been (ab)used by the Feds since roughly 1789!!

        3. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          Abused sadly is the correct phrase.
          In Arizona where I live and follow the law. Medical marijuana must be grown in state in licensed facilities. The industry is cash only. So no interstate transfer of drugs or use of interstate banking.
          Arguably person to person firearm sales also reflect only in state trade.
          FYI I don’t use Marijuana

        4. avatar Mark N. says:

          The background check is required only at the time a firearm is purchased, and federal law requires all purchasers to fill out a 4473. The current 4473 makes it explicit that a person who uses marijuana is prohibited from purchasing. Until the new Michigan law, ATF had granted an exemption for CPL holders. It has now revoked that exemption because some of those holders may be unlawfully consuming marijuana. If it had the right to grant it, it had the power to revoke it. State law does NOT pre-empt federal law, and federal law still bans pot. The ATF is simply enforcing federal law, as it is supposed to do. The only way to change it is to change federal law.

        5. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

          ATF had granted an exemption for CPL holders

          Only for FBI NICS checks, not 4473. No one has an exemption from those anywhere when buying from an FFL.

        6. avatar Rebel says:

          Lincoln was a damned tyrant. To hell with federal power. A Confederacy is a better form of government.

        7. avatar Diana says:

          None and the states are breaking the Law Our Constitution as Written is the only law that needs protected from these socialist communist that want our guns we need to find someone to SUE all these corrupt politicians and states Our Constitution is the Law not these politicians follow the Constitution as Written. Or be brought up on charges of Treason, yes there are some that should not have a gun but that is NOT what they are doing, the government is NOT ENTITLED to ignore our rights freedom and our Constitution as Written

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          For your reading pleasure….the constitutional source for federal supremacy over state law:

          “Article 6 – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

          All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

          This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis, mine)

          The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

      2. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

        Did the ATF issue a similar letter to FFLs in AK, CA, AR, AZ, HI, LA, MO, MT, ND, UT, and WV?

        1. avatar Anymouse says:

          Did all those states allow a CCW holder to skip a background check or waiting period? Colorado never did, so it didn’t change with legalization and no letter would be necessary. Seems like MI changes make them no longer conform with federal standards, like NY’s Green Light Law (issuing IDs to illegals and restricting database access) no longer meeting DHS Trustee Traveler requirements. However, I don’t see how MI marijuana use would show up on a background check. MI won’t arrest or charge you, which could have rescinded CCW. Only a federal arrest and charge could possibly show up.

        2. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

          Yes. California and Alaska both have recreational marijuana and their CCW/CPL is still good for NICS waivers. They’ve had recreational MJ longer than Michigan. All the other states have medical marijuana and their carry licenses are still valid for NICS waivers.

          So why single Michigan out?

        3. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          Arizona does

        4. avatar Rad Man says:

          I didn’t get one in MA.

        5. avatar Mark N. says:

          There is no such exemption in CA for CCW holders. The exemption is solely for entertainment firearms permits. Therefore you still have to fill out a 4473 and answer under penalty of perjury as to whether you use or are addicted to illegal drugs or alcohol, and that includes pot.

        6. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

          There is no such exemption in CA for CCW holders. The exemption is solely for entertainment firearms permits. Therefore you still have to fill out a 4473 and answer under penalty of perjury as to whether you use or are addicted to illegal drugs or alcohol, and that includes pot.

          NICS exemption has nothing to do with the 4473. Everyone still has to fill out a 4473, just not have an FBI NICS check. That’s what the ATF, and we, are talking about.

        7. avatar Russell says:

          One nitpick with your list, MO permits do not qualify for an NICS waiver.

        8. avatar Charles White says:

          Sorry your wrong in West Virginia we do not have to have a permit to carry concealed that was passed several years ago, that,s a fact as I live in West Virginia

        9. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

          We’re not talking about requiring a license to carry, we’re talking about licenses serving as NICS waivers. States that don’t require licenses still issue them for people who wish to travel out of state. And you might want to check with the ATF about that whole license thing.

          https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/permanent-brady-permit-chart

          West Virginia Concealed handgun license issued on or after June 4, 2014 qualify.

      3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        Article and section of the US Constitution that gives the Feds any authority over who a state issues an ID to?

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          No, but it does regulate who gets special IDs, like the RealID now required for travel on airplanes. So states are now issuing them. And in California, you have to have one to buy a gun after October.

      4. avatar burley says:

        if we were truly constitutionally minded, we’d need no IDs at all. It wouldn’t matter who got voted in because they’d have so little actual power. If we weren’t giving away so much food, money, education, (foreign military intervention) etc, people would only be immigrating here to actually work. Even the folks born here who are currently voting for the biggest social program (tax programs) wouldn’t be motivated to leave the house if they new none of their fellows would be tolerating the form of theft know as taxation. If we’d(and by we I actually do mean WE, not the military, not some cops, actual us) go and arrest officials who are in obvious violation of the constitution, you could vote in Che Guevara but he’d be dead by the end of his first week. For example, every asshat that voted in favor of the Patriot Act (either time) needs to be hanged, by the neck until dead, for treason. If we’d go get that business done, we could then turn off the flow of socialist programs that are the source of all this ID bs in the first place.

      5. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “How is it “overreach” when states are blatantly ignoring federal law and issuing IDs to people who shouldn’t have them?”

        How can POTG be this unaware? State law cannot supercede federal law. Federal firearm laws do not require ATF to grant any waiver of gun purchase background checks.

        A federal background check might not uncover illegal drug use (if there is no criminal record), and a firearm buyer can lie on the form. However, that false statement is then an undiscovered felony crime, and the buyer risks the consequences of future discovery.

        Federal firearm laws do not require ATF to grant any waiver of gun purchase background checks. States can change their background check laws up, down and sideways, ATF is not obligated to grant waivers of any kind.

        1. avatar Brigrat says:

          Find the section of the Constitution giving the Feds the authority to regulate State ID’s… when you don’t find it try reading the “US Government for Kids: Tenth Amendment”

          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.

          https://www.ducksters.com/history/us_government/tenth_amendment.php

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The ATF (federal government) is not interfering with any state-issued ID, specifically carry permits. The states have no power to pass laws at variance with federal law/regulation. A state may issue whatever form of carry permit it chooses. A state may establish whatever process is required for issuing ID/carry permits. A state-issued firearms permit cannot override the federal fire arm laws.

          Federal law determines how firearms are bought and sold, regardless of the state where the transaction takes place. If a citizen of a state wishes to purchase a firearm from a retail outlet, federal law applies. A state could ban a firearm that is permitted to be purchased via the FFL, but a state cannot pass a law that circumvents the federal law. That is, a machine gun is legal to purchase under federal law, but a state may prohibit it. A state may not, through state law, allow citizens to purchase machine guns without obtaining a federal tax stamp.

          In the instant case, the federal government is under no obligation to respect any state-issued carry permit; none. As such, an agency of the federal government (ATF) does nothing to disturb the power of the individual state to set its own laws regarding carry permits. States must apply to the federal government for the privilege of allowing persons with carry permits to bypass NICS background checks for firearm purchases subsequent to the state issuing the carry permit.

          Under the circumstance at hand, the federal government is not blocking the purchase of firearms via an FFL. The ATF is not blocking the private sale of firearms between citizens of the state. The ATF can constitutionally end the entire practice of accepting carry permits in lieu of background checks for firearm purchases via an FFL, encroaching not a millimeter on the rights/power of the state to issue carry permits.

          Persons living in states where waiver of NICS is not allowed for firearms purchases at an FFL undergo NICS checks for retail purchases of firearms. Persons living in states where waiver of NICS is based on issuing a carry permit simply revert to the status as it was prior to the federal government extending the courtesy of NICS waiver based on a carry permit. States have no constitutional standing to force the federal government to ignore question 11e from the form 4473. It is simple…if your state permits legal use of drugs, that permission does not extend into federal territory. Citizens of a state that legalized use of designated drugs have no constitutional right to use those drugs on federal property.

          Citizens of a state that legalized use of designated drugs have no constitutional right to exception regarding the federal process of NICS background checks. When buying firearms retail, one is dealing with an agent of government…the FFL.

        3. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

          if your state permits legal use of drugs, that permission does not extend into federal territory.

          Then why has the ATF ignored all the other states with legal marijuana that enjoy NICS exemption? I’ve listed them in two different posts here. Michigan is just the latest. And actually, MI has had legal medical marijuana for a long time. Why is Michigan being singled out among all the states in the US?

          The other reason listed is domestic violence, but in Michigan, a DV will disqualify you from a CPL.

          Michigan Open Carry is investigating this, and no options are off the table.

          For those that don’t know, Michigan Open Carry does more for gun rights in MI than any other Michigan gun rights organization.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Then why has the ATF ignored all the other states with legal marijuana that enjoy NICS exemption.”

          The lack of uniformity in application of law/regulation is not unusual; never has been. No state internal law overrides federal law on the same subject.

          As to the general question of what constitutional authority permits the federal government to interfere with the laws of a state…Article 6, para 2.

        5. avatar Djea3 says:

          Apparently you do not understand the laws and the way MJ laws actually work. The feds can not arrest users in any state where it is legal to use MJ. They can ONLY get involved where there is INTERSTATE transportation of MJ.
          Likewise, the interstate portion of the transport of weapons for sale can be governed by *Some* federal laws. HOWEVER, once an arm arrives in a state that state has total control over any sale or use as long as that arm does not leave the state in any transaction or as the direct result of a transaction. Example, a licensed gun shop sells to someone for use in another state.
          Part of the problem is that SCOTUS lied about the intent and purpose of the US Constitution with regard to 2A. The founding fathers were clear that the use of ANY weapon in self defense was a given. They also made it clear that the PEOPLE must have available ARMS to assure that the GOVERNMENT be afraid of the people and that the people NEVER afraid of the government. This was made clear in MANY ways including the warning the WE the PEOPLE should never trust our government or our elected officials….including the Founding Fathers.
          Please refer to the 1828 Webster’s First Edition American English Dictionary and look up “arms”. Virtually EVERY weapon of war available to the government IS included in that list. Specifically, we KNOW that the Founding Fathers owned war ships, cannon, mortar, rifle, pistol and every arm of the times. Their intent was that the PEOPLE always be capable of standing up against an overbearing government.
          Consider.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You misunderstand the situation, entirely.

          The feds control, inside the states, who may (snicker) buy, sell or possess a firearm. States cannot demand, nor permit, a prohibited person to buy a firearm through a retail outlet. States cannot direct the federal government to accept state carry licenses in lieu of a NICS background check. FFLs are federal agents, making the transaction a federal transaction (where the Commerce Clause might be invoked). States may allow people to carry firearms wherever they want…on property within the state, except federal properties (where federal law applies).

          The federal firearms laws prohibit users of federally controlled drugs from buying firearms via FFLs, and there is nothing state law can do about it; a “prohibited person” is a “prohibited person”, regardless of state law. The federal government, not the state, determines whether a waiver of NICS background checks applies. If a state legalizes an activity that violates federal law, the federal government is not required to ignore its own laws. Thus, when the feds determine the risk of people buying firearms is too high because a state legalizes use of a federally controlled drug, the feds can decide, not the state, whether revocation of the waiver of NICS checks is denied/removed/rescinded. The states have no power over the waivers, period.

          The fact that Eric Holder declared the federal government would not pursue drug use violations in states that legalize certain drug use does not make such drug use legal at the federal level. The DOJ can go back to pursuing offenders on federal charges, and states have no power to stop it.

          Carry licenses are a state matter, buying firearms through retail outlets (FFLs) is entirely a federal matter. States may issue carry licenses as they wish. The federal government controls retail firearm sales IAW federal law. In Michigan, the state can continue to issue carry permits to drug users. Those state issued carry permits cannot, and do not, override the NICS check (form 4473, 11e)

      6. avatar Dinsdale says:

        You don’t understand overreach, got it. Where does the Federal government get the authority to issue IDs to the public for any purpose? And wait until they start attaching all sorts of requirements to renew your Real ID.

        1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

          The Federal Government doesn’t issue the Id.
          Real ID is a set of rules about what is required as verification of identity and rules about the photo on the I’d.
          That said I can’t say I like the rules or consider them justified.

      7. avatar Randy Jones says:

        Why should this be any different than illegal alien sanctuary city laws? technically illegal under federal law, but cities and states make them anyway. On the other hand, a state or county making a 2A sanctuary is doing so to confirm its support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

        As far as the recreational use of pot, the same should apply to the medicinal use of pot. THC is THC and doesn’t know the difference of the individual using it. If we didn’t see this conflict coming down the road years ago, someone wasn’t thinking.

        1. avatar Black Tom says:

          Illegal aliens don’t have citizen’s rights. The bill of rights doesn’t even apply to them.
          Illegal aliens are criminals by definition. Why would the US allow criminal invaders to get IDs in the first place?
          They should be arrested, then executed on the spot. Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for the trial and incarceration of an invading foreign army, and we definitely shouldn’t have to pay for their IDs and social services.
          People who want to “help” these foreigners should voluntarily send their own money, not force taxpayers who don’t want them here to pay for their social services.

      8. avatar Stonewall says:

        I personally support states defying the federal government.

        1. avatar Mick says:

          In some issues, I agree. Try suing the State for discrimination (we used to call it reverse discrimination – which never made sense to me). I can tell you first hand of one that occurred and the woman had a nailed down case. i mean it was bullet proof. She sued the state in Federal Court. Now if this had been Joe’s Pool Hall that was sued, the Feds would have seen it fit to nail Joe to the cross. However, the state FINALLY came back with their only defense. “The State of blah blah blah is a sovereign entity and is not responsible to the Federal Government for issues related to its practices.” They won. That my dear friends is bull crap, especially when it cost a fine woman her job of 20 years and a great case of true PTSS that turned into PTSD. It cost her the career she loved and left her without the ability to obtain employment in her field, because she sued the state.

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    Maybe Michigan should have thought twice before they enabled worthless dopeheads?

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      F off. I voted against it.

      1. avatar Dave G. says:

        Remember hearing about prohibition (which was pushed by the same brand of female do-gooders now trying to eliminate firearms)? Remember what prohibition did for the criminal element, and how it screwed over the Bill of Rights? Well I live in Michigan too, and I don’t use pot. Never have. But THAT’S why I voted for legalization.

        1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          I had several reasons to vote against it. Most of those reasons still are problems the state is struggling to solve. I don’t care what people do for the most part, but I knew the .gov would mess up.

    2. avatar David Bradford says:

      I know, I feel the need to keep my car windows closed when driving in Ann Arbor so I won’t accidentally get high from the clouds of pot smoke emanating from the other cars on the road.

    3. avatar Mitch says:

      Hey Pwrserge, cool anime avatar… You pathetic loser 🤣

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        He claims to be a commie hater but he descends from Russia and doesn’t like the Bill of Rights. He even said it would have been better of white supremacist had won.

        1. avatar Geoff “sometimes my anal fissures bleed” PR says:

          Pwrserge is a full blown, home grown communist. Watching him post things about “commies” is comedy gold.

        2. avatar Geoff "Poor widdle 'pee-gee 2" PR says:

          ‘pee-gee 2’, all you’re doing is embarrassing yourself, son… 😉

    4. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Agreed.

    5. avatar Casey says:

      Yeah, people who are different than you definitely deserve to die!

    6. avatar strych9 says:

      Ah yes, the solution for people annoying you: murder.

      How erudite and adult.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Cool story bro.

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        He’s why we should all own long guns. His idea of sharia law is in opposition to liberty of the individual.

    7. avatar Chief Censor says:

      “Now, we need a DNR open season on gun owners. Then, after a short while, no more need for the atf ruling.

      Nothing quite so nice as driving along and getting a car full of that nasty stench, gun powder smelling shit. Or, enjoying dinner in your favorite place (of which you can no longer smoke in restaurants in Michigan), and having some gun owner walk in and sit right next to you. Gun powder smelling assholes!!”

      1. avatar Cea says:

        Chief senseless,
        Smoke, a little? Do ya?
        Ha ha!!

      2. avatar Cea is a shitbag says:

        Cea, suck a little BATFE dick, do ya?

      3. avatar Cea says:

        To Cea is a shitbag,
        It has nothing to do with the batfe.
        I just personally believe that if a person is going to use a mind altering substance, jeopardizing all others around them, they should be stopped before they have a chance to do harm to innocent people around them. Who stops them, and how, I don’t care.
        Pretty simple, really. Why do so many here advocate that people should be able to take/use drugs/alcohol, etc, especially if it puts others at risk?

        1. avatar Cea is a shitbag. says:

          Not all people who smoke pot are a threat. Most are not.
          You are a bigger threat to people, evidenced by your own words, than any of the hundreds of pot smokers I’ve met in my life.
          You are utterly worthless as a person.
          You are a sad little fascist.

        2. avatar Cea says:

          Ouch!! So hurtful, you are.
          You are a tough guy…really.
          Lol, lol, lol

        3. avatar Cea is a shitbag says:

          Cea: I never claimed to be a ‘tough guy’.
          I don’t need to.
          But you seem to have something to prove.
          Did a pot smoking hippy bang your girlfriend and make you feel inadequate? Because that would explain you irrational desire to kill people who partake in the bud.

          Like I said previously, out your gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. It will make the planet a little better place to live in.

        4. avatar Cea says:

          I don’t want to kill anyone. I just think that substance abusers should die before they hurt someone.
          And if you’re a substance abuser (you know you are…) then maybe you need to mouth the smoke wagon and do your community a huge favor…tough guy

        5. avatar Cea is a shitbag says:

          Lol!! We can see the bullshit pouring out of your mouth. You have said it multiple times.
          You are a sad little sack of shit. Hopefully, you haven’t spread your damaged DNA to any offspring. If so, I hope they all get hooked on meth.
          I’d love to see you drag them down the roads tied to your bumper.

        6. avatar Cea says:

          Well, you’re an illiterate ass.
          You cannot find any post, or reply that I wrote, saying that I wanted to kill anyone. I’m in favor of the death penalty, and further, public executions. However, I would never want to be the executioner.
          Again, pot smokers, drunk drivers, thieves, and all sorts of criminals should die. By whatever means possible. Preferably, a very painful death. Cause that’s what they leave in their paths, pain.
          Now, I have always heard that you should never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. So, I concede. You win! Ha!

      4. avatar Dinsdale says:

        If someone under the influence of alcohol or weed is not operating a motor vehicle, who exactly are they putting at risk? Not to mention the masses of the public who are on mind altering LEGAL medications….who do operate motor vehicles. You misunderstand your surroundings.

    8. avatar burley says:

      Oh noes! Liberty for others who disagree with me! Maybe if you’d recognize that drug abuse is a liberty, you’d think differently. Potheads are far less irritating than boozehounds.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        As long as we can shoot potheads dead when the rob, rape, steal and vandalize property. Just like when we shoot drinkers for doing the same thing when they are intoxicated. I’m ok with drug legalization.

        1. avatar Cea says:

          Oh no, Chris T,
          Get ready for some shit from all these criminal sympathizers here.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to Cea
          It’s called consequences.

        3. avatar Hydguy says:

          And again, your ignorance bears it’s head.
          Pot doesn’t make people do those things.
          None of my friends ever did anything like that when high.
          Here is a clue: Reefer Madness wasn’t a documentary.

        4. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

          Stfu you like IQ Dumba$$….. everytime you post a comment, you embarrass yourself..

        5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          fyi
          “16-Year-Old Burglar Keeps Yelling ‘I’m So High!’ After Being Shot”

          https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/16-year-old-burglar-keeps-yelling-im-so-high-after-being-shot/

    9. avatar Jim from LI says:

      Ah yes, all MM users are “worthless dopeheads”, unlike all the people with doctor issued prescriptions for opioids or those folks drinking good ol’ Tennessee bourbon. Because some genius that thought the movie Reefer Madness was a documentary decided there were no legitimate uses for the stuff. You don’t use it (neither do I) therefore no one should.

    10. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Don’t worry. We make sure to kick your door in to serve a warrant for both your drugs and guns. I’m just giving you a heads up so you can hide your guns and drugs. You ain’t above the law. Your guns are more dangerous to public safety than your neighbor’s pot. Red flag laws are made for you, buddy.

      The only smoke I put out is gun smoke. I’m sure you rather smell the smoke a pot head puts out…

      1. avatar Cea says:

        No dope here!
        I don’t even think we have Advil, Tylenol, etc…
        And nope, don’t like the smell of dope…what I’ve been sayin’…
        And figures that you’d support red flag laws. Just figures.

        Chief senseless…

        1. avatar Cea is a shitbag says:

          Cea: trust me, there is dope in your house. It happens to be the 2 legged variety.

    11. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Historically pot smokers have never supported Liberty. But they do like getting their marijuana intoxication.

      1. avatar Hydguy says:

        So George Washington didn’t support liberty?
        What a fucking idiot you are.

      2. avatar George WashingtonGl says:

        Yeah well have fun with your useless and boring life…. and keep it to yourself…. nobody wants to be corrupted by your mental illness…. it would behoove you to MIND YOUR OWN FKN BUSINESS AND LEAVE PEOPLE WHO STILL BELIEVE IN FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUALISM….

        1. avatar G says:

          ALONE!!!!

          LOL

      3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        fyi potheads
        The founders didn’t grow Hemp to smoke it. They needed it for rope (sailing ships) and writing paper.

        1. avatar Hydguy says:

          Lol! I’d say that’s the most asinine thing I’ve read. But that’s pretty tame in comparison to other stupid shit you and CEA have been posting.
          What shitty examples of gun owners you two fucktards are.

    12. avatar Rebel says:

      Maybe the federal government aught to keep its fat liberal nose out of states affairs, as was intended before the North fucked it up for everyone.

      1. avatar stredford says:

        This Yankee agrees, Stinkin Lincoln had to cheat to win and is hailed as a hero. War was about states rights, not slavery. I’m not pro pot or pro alcohol – IMO, they don’t make the world a better place but what business is it of mine to tell you not to partake? So long as your interest don’t conflict with mine, who cares? Govt is only concerned about tax revenue – they need the $ to grow and become stronger – that is how they can control the people.

      2. avatar JIM says:

        It’s the states democrats that that are trying to violate the Constitution, but Washington is not going to pass up a chance for easy money.

  3. avatar arc says:

    Time for us to make sanctuary states without the ATF and outright arrest them if they attempt to enforce any of their asinine policies within the state.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Well, this puts a spotlight on the problem between Federal and State rights. Setting aside the entire “should marijuana be legal or not” debate (and I myself am fine with allowing physician-approved medical CBD, but not recreational THC), isn’t this simply an alternate version of the regulation of alcohol or tobacco? Each state determines its own allowable limit of consumption to define intoxication…your BAC is either under the limit or over it, and the application of any charges depends upon the circumstances. Over the BAC limit, but in your own home? No charges pressed. At a party in a hotel, where you can either walk/stumble to your room or call an Uber? No charges pressed. Only if you DUI or make yourself a public nuisance to you risk arrest.

      So then, if you have a Medical Cannabis card, that only confirms your ability to buy marijuana; it doesn’t confirm that you’re under the influence at any given time. Just like having a driver license confirms your ability to buy alcohol (if you’re old enough), but doesn’t mean you’re under the influence at any given time. Just as you can only be deemed worthy of charges if you’re drunk while engaging in another activity (driving, carousing), you should only be charged if you’re currently under the influence of marijuana while also holding a gun. Otherwise, you haven’t committed any dangerous act and shouldn’t be disallowed from either activity just because the ATF “thinks” you might do it.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Non sequitur. The ATF does not assume that CPD holders use pot because it is legal, they merely require them to affirm under penalty of perjury on the 4473 that they do not at the time of purchasing a firearm. Just like the rest of us, including all of the people in states where pot is not legal for recreational use.

        1. avatar Crazy huh? says:

          Never smoke pot when buying a firearm from an FFL.
          Seems pretty simple.
          Do it after you buy it.

    2. avatar Djea3 says:

      This already happened in one state, If I recall it was Montana. They passed laws that allowed for use of silencers (and I think other devices federally illegal) manufactured and sold and used inside Montana. The feds attempted to step in and arrest anyone who exercised that right. So Montana ( if I remember correctly) passed a law that any federal agent that attempted to make an arrest for that law would be guilty of a felony and have a minimum prison sentence (something like 10 years?)
      The feds backed down because if an agent did make such an arrest they would be subject to extradition to Montana for trial and sentencing and the law there was legal and just and no defense was available to even a federal agent under Federal law. The law could not really be challenged.
      The entire issue was dropped.
      SO, the issue is State’s rights. The way to assure them is to pass SPECIFIC LAWS against federal agents abusing the federal powers by acting/arresting in violation of State law. The crime is the crime and not even SCOTUS wants to have to address such a state law. It could easily tear the nation apart…..and cause secession en mass.

  4. avatar Whoopie says:

    This makes no sense. Since you can’t be arrested or convicted in Mich. for using pot how would your name ever wind up on the fed’s ‘no-buy’ list?

    1. avatar Fred says:

      If you use marijuana, you are on the Fed’s “No Buy” list. Of course, they won’t know if you lie. If you have a prescription card for ‘medical marijuana’, You’re on the “No Buy” List. I wonder when NICS will start looking at those prescriptions? Just a matter of time.

      Does having Marijuana classed as a Schedule I drug make sense? Personally, i don’t think so, but that’s the law until it gets changed. Schedule I is extreme, but I also don’t think it should be completely legal. The Alcohol limit is 0.08%, what’t the THC limit? Or is driving under the influence of Marijuana somehow safer than alcohol?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “…wonder when NICS will start looking at those prescriptions?”

        In most cases they already do. Colorado’s CBI has the list and shares it with the feds. After surrender of a MMJ card it takes about a year to be able to pass a BGC and buy a firearm.

        Took my buddy like 19 months to be able to legally buy and now he’s hooked on pills for pain but, whatever, not like pills are a problem amiright?

        1. avatar Hydguy says:

          That’s why you don’t bother with the card.
          Pay a little more, in cash, and you are off the books.
          When a medical MJ was put on the ballot, I voted against it for several reasons, one of which is the FSP and Dept of AG is notified and your info is put on the prohibited purchaser list and your CCW can be revoked.

      2. avatar Hydguy says:

        The ‘high’, or impairment, only last between 2-3 hours. However, THC can stay in your system up to 30 days or so, depending on how much you smoke. Tolerance is also a factor in how much you need to smoke to get high.

        But I’ve never seen stoners get violent from just smoking, unlike how some people get with a couple of beers.
        You place too much faith in the same sources that gave us Reefer Madness.
        It’s nothing like that.

  5. avatar NORDNEG says:

    This is what you get for legalizing weed, the states see dollar signs for both the weed purchases & background checks.
    not only has legal weed caused much more headaches for the community & police, it’s made a mess out of the young that couldn’t get it otherwise,
    Not only that , it’s way , way cheaper to buy on the black market, my state used to excuse concealed carry permit holders from excessive background checks but they did away with that perk as soon as they realized they could get more money out of you for the check. Fact,,, Big government is NOT your friend.

    1. avatar Hydguy says:

      Weed shouldn’t be a scheduled drug, period.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      I haven’t seen things get worse. I have seen more diversity in the neighborhoods with shops because white, black and brown people love to buy their stuff at the store instead of grow. The department wants more patrols near the shops because they believe crime is going to go up in that area. So far nothing but a few more traffic violations due to the larger amount of people passing through, that’s just a matter of more people driving through, not because of impairment.

      I have witnessed more impairment crimes when a bar opens up than a smoke shop. Alcohol leads to much worse situations. The environments that cater to that substance are also less safe.

      Kids can easily get pot. It’s everywhere. A 12 year old has no problem getting pot. Every non Asian I knew was smoking or had smoked before college. Some even grow a few plants in their closest.

      Republicans can’t control people like they use to. The younger generations are past that. Democrats are catering to them and solidifying votes as they do.

    3. avatar Hydguy says:

      Kids in middle school can find weed if they really want. Go into the ghetto, and they can find crack, heroin, PCP, and just about every other drug out there.
      You are an idiot if you think drugs are difficult to get on the street.

    4. avatar S.Crock says:

      How can people claim to be against big government and be against weed legalization? If you are not for legalization, you are for a very big government that spends billions of tax dollars on a failed drug war.

  6. avatar David Bradford says:

    Well damn, that sucks. Who says your pot smoking is a victimless crime and doesn’t hurt anyone? I just got victimized.

    1. avatar Cea says:

      And now, since opening a few months ago, there have been several shootings outside or very near the “legal” grow houses. More crime right from the get go. Only to continue to get worse.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        My town has a number of stores. No crime associated with any of them, although they are more of a target for a robbery.

        1. avatar Cea says:

          Yeah, pretty sure the shootings were part of a (attempted) robbery associated with the pot house.

        2. avatar UpInArms says:

          The banks are reluctant to do business with any facet of the legal pot trade. Not because their moral people, but because they are in the same bind as the gun owners. Since pot is still a Fed controlled substance, doing business in the pot trade could open the banks up to money laundering and RICO charges.

          The upshot of this is the pot stores often find themselves sitting on bushels of cash that they can’t put in the banks. Which makes them prime targets for crime.

          If the Fed would just drop pot off the controlled substance list, all sorts of problems would magically disappear.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      You place fault in the wrong place.

      Anger in this case is properly directed at the ATF.

      1. avatar David Bradford says:

        Chicken and the egg. If it weren’t for dopers and drunks the ATF wouldn’t exist.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          You could make the same argument about guns. It would be equally nonsensical.

  7. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    This is ridiculous. A user can still lie on the 4473 and pass the background check. I won’t use. I want to vomit on a near daily basis due to the smell, just driving down the street there is always a car (or 10) that reeks of it while going down the street.

    I share my dads name, he has a criminal histroy, my NICS would usually be extended 15-20 min until I got my CPL.

  8. avatar Viejo Torro says:

    so a medical marijuana card user who uses pot for glacoma or as an appetite stimulant should not have the right to self defense?

    1. avatar Cea says:

      There are other, “real” medications, for those purposes.
      This Mary jane shit is recent…
      People have been in pain, and fat, for a long time. And guess what, there was always something that worked for them.

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        Like opium and booze? Those are peaceful and non addictive right.
        Back to the question is a chance patient using marijuana to stimulate appetite not worthy of self defense? Answer please

      2. avatar Hydguy says:

        Sure.. all the opioid deaths are worth keeping a drug (that has never had one death attributed to its actual use) illegal because you don’t like pot.

      3. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Those legal drugs have destroyed white America. But it has been good for the corporations, terrorists, dealers and China.

        Illegal and legal drugs are how cartels and Islamic terrorist fund their operations. Opium has helped a lot of Muslim terrorists fund terror attacks. Illegal drugs have helped cartels take over a nation and flood the U.S. with Central and South Americans.

        A lot of Americans are dying from prescription drugs or the street sold ingredients for them. I think suicide by prescription drugs has become the preferred method instead of a gun to the head. In Korea it’s very popular.

  9. avatar Chris Brown says:

    There is only one reason that political leaders, mostly on the Left, are supporting legalization of this harmful substance, i.e. it is easier to extract honey from a beehive when the inhabitants are under the influence of smoke. And it is easier to extract freedoms from Americans when a substantial portion are stoned and docile, not to mention made more dependent on government by this “innocuous” drug.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Star Trek Next Generation’s pilot episode back in the late ’80s included the expansion of mind-numbing drugs for police and soldiers, to make them more compliant to their superiors’ orders (skip to marker 1:40 in the vid):

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        This was a great scene!!! I remember it. I’m barely old enough to remember the originally Star Trek on TV in 1966. Always been a fan. It spoke the truth when the drug legalization crowd avoids that truth.

        Libertarians are incapable of being honest about this. That’s one reason why I don’t trust them. They will go out of their way to deny any debilitating effects of drug use. They have been against DUI arrests. And there is video out there from the early 1990’s(?) of Libertarians supporting drunk driving. And I’m thinking of John Stossel. And he was not the only one who said it.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Are you aware that a lot of soldiers were on drugs so they could fight better than when off them? They at least used them to calm down and keep it together under wartime stress. Even now a lot of millennial veterans use cannabis to help them with their PTS.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I have no interest in american soldiers being given drugs like the nazis did to their soldiers in WW2. If you’ve never heard about it before. Look it up. An entire army “crashing” on drugs while on the battlefield is a great way to lose. Thats what happened on the Eastern front.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          And if you think that soldiers out on patrol in enemy territory aren’t amping up on speed then I have a bridge in Arizona I can sell you.

        2. avatar Hydguy says:

          Lol!! What an idiot.
          The US military has been using drugs to enhance performance for decades.
          Amphetamines was a wildly popular drug that was dispensed by the military.

          You are so woefully uneducated that it’s embarrassing.

        3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to Hydguy
          The US military has been prosecuting personnel who self medicate for decades now. I know because I retired in 2005 from the Army. You need to update your information on the military and drug use.

        4. avatar Hydguy says:

          Reading comprehension isn’t something you really try to employ, is it?
          I said nothing about ‘self medicating’.
          I said that the military has been experimenting on members, with performance enhancing drugs. For fuck’s sake, try to stay on point.

  10. avatar strych9 says:

    Maybe people will start to recognize that at it’s base there is zero difference between “drug control” and “gun control”.

    They’re identical thought processes applied to different inanimate objects based on a “well, bad things could maybe happen” hypothesis.

    Funny that J.S. Mill figured this out in the mid 1850’s but we took his warning as guidelines more than half a century later.

  11. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

    There are other states that have legalized recreational marijuana and yet have licenses that qualify as a waiver, including AK and CA. Also, states that have legalized medical marijuana and have a NICS waiver include: AR, AZ, HI, LA, MO, MT, ND, UT, and WV.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Not sure of this, as I haven’t purchased a gun from any FFL here in CA since the mid-90s (inherited or assembled my own since then). I personally know a lot of gun owners, but I have yet to hear anyone from any of my spheres of influence discuss any possession of a Cannabis card. Would be an interesting conversation, tho.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        As far as I can tell, he is wrong about California. The only thing it exempts you from is proofs of residency.

  12. avatar Rhodesian says:

    Apply this legislation equally or not at all.

  13. avatar DaveL says:

    Meh. The violation of state sovereignty happened in Wickard v. Filburn, whereby the feds got to regulate almost anything under the theory it might have some collateral effect on interstate commerce. If we accept the premise they can set the conditions for retail gun transactions occurring entirely within a state, AND that they have the authority to ban the cultivation, use, and intrastate sale of whatever plant they please, it follows they can enforce both.

  14. avatar duroSIG556R says:

    The fed needs to step in and finally put an end to this drug war.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Or people could wise up and stop using.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Or people could wise up and stop buying guns.

        It’s all grabber logic when you break it down. You can’t be trusted with X. The only questions are, what is X and who are you? The answers vary by person but the logic doesn’t.

        1. avatar Kgun says:

          You distilled it down to its essence!
          This is how they control us. These posters who act as if marijuana is the worst thing are no better than our “betters” Lecturing us on our guns. Same holier than though attitude
          As Moms Demand Action. Gun owners Should to be Highly critical and skeptical of all laws disqualifying Gun Ownership. Certainly not justify any. There’s no shortage of liberals willing to do it.
          .

        2. avatar Mater says:

          Look what was said about people not needing to be too United I think Johnny Madison said it to prevent tyranny of the majority… I mean that’s why we are a republic not a democracy but honestly I think most people are too ignorant to know how our government actually works… the war on drugs destroyed the constitution… the 4th is gone… I mean anyone with basic 7th grade reading comprehension can understand the constitution

  15. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I do not follow the ATF’s justification for requiring Federal Firearm Licensees in Michigan to check a firearm purchaser’s criminal history when the purchaser already has a concealed carry license.

    The ATF letter says that Michigan may/likely issues concealed carry licenses to habitual marijuana users which disqualifies them from purchasing a firearm. How is Michigan supposed to know whether or not someone is a habitual marijuana user? Even if Federal Firearm Licensees in Michigan called in every sale, how would fedzilla know if a purchaser is a habitual marijuana user and and thus reject the sale?

    Now, the part where the ATF claims that Michigan apparently issues concealed carry licenses to people who have misdemeanor domestic violence convictions (which disqualifies such people from legally purchasing firearms) — THAT could be a “legitimate” reason to require that Federal Firearm Licensees in Michigan call in every sale. Of course that has absolutely NOTHING to do with marijuana legalities in Michigan.

    1. avatar hawkeye says:

      I see someone else caught the point that caught my eye, namely the domestic violence thing. Does MI law allow persons in this classification to purchase firearms? Or does the pot legislation encourage folks with domestic violence convictions to partake so they will chill out? Ok, that was facetious, but I am wondering why Mr. Gilbert slipped that line in.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Because the 4473 asks, that is how.

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    2nd MEH…I don’t care if pot user’s are inconvenienced. Buy the old-fashioned way. Don’t get .gov involved pothead. And yeah I got high a lot 40 years ago. SOL doper…

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      To me this is like marriage licenses. My question is why is the government involved in the first place?

      Past saying you have to be a legal adult and pay some sales tax I’m not seeing how what substances someone might or might not use is any of the government’s business at all.

      IMHO all this argument shows is that a fair number of “gun folk” aren’t really into freedom or small government. They just want to be in control of which parts of your life the government exerts control over.

  17. avatar Chief Censor says:

    I hope you are not living in Colorado. You are getting real close to being served an order for confiscation of your guns.

    1. avatar Cea says:

      What I think should happen, and what I said will happen (actually, I never said anything will happen), are different things. I’ve always and only advocated following the law. A few times I’ve said “if there were an open season”. That would make it legal.
      But, I’m always hopeful for the demise of criminals.

  18. avatar Jon in CO says:

    So we expanded some freedom, then took some away under what basis? Now that you’re not breaking the law, more background checks to make sure you’re…not breaking the law?

  19. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    As I said before. Drug Legalization does not protect Liberty. It never has and it never will. If you want the freedom to take drugs, I have no problem with that. But you are not supporting Liberty doing so. Liberty is only supported and protected by people who are sober.
    The real world of the drug user is public defecation and public urination in 2020. This is not the 1970’s anymore. See the Libertarian utopia of San Francisco as your future for drug legalization.

    It’s always been a trade off. Your civil rights in exchange for legal marijuana intoxication. It’s just that many people have never thought about it that way. But the Democrats who you have been voting for, have been thinking about it.
    I know because I remember when they said it back in the1970’s, when I was a kid.

    1. avatar Hydguy says:

      My neighbor is a recreational use of pot. I’ve never seen him urinate or defecate in public.
      Never urinated or defecated in ‘public’ when I was smoking in high school.
      In the woods? Sure. As would anyone else out in the woods, like hunters, campers, hikers.
      You are a prime example of a fucking tool. And not a useful fucking tool, like a hammer, or a firearm, or a bong.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I don’t know you or your friends. But I do know that its drug users who are turning San Francisco and other cities into Sh!tholes.

        “San Francisco, where shoplifting has in effect been legalized and the DA openly sides with criminals”
        https://moonbattery.com/shopping-in-san-francisco-2/

        1. avatar Hydguy says:

          Your link is about shoplifters.
          Plenty of them of just little wanna be thugs.
          And trying to compare people who just smoke pot to meth heads and heroin junkies is utterly stupid. So it’s no surprise that that tried to.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      “Liberty” being defined as “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.” I don’t think we can really say that those in favor of prohibition are supportive of liberty.

      Further, the black market drives violence. That violence drives gun control. Prohibition is a huge part of why the NFA is a thing. “Gun violence” is often driven by the black market for drugs today and that “gun violence” gives the antis ammunition to argue against gun-rights.

      So prohibitionists aren’t really helping the gun-rights cause either. Exerting control over other people who are not trampling the rights of others is anything but “supporting liberty”.

      1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

        Prohibition is a huge part of why the NFA is a thing.

        Actually, it’s probably the single and only thing that drove the NFA.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        If Libertarians Liberals and the Left would just stay out of other people’s bedroom, things would be safer in the country Their support of single motherhood as a “lifestyle choice” is just as damaging as the government’s Welfare Industrial Complex that they also support. The three L’s are enablers who endorse the “choice” these women made.

      3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        to strych9
        “Further, the black market drives violence.”

        No you are wrong. It’s not the blackmarket. It’s criminals who drive violence. It’s not inanimate objects like guns, drugs or avocados, that cause violence. Criminals cause violence.

        1. Conflict Diamonds, conflict avocados?
        https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/30/are-mexican-avocados-the-worlds-new-conflict-commodity

        2. The gruesome display of 19 bodies scattered in Mexico may be linked to a vicious war, not over drugs but avocados
        https://nypost.com/2019/08/13/mexicos-avocado-war-may-be-linked-to-gang-turf-massacre-that-left-19-dead/

  20. avatar possum says:

    The Right to Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed is now a privilege.

  21. avatar Rev Hamster says:

    Feels like the fed gov is much more enthusiastic about gun control than immigration. Or is just me?

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Immigration, both legal and illegal, helps corporations make money. Then those folks donate to campaigns. They either want to outsource jobs to other countries or bring in a cheaper workforce. Both republicans and democrats have let, and are letting this happen.

  22. avatar Nickel Plated says:

    Real question.
    What are your views on prohibition?

    Also, you know this article isn’t about dope right?

  23. avatar Everyday_Carrier says:

    Damn, looks like the government is still mad they are losing money to private drug sales…

  24. avatar bryan1980 says:

    I don’t have a problem with pot use, can’t use it myself because of company policy. I do know that a lot of the “legalize it” folks don’t feel the same way as I do about the 2A. Heck, just look at the states that have legalized it. Hardly bastions of liberty! In my humble opinion, they only legalized it to keep a certain amount of the voters under control, and to rake in some cash selling licenses, etc.

    1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

      Heck, just look at the states that have legalized it. Hardly bastions of liberty!

      Um, Alaska?

      1. avatar Hydguy says:

        You must not know many people. The vast majority of gun owners I know also support ending the criminalization of pot.
        Maybe you should expand your circle.

        1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

          I’m assuming you are replying to bryan1980 and not me.

      2. avatar Hydguy says:

        Yes. I apologize for that. This reply system is clunky, and the inability to edit posts is highly annoying.
        And sitting in the hospital with my very ill father hasn’t helped with my attention to detail.

    2. avatar Cliff says:

      Here in COMMUNIST-RUN N.Y. there are already “covert bills” being drafted that if you are “using” and have a Concealed carry permit, you can have that permit REVOKED.
      Just another way for “emperor cuomo” and his city dwelling communist “representatives” to try and remove YOUR GUNS. (one unconstitutional “law” at a t time that are usually voted on and passed in the dead of night, where these sneaky scumbags like to hide.)
      BTW, I do NOT use MJ, and I am concerned with the “potency” of the stuff grown today, we will be on the road with people driving, stoned out of their minds. If you “USE” stay home.

  25. avatar Juice says:

    Within the next 20 years, enough of the the people who care enough to prevent marijuana from being federally legalized will be dead. I don’t smoke, but the idea of equating weed with heroin is absurd.

    Maybe by the time my generation gets that old, the zoomers behind me will get rid of the NFA.

    1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

      I hope so but I don’t see alot of 2A support on College Campuses.

  26. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

    For the ATF to grant NICS waivers, there are certain things a state must comply with. Michigan laws comply with the ATF’s requirements. Nothing has changed.

    Unless they are accusing the Michigan State Police of wholesale dereliction of duty. I don’t mean a half dozen errors, I mean hundreds of thousands of errors.

  27. Just another dem/lib/communist second amendment nullifier to grab guns, and backdoor around the Constitution, and Bill of Rights

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Just another dem/lib/communist second amendment nullifier to grab guns, and backdoor around the Constitution, and Bill of Rights”

      How so?

      1. avatar Mr. Randy Staller says:

        The second amendment doesn’t require it

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The whole NICS thing is a different thread. The ATF revoking a waiver of NICS for certain states is well within the government authority. Federal firearm laws are duly passed by legislature, and signed by the president. If the laws are unconstitutional, that is for the courts, not the states. If the feds can waive the NICS requirement, they can remove the waiver.

          The states can pass their laws, but buying firearms at retail is federal. BTW, states that made suppressors “legal” are still subject to the commerce clause. If any element of the manufacture of suppressors contains a part or material transported across state lines, the feds have absolute jurisdiction (think toothpicks). The fact that the feds decided not to put their agents at risk does not validate the state law.

  28. avatar Original Anna says:

    So the state is saying because you own a gun you are on marijuana. Well, that may be so because there had to be gun owners who voted yes on the stupid law to get the marijuana passed. Just what families need, people in the family on marijuana tearing the family apart and it is all legal and the family can’t do anything about the druggie tearing the family apart. Welcome to the state with everybody carrying a gun and on marijuana lives. Just what a family needs more druggies laying around in their homes.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “So the state is saying because you own a gun you are on marijuana.”

      No. The state (the feds) are saying that the risk a person in a state that legalizes certain federally controlled drugs is a drug user goes up dramatically (more people will use drugs when penalties are removed). The preferred method of mitigating that risk has two features: NICS checks that find a drug user convicted of use; form 4473 that puts the firearm buyer at significant risk of lying on the 4473. Revoking 4473 waivers for certain states previously granted waiver does nothing more than put people in those states in the same category as persons in states where the waiver was not granted.

      Note, on a state level, the fact that Michigan legalized the use of a federally controlled/prohibited drug does not permit Michigan citizens to use those same drugs in a state that has not legalized the drugs permitted in Michigan. There is no constitutional requirement that states prohibiting certain drugs must allow citizens of a different state to use now unregulated drugs in a state that prohibits such.

      We are getting wrapped around the axle to no purpose.

      1. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

        Revoking 4473 waivers for certain states previously granted waiver does nothing more than put people in those states in the same category as persons in states where the waiver was not granted.

        Why are you talking about 4473 waivers? What the heck is a 4473 waiver?

        The story is about NICS checks waivers. 4473 still has to be filled out whether or not a NICS check is required. I don’t understand why several people keep bringing up 4473 forms.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I don’t understand why several people keep bringing up 4473 forms.”

          Good question.

          The 4473 iinitiates the NICS check. Using the phrase “waive the 4473” is just shorthand to include the 11e question as a potential for fraud charges. As you note, the actual waiver is the NICS check that follows the completion of the 4473. Reinstating the NICS check raises the likelihood of discovering intentional lying on the 4473. If a state-legalized drug user turns up as a prohibited person from NICS, there are two crimes involved.

          In the end, re-instating the NICS check for states is not the same as the feds “telling” states they cannot make their own laws regarding drug use. The feds merely re-instate the potential for criminal charges that apply to states that don’t implement laws legalizing federally controlled drugs.

  29. avatar Pastor Jerry Rohn says:

    Let me put this simply…. the only real thing that has changed is that the seller now must do the background check as if you were a new gun owner… whats it take??? A few mins unless they are busy… and… if you have no charges against you for using your weapon while under the influence of marijuana … well you have nothing to worry about right??? I’m not sure but I do not believe that the use of medical marijuana shows on that back ground check… but then again I would not know for sure as I’m not a user of marijuana… remember the background check is checking for criminal violations….

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I’m not sure but I do not believe that the use of medical marijuana shows on that back ground check… but then again I would not know for sure as I’m not a user of marijuana… remember the background check is checking for criminal violations….”

      It would be a rare case where a drug user not convicted of a drug crime had information in the NICS databases that would reveal drug use. As we have seen, there are constant efforts to have medical information included (which one day may contain notations that a person uses prescription maryjuwanna.

      Waiting for the day the feds declare that because there is a high probability that citizens in states that legalize use of federally prohibited drugs, and that probability is justification to deny all citizens to purchase (or even possess) firearms.

      1. avatar Hydguy says:

        If you apply for a medical use card in FL, you are flagged by the State Police and will have any background check for a firearm denied. The Dept of Ag will also revoke your CCW.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If you apply for a medical use card in FL, you are flagged by the State Police…”

          Do you happen to know if the medical card would show in a NICS background check?

        2. avatar Hydguy says:

          FL doesn’t run the check through NICS, it’s run through the state police.
          Part of the legislation that ‘legalized’ medical MJ was that your info for the card would be entered into the FL database that the State Police use to run the background check, and you would be flagged as a prohibited purchaser.
          As for showing up in the Fed NICS database, I don’t know for certain, because as I said, Fl FFLs don’t call the Feds.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “As for showing up in the Fed NICS database, I don’t know for certain, because as I said, Fl FFLs don’t call the Feds.”

          Was thinking the state police might forward the feds a “prohibited person” list.

  30. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The Strawman arguments the potheads are falling flat as usual. I said it above. I support legalization. We just get to shoot the users dead when they break the law. You have the freedom to do very stupid dumb a$$ stuff if you choose to. It’s not enough to just support legalization. According to the three L’s you have to give your blessing. Say it’s ok for them to get high. No. I will not say its ok.
    I have the freedom to say you’re a weak stupid person. Who is harmful to the society.

    For every one “responsible drug user”. Whatever that means??? There are thousands of users who rob, rape, steal, break into homes and other private properties. All the while defecating and urinating in public.
    San Francisco is the utopia of the three L’s.

    “San Francisco, where shoplifting has in effect been legalized and the DA openly sides with criminals”
    https://moonbattery.com/shopping-in-san-francisco-2/

    1. avatar Hydguy says:

      Sure. Shoot a pot user who jaywalks. Real intelligent. Maybe we should just shoot stupid people, like you.

  31. avatar Danny L Griffin says:

    Pay attention to this post.

    The ATF is simply trying to remove all the NICS waivers. Michigan still complies!

    The ATF requirement is more lenient than Michigan law, so all you idiots who said the ATF was cracking down are wrong. The ATF requires conviction, Michigan just requires a charge. So yay for gun owners who beat their wives and do drugs because now they can do that without losing their ability to purchase a firearm from an FFL!

    Honestly, most people that read this forum are stupid. Let me rephrase that–ignorant. In MI a CPL is pulled if you get caught having a few beers while driving a snowmobile in the middle of nowhere. Srsly. That’s how strict we are. The DNR here are NAZIs. Now the federal government is actually making it less strict. The Michigan laws for a CPL are far more strict than the federal government’s laws to buy a gun.

    The ATF recently pulled their NICS waiver from Alabama. Do you know why? Of course not, because TTAG hasn’t made a big post about it. It is because they allege Alabama sheriffs are not running NICS checks. Where is the huge TTAG about this?

    Oh, btw, a MI LTP still qualifies for a NICS waiver, which has the exact same qualifications as a CPL. Which makes zero sense.

    So under what authority does the ATF have to say that we do not qualify for a NICS check?

    The reason they cite is that the Michigan State Police are incompetent. Possibly. They are not sure. And you people are okay with this?

    Reread everything in this post. I may post more.

    I agree with the assertion that the MSP is incompetent. Just not on CPL approvals which they have always done.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “And you people are okay with this?”

      I am OK with any move to revoke privilege among states; equal protection under the law, and all that rot.

      Citizens and politicians of one state are not more special than citizens and politicians of other states. One law, one process.

      By the by…calling compatriots “stupid” is a fast way to gain out-sized respect for one’s opinion,m education, skill and life experience.. Wish I had thought of it

      1. avatar Viejo Torro says:

        I don’t see it as revoking a privilege it is in fact micromanaging a decision that rightly belongs at the state level.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I don’t see it as revoking a privilege it is in fact micromanaging a decision that rightly belongs at the state level.”

          It is a conferred “privilege” when a federal agency permits some states to use their carry license process in place of the federally mandated NICS check for firearm sales. The issue is not drugs, or no drugs. The issue is the feds creating categories between the states. If my state cannot use its carry license process to excuse me from a NICS check with each pistol purchase, why should that privilege be granted people in another state?

          The federal government can revoke a privilege for whatever reason it deems appropriate. The federal government can eliminate all vestiges of a privilege, for whatever reason it deems appropriate.

          Federal firearm laws supersede each and every state law regarding the same matter. It is an established, constitutional principle (see Article 6, para 2 of the US constitution). One firearms law, one process, one NICS requirement.

        2. avatar Hydguy says:

          All this crap is an infringement.
          There should be no waivers because there should be no checks, because there should be no restriction on firearms for a free people at ANY level.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There should be no waivers because there should be no checks, because there should be no restriction on firearms for a free people at ANY level.”

          Completely true, but not quite the conversation at hand. 2A is absolute, except for whatever exception we deem proper according to our concepts of reasonable, or common sense.

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