Something to smoke over

Help Support CattleToday:

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
15
Location
South Georgia
I was told today from a good source that beginning in 2017 the ATF will add another line to the questionnaire used when purchasing a firearm and this line will ask the simple question whether or not you smoke marijuana. Most know there is already a question asking if you are addicted to drugs but this is simply directed toward the use of marijuana and whether or not you use it.

While this will not affect me I can't help but wonder what the motive is behind this since the federal government seems reluctant to enforce existing drug laws regarding marijuana. Could this be a trade of one's second amendment right for the "privilege" smoking pot? Is this some legal ploy which will be used to confiscate guns from people who might get arrested for marijuana charges in the future?

Or is this just another example of how the feds are trying to keep us all safe and warm?

Thoughts?
 
I never waste time wondering about questions on government forms. The sign up sheet at every Extension meeting I go to asks your gender and are you black or white. I have no idea why that is important on a sign-up attendance sheet.
 
my response is not so much about the pot issue as it about the questions on government forms. I just bought a rifle a few days ago so up to date with the form. They ask me three maybe four questions to see if I'm a U.S. Citizen. Town I was born in, county I live in, state I live in, am I U.S. citizen. Do I do drugs, do I beat my wife or girlfriend. After that ridiculous gauntlet why does it matter what race I am? If I'm a U.S. Citizen why does it matter what race I am period. So just another stupid question already covered in another question.
 
Alan":8b163zng said:
my response is not so much about the pot issue as it about the questions on government forms. I just bought a rifle a few days ago so up to date with the form. They ask me three maybe four questions to see if I'm a U.S. Citizen. Town I was born in, county I live in, state I live in, am I U.S. citizen. Do I do drugs, do I beat my wife or girlfriend. After that ridiculous gauntlet why does it matter what race I am? If I'm a U.S. Citizen why does it matter what race I am period. So just another stupid question already covered in another question.
At least they didnt' ask you if you STILL beat your wife or girlfriend. :lol:
 
OK, I was told that if you answer YES then you will be denied just like you would if you are a felon so if this is true, and I don't know for a fact it is, don't you think this is a devious way of pushing the anti-gun laws? And will this not disarm the democrats? Legally anyway.

Alan, if we follow Canadian's course with their passage of Bill C-16 there will be about twenty or so gender pronouns to choose from in the near future. Heh, I love Canada to death but do you guys really buy into the shyt in this bill?
 
Jogeephus":5jrsg692 said:
OK, I was told that if you answer YES then you will be denied just like you would if you are a felon so if this is true, and I don't know for a fact it is, don't you think this is a devious way of pushing the anti-gun laws?

Jo, I have never used Marijuana in my lifetime - not once. I have tried smoking tobacco a few times and could never get the smoke down. So I can answer NO. But if I were a smoker of Marijuana, I would certainly NOT make that confession on the background check form. Anyone who would make that confession, either does not want a firearm or should be denied a firearm on grounds they are not intelligent enough to handle one responsibly.
 
Margonme":3m0rejab said:
Jogeephus":3m0rejab said:
OK, I was told that if you answer YES then you will be denied just like you would if you are a felon so if this is true, and I don't know for a fact it is, don't you think this is a devious way of pushing the anti-gun laws?

Jo, I have never used Marijuana in my lifetime - not once. I have tried smoking tobacco a few times and could never get the smoke down. So I can answer NO. But if I were a smoker of Marijuana, I would certainly NOT make that confession on the background check form. Anyone who would make that confession, either does not want a firearm or should be denied a firearm on grounds they are not intelligent enough to handle one responsibly.

It won't affect me either because I limit my drug intake only to black tar opium at Madam Ztsu's Poppy Palace because its 100% organic and gluten-free. So as long as they don't ask questions about this I'm golden.

But, I wonder about those who prefer the smell of pine if they were arrested for marijuana or if they get their doctor to prescribe medical marijuana to cure the boil on their arse if this would provide law enforcement with probable to confiscate their firearms or deny them their right to purchase one. Also, isn't lying on a federal form a felony? Except of course if your last name is Clinton.
 
Jogeephus":281bedcl said:
Margonme":281bedcl said:
Jogeephus":281bedcl said:
OK, I was told that if you answer YES then you will be denied just like you would if you are a felon so if this is true, and I don't know for a fact it is, don't you think this is a devious way of pushing the anti-gun laws?

Jo, I have never used Marijuana in my lifetime - not once. I have tried smoking tobacco a few times and could never get the smoke down. So I can answer NO. But if I were a smoker of Marijuana, I would certainly NOT make that confession on the background check form. Anyone who would make that confession, either does not want a firearm or should be denied a firearm on grounds they are not intelligent enough to handle one responsibly.

It won't affect me either because I limit my drug intake only to black tar opium at Madam Ztsu's Poppy Palace because its 100% organic and gluten-free. So as long as they don't ask questions about this I'm golden.

But, I wonder about those who prefer the smell of pine if they were arrested for marijuana or if they get their doctor to prescribe medical marijuana to cure the boil on their arse if this would provide law enforcement with probable to confiscate their firearms or deny them their right to purchase one. Also, isn't lying on a federal form a felony? Except of course if your last name is Clinton.

I doubt it would be prosecuted but they would revoke your right to the gun you bought. It is remote that anything happens with regard to those forms unless the person making false statements had other outstanding warrants.
 
Margonme":2yjc6pbk said:
I doubt it would be prosecuted but they would revoke your right to the gun you bought. It is remote that anything happens with regard to those forms unless the person making false statements had other outstanding warrants.

You may be right but if it will accomplish nothing then that goes back to the question of why ask it? There has got to be a reason and I have little trust in the federal government. IMHO, it is just another tooth on the beast to help it feed its agenda.
 
As a sideline to the election I heard an interview with a man who had supported (financially) a proposal in Nevada to "regulate" guns. He reversed his support when he found the application question about marijuana.
 
I believe there is a reason to their madness. Years ago I used to receive what amounted to Cliff notes on what the bureaucrats had passed in the state legislature and I remember them redefining the definition of states water. I remember this clearly because it seemed so insignificant at the time which made me wonder if they weren't really slow that month. Fast forward fifteen years and it all became clear with the new regulations and rules this enabled them to create with no recourse. Granted this is different but not so much I can't help but wonder about it.
 
So, will an applicant have to give blood to get a gun?
A constitutional carry bill has been introduced in the Indiana legislature. I'm not sure what its' chances are.
 
john250":19kxeflh said:
So, will an applicant have to give blood to get a gun?

Give em enough time and I'm sure you will. I'm just interested in seeing where this goes. Could be that there was just some bureaucrat that needed something to do and wanted to be known for doing something before he retired.

If only they cared so much about who could vote.
 

Latest posts

Top