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

Submitted by CTInsideInvestigator t3_11jztxt in Connecticut

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

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

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

17

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Pruedrive t1_jb51wyg wrote

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

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

18

Mathews1297 t1_jb55okr wrote

Replying to Pruedrive (#2,172,202)

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

4

KJK998 t1_jb590g6 wrote

Answer is simple.

No gun laws. No weed laws.

3

Pruedrive t1_jb5cpjs wrote

Replying to ThePermafrost (#2,172,667)

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

8

gregra193 t1_jb5dua9 wrote

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

Medical or recreational…neither are recognized by the Feds.

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

15

Mr_Smith_411 t1_jb5i7ig wrote

Replying to Mathews1297 (#2,172,377)

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

2

Mathews1297 t1_jb5ii0m wrote

Replying to Mr_Smith_411 (#2,172,942)

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

1

phunky_1 t1_jb5phb8 wrote

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

The federal government stance on this is dumb IMO.

40

happyinheart t1_jb5ve6e wrote

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

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

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

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

21

happyinheart t1_jb5vpmd wrote

Replying to gregra193 (#2,172,755)

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

−1

gregra193 t1_jb5xr7n wrote

Replying to happyinheart (#2,173,522)

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

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

8

gregra193 t1_jb5z7yn wrote

Replying to happyinheart (#2,173,671)

You’re kidding me!

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

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

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

5

IStanHam t1_jb5zlvm wrote

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

18

Sinking_The_Sea t1_jb5ztbx wrote

Replying to happyinheart (#2,173,522)

Yes, this is exactly the point.

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

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

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

3

1234nameuser t1_jb61uni wrote

Replying to Mr_Smith_411 (#2,172,942)

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

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

2

Pruedrive t1_jb64kdw wrote

Replying to KJK998 (#2,173,906)

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

6

keepitupxxx t1_jb6fjh7 wrote

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

1

PhilipLiptonSchrute t1_jb6guwj wrote

Replying to IStanHam (#2,173,710)

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

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

3

[deleted] t1_jb6h3b9 wrote

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

I'm serious.

4

gregra193 t1_jb6mycq wrote

Replying to Comfortable_File3359 (#2,174,654)

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

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

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

2

Pruedrive t1_jb6nraq wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,174,439)

Cause guns are bad.. mmmmkay.

Also..

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

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

Aren't states like Texas doing just that?

6

Bruislanders t1_jb6vb01 wrote

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

8

spitlead t1_jb98d42 wrote

Replying to gregra193 (#2,174,678)

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

0

Mr_Smith_411 t1_jban6fz wrote

Replying to jamalamadangdong (#2,178,022)

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

2

Toybasher t1_jbbdq17 wrote

Replying to Mr_Smith_411 (#2,173,166)

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

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

1