Posted on 03/05/2020 4:42:05 PM PST by PROCON
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Michigan has had that exemption from the ATF since 2006, but yesterday the ATF rescinded it.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.
~~~SNIP~~~
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
There they go again...
Barr is a gun-grabber who defended Lon Horiuchi.
NY had similar exemptions until some wise ass sheriff decided to give convicted felon friend a Carry license
Use drugs, no guns. No problem. Should be enforcing this everywhere.
Almost every FFL dealer in Michigan with a brick and mortar store already does a NICS check on buyers CPL or not. They consider it a CYA because of possible lawsuits.
Gun shows will be effected the most by this change. FFL holders that only sell from Gun Shows or Home.
You are going to have to be consistent.
What about people who drink?
Or people who are on medically prescribed drugs?
Right now I am on some doctor dispensed stuff because of a slip and fall I took the other day. Should I be rendered defenseless because of it?
I am talking about pot, which is against federal law and it is a shame that it is often now legal on local level. No, not same as alcohol. Sorry, won’t go there.
In your case, no. Your medicine is prescribed by a physician. In your silly comparison, MJ is a schedule 1 controlled substance, meaning it has no recognized medical use and, as such is inconsistent with your case.
Guns or Doobie, take your pick.
Also, it is a crime at both state and federal level to posses a firearm while intoxicated.... So, try again.
I'll take the other side of that argument and say pot should NOT be illegal under federal law. People should have a right to defend themselves. Period.
Some people oppose pot more strongly than they support the Constitution.
Agreed. Drug addicts and drug-addicted alcoholics have demonstrated their tendency to violate the rights of others beyond well enough. It’s common knowledge. Also, notice their nasty language, personal insults and underhanded threats from time to time, when they don’t like what non-addicts have said. They’re criminals.
No problem. Criminal minds don’t need weapons.
“It’s common knowledge.”
A common claim of those spouting BS.
And of course you have to define what "possess" a firearm means. Is it having it in your house, on your person, in your glove compartment?
In this case you are holding a double standard as far as what possess means. You are fine with a person who drinks buying and having access to a firearm. The rules are that he simply may not carry or shoot while intoxicated although the law has flex depending on how and why it occurs.
If you have killed a six pack and change in your home and someone breaks in and you shoot them you are in less of a jam then you would be if you had drunk the same six pack and gone out and shot your neighbor's pink flamingos. I am sure you would find that reasonable.
But if someone lives in a STATE where marijuana is legal suddenly you are in favor of violate their second amendment rights all to heck and back.
That is not in any way mentally or morally consistent.
But there is no pick.
You can be as clean as a whistle and your are in favor of violating their constitutional rights because of something their neighbor might possibly do.
That is a very democrat point of view.
So you side with the ATF over the Second and Tenth Amendments.
So?
If I got behind the wheel I could be hauled in for DUI just as fast as someone who sniffed glue. (do they still do that?) They don't care if it is prescribed, only that it lowers your reflex time and impairs your judgment.
That is morally and mentally consistent.
Your position is not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.