Posted on 11/19/2016 5:44:24 AM PST by jimbug
In what will hopefully be one of the final acts of the Obama Administration on firearms, the ATF on Monday announced that its proposed changes to the Form 4473 would go into effect on January 16, 2017, just four days before the inauguration of President-Elect Donald Trump.
Form 4473 is the federally mandated form that must be filled out by any person who acquires a firearm from a licensed dealer....
Another notable change to the form is the inclusion of a bolded warning to potential transferees from ATF.
The warning provides that “the use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medical or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”
This warning is a continuation of ATF’s policy that was first published in an open letter on September 21, 2011.
Under ATF’s policy, not only are users of marijuana prohibited from possessing firearms, but a person may not transfer a firearm to an individual if the transferor knows that the transferee holds a medical marijuana card.
Importantly, this second prohibition applies even where the cardholder does not actually use any marijuana.
(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org ...
I'm more afraid of a drunk with a gun than a stoner with a gun.
And since when is Obama worried about enforcing federal law? Jan. 20th can not come soon enough!
MJ is a schedule 1 dangerous drug. Get over it. Abusers of any S1 drugs are disqualified, MJ is illegal, even if states pass laws- the US Code trumps states etc.
MJ is a dangerous drug, even if you don’t like that fact.
No I have taken the side of the law as it exists. Go ahead and try your objections with a judge. Don’t like the law get it changed.
Drain the swamp. Eliminate the ATF.
Let States tax and regulate Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Merge ATF agents into the FBI.
Hoover’s ego is the only reason FBI is involved in bank robbery. Give bank robbery to State and Local law enforcement.
FBI should focus on terrorism, cybercrime, political corruption.
Drain the swamp. Get the Feds out of gas and airport taxes. Make all transportation taxes and usage as state and local matter.
The main role of the Fed Dept of Trans is to bribe congress into voting for things they would otherwise oppose.
Absolutely!
By what rationale do the USPS, IRS, EPA, FDA, BLM, the Dept. of Agriculture and 30 or 40 other federal agencies have highly armed and trained "security" departments?
They may not be designated as SWAT teams but they are armed and equipped with SWAT and military style weapons and gear.
One characteristic of "security" teams like that is that once they are equipped and trained they are eager to apply their training and bureaucrats look for opportunities to do so.
Example: In 2013 armed EPA officers raided the town of Chicken, Alaska. The agency said the raid was conducted to look for possible violations of the Clean Water Act.
No, he’s against firearms civil rights, and is willing to use drugs he has no problem with, as an excuse to violate them.
That is why we have courts.
Just change it to read “Democrats” and I’m cool with it.
The law as it exists violates the Second and Tenth amendments and you side with it.
So you're good with Roe v Wade from a constitutional standpoint since the court said so?
Bill Clinton: In recognition of your great service, I’m appointing you honorary agents in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Butt-head: Whoa. Alcohol and tobacco?
Beavis: Yeah. And firearms! Yeah.
Bill Clinton: Cool, huh?
Butt-head: Cigarettes and beer kick ass.
Beavis: Yeah, yeah. We’re in the bureau of beer and fire and cigarettes. And maybe some chicks, too.
Are you shitting me?
Are you suggesting that we just take action against any decision with disagree with? You are as bad as those losers marching in the street.
Either you want the system to work, the way it’s written, or you don’t.
Your arguing style is immature and not worth my time.
Nope. You cited the courts, so I asked whether you were good with Roe v Wade from a constitutional standpoint since the court said it was constitutional.
Simple enough question. Why no answer?
My answer is that I believe the right to privacy is mentioned only in one place in the constitution. In the context of Roe, I think they made the wrong decision.
My point is that the constitution lays out how we do things.
Just because we disagreee with a ruling we cannot choose to ignore it. Doing so moves you into the realm of sovereign citizen Bullshit. And I’ve been in courts where that’s been tried. It doesn’t end well.
Yes, I agree. That's why I don't cite court decisions when deciding whether a law is constitutional or not. Neither should anyone who believes in the original meaning.
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.