WND EXCLUSIVE
Marijuana laws new tool to ban gun ownership
Feds promise crackdown on any 'prohibited possessor' in states where pot is 'legal'


Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.


The Obama administration has a zero tolerance policy on enforcing federal drug laws, White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske recently told the National Press Club. So why should gun-owners be paying attention?

The website for the Office of National Drug Policy includes this warning: “Marijuana and other illicit drugs are addictive and unsafe especially for use by young people. … Marijuana contains chemicals that can change how the brain works. And the science, though still evolving in terms of long-term consequences of marijuana use, is clear: marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects.”

Why, then, hasn’t the Obama administration launched legal action against Colorado and Washington, where voters last fall voted to “legalize” marijuana under their state laws – even though federal law doesn’t allow that?

After all, the White House has been more than emphatic that state laws exempting people from the federal Obamacare law are invalid, and when Arizona took it upon itself to adopt a state law to enforce federal immigration restrictions, Washington went after those renegades immediately in the courts.

Is there something about the idea of legalizing marijuana that Washington LIKES?

That seemingly strange idea may have been borne out just days ago when the Congressional Research Service released its report on the “State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues.”

As attorneys Todd Garvey and Brian Yeh wrote in the report, Washington has flexibility regarding drug prosecution, stating, “The extent to which federal authorities will actually seek to prosecute individuals who are engaged in marijuana-related activities in Colorado and Washington remains uncertain. President Obama himself has suggested the prosecuting simple possession is not a priority, while the Department of Justice has said only that ‘growing, selling or possession any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.’”

What is more certain, they wrote, is that federal firearms regulators will be aggressive about banning anyone who uses marijuana from buying – or possessing – a weapon.

“With the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes in Colorado and Washington, it seems likely the ATF will … consider a recreational user of marijuana to be a prohibited possessor of firearms regardless of whether the use is lawful under state provisions,” they wrote.

The attorneys said the ATF specifically has stated, “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”

They further wrote, “These individuals are to answer ‘yes’ when asked on the firearms transfer form if they are unlawful users of a controlled substance.”

Answering falsely, of course, is also a felony.

According to the Denver Post, the CRS report was touted by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., an advocate of legalized marijuana, for saying that while “the federal government may use its power of the purse to encourage states to adopt certain criminal laws … it … is limited in its ability to directly influence state policy by the Tenth Amendment.”

Polis told the Post, “I’ve long believed that Colorado, Washington and other states that have decriminalized or legalized marijuana for personal or medical use have acted within the legal bounds of the law.”

But Obama attacked a state decision to enforce federal immigration standards, so why, as the Post reports, are “Colorado, Washington and 17 other jurisdictions … still holding out for any word from the Department of Justice on whether marijuana possession and distribution – which is illegal under federal law – will be enforced, despite the legalization within local borders.”

Dave Workman, senior editor at TheGunMag.com, a spokesman with the Second Amendment Foundation and a former member of the NRA board of directors wrote about the possible solution last fall as the votes in Washington and Colorado were approaching.

“A source with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Washington, D.C. … confirmed what had been explained in a Sept. 21, 2011, letter from Arthur Herbert, assistant director for enforcement programs and services to firearms retailers…

“Washington state gun owners need to know they cannot get stoned and head for the gun range or hunting camp,” he wrote.

A letter from Herbert, at the time, blew out of the water the option for the libertarian concept of unrestricted guns and unrestricted marijuana.

“There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such is sanctioned by state law,” he wrote. Even selling a gun to someone can catch an owner outside the law.

“An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time,” Herbert wrote.

Workman told WND his assumption is that the Obama administration is hesitant to step on the toes of marijuana users who may support the left-leaning administration.

At the same time, with Obama’s agenda for gun rules, regulations, restrictions and requirements looming large, anything that has the potential to trip up a gun owner couldn’t be all bad.

Impacts from strategies such as this are not unknown. There are millions of Americans whose ability to obtain a firearm could be challenged under the position that they are taking a variety of mood-altering psychiatric drugs carrying the FDA’s “suicidality” warning label. An increasingly high percentage of Americans are taking these meds, which have demonstrated an alarmingly high correlation with school shooters.

And the government has been using its interaction with veterans to designate many of them – by the tens of thousands – incapable of handling their own financial affairs and therefore banned from having guns.

A lawsuit was just filed by the United States Justice Foundation against the Veterans Administration for snatching veterans’ gun rights without “due process” or any “factual or legal basis.”

WND has published multiple reports about how returning veterans were being deprived of their Second Amendment rights without a court-based adjudication competency process, based on arbitrary VA agency decisions.

The problem arises when the agency wants to appoint a fiduciary – someone to advise a disabled veteran or one receiving certain government benefits – to help with the management of those benefits.

The government then routinely notifies the FBI’s NICS system, a federally maintained list of those whose competency has been challenged, and that means they no longer can purchase a gun – or even keep the one they may have.

Michael Connelly, executive director of the USJF, told WND the initial lawsuit is to compel the VA to respond to two requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

“The information requested included Veterans Benefits Administration rules, regulations and criteria for making ‘determinations of incompetency due to a physical or mental condition of a benefit recipient,’” the legal team explained.

“The USJF has received numerous complaints from military veterans around the country who are being declared incompetent to handle their own financial affairs and then told that they can no longer purchase or own firearms or ammunition,” said Connelly. “This determination is being made without due process protections for the veterans and the basis for the incompetency ruling is often arbitrary and without a factual or legal basis.”

CRS attorneys, however, note that there doesn’t have to be a huge case for an American to pay huge consequences.

“Given the Obama administration’s informal statements and current approach to medical marijuana, it would appear unlikely that the DOJ is going to expend significant resources to investigate and prosecute individuals who merely possess and use less than one ounce of marijuana, in private, pursuant to Washington or Colorado Law,” they wrote.

“However, even if the probability of becoming the subject of a federal criminal prosecution for a violation … appears remote, there does exist a number of other consequences under federal law that are triggered by the mere use of marijuana, even absent an arrest or conviction.

“Most prominently among these concerns is the possibility that marijuana users may lose their ability to purchase and possess a firearm …”

Government does not have authority to give or take an unalienable right away. The BOR was pretty clear about shall not infringe. The commerce clause doesn't give it to them.

If the atheists in government don't believe in god and thus don't believe that individual freedoms were given by god, then then they have no basis to represent the people or protect and defend the constitution.

They've destroyed our schools, broken our families, wrecked our churches, engaged in unnecessary wars, killed our unborn, poisoned our food and water, blasted our economy, recklessly spent our savings, trampled our liberties and overthrown our constitution all while smiling as they spill their lies about the great job they are doing.

Where is the line in the sand?

I don't know, but our forefathers were shooting long before this.

I am getting word locally that some cities, specifically Portland, but not the outlying areas are going to some sort of new federally "cooperative" program of enforcing every possible gun law to the most restrictive interpretation they can come up with.

I strongly suspect that the common denominator on this is cities with major federal courthouses and BATF offices which "assist" in the operations.

Bully tactics include:

Undercover "sting" operations frequently and in depth, often immediately after some obscure legislation is passed or new case law comes out.

Frequent audits and threats of audits on businesses which refuse to cooperate in restricting public access to "assault weapons" high capacity magazines and bulk ammunition purchases. A pawn shop manager told me that his decision to stop selling guns and gun related items was directly related to the police shutting his store down frequently a few days at a time in order to "audit" it.

Cooperative audits of business licensing procedures that may be relevant to all involved jurisdictions. For example, certain buildings in certain neighborhoods may be under certain kinds of water or sewage restrictions, but only the gun selling business gets the scrupulous audit.

Gun shops which take trade-ins being forced to get second hand dealer's licenses, which require them to report all merchandise purchased, whether from wholesalers or the public, and hold it two weeks for "inspection" prior to sale.

Soliciation of complaints from the neighborhood where a place sells guns, ammunition or related items. This includes even going door to door soliciting complaints from anyone who might have a problem with the presence of the shop or its customers.

1965

And, another infringement from your friends at the atf.

http://www.examiner.com/article/atf...facturing-equipment-import-cutoff-report

It appears the government has crossed the line of sanity and declared war on the people and the constitution. They make simple things crimes, like smoking pot, taking prozac, say a pray in a school or owning a gun, so that they can claim that they are only limiting the rights of criminals. This is why there is a prohibition against infringement of rights by government.

The administration and many members of congress are out of control, and the president needs to be impeached for seditious treason. He made claims that he intended to implement fundimental change and has advocated deliberate violation of the constitution and thus the overthrow of the government. Well, he did so and committed sedition and treason in process.

Sadly, the senate majority leader will need to be removed from speakership to do so. Maybe he can be targetted for corruption and failure to do his job? I just don't know the legal process to make it happen. The constitution gave the states the ability to recall a senator that was out of control. I'm not sure if the 17th amendment removed that ability.

admitted to smoking pot with his buddies in the Choom Gang, but he has no need of a gun because he has 24x7x365 armed security for the remainder of his life.

That ain't the "warm smell of colitas."

It smells like hypocrisy.

and hopefully inside a 10'x10' cell.