Ammo For Sale

« « California Court: No right to own commonly owned rifles because they’re unusual | Home | Gun Porn » »


You can sell weed in Colorado. Fed law makes that illegal. Also, fed law adds sentencing enhancements for having a gun while selling weed. And, on the fed form to buy a gun, you have to affirm you don’t use drugs illegally, which they would be under federal law. Despite that, Colorado lets people in pot stores go strapped. A court case over this would be interesting, to say the least.

18 Responses to “Interesting”

  1. Lyle Says:

    Going into a pot store strapped is legal by the constitution. Harassing or conspiring to harass someone for going into a pot store strapped is a crime, whether or not it’s done under color of law, whether by a regular citizen/criminal or by a federally employed criminal.

  2. Tango Says:

    Do local police have the authority to enforce federal laws?

  3. Lyle Says:

    Tango; I dunno about most, but our local town clowns in a small WA State town say they have no duty to enforce fed laws. That isn’t to say they may not– we didn’t get into that bit, but they do have a duty to enforce state laws in addition to county and city.

  4. nk Says:

    If Posse Commitatus means anything, and I’m pretty that’s pretty much what it means, it means that local law enforcement cannot be drafted to enforce federal laws.

  5. nk Says:

    Only my mother thought I was pretty. *I’m pretty sure*

  6. Joe Allen Says:

    But, if you go buy pot with a brand new G19 with standard cap mags, you’re breaking the law.

  7. Tango Says:

    nk, you’ve got the right idea, but backwards. Posse comitatus outlaws the use of federal troops in police actions anywhere but federal land (DC, military bases).

  8. nk Says:

    Tango is right. I do have it backwards.

  9. wizardpc Says:

    Well the federal government has argued that state and local govs don’t have the authority to enforce federal immigration law (to the point they are not allowed to copy the federal statute word for word and make it state law), so I don’t see how they could argue locals must enforce different federal laws.

  10. Jake Says:

    Here’s an odd question: Does federal law specifically ban the actual use of marijuana, or just possession and sale of it?

    I know it’s more of a technicality than anything else, but it could be an important one in these kinds of cases.

  11. Mike Says:

    The 4473 asks:

    “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana…”

    This has always been very hard to interpret.

    Suppose I used to use marijuana, but I no longer do it. I can honestly, and legally, say ‘no’.

    What if my last use of marijuana was only a year ago? A month ago? What if I decided to quit yesterday?

    What if I quit two years ago and start up again next week?

    I don’t think this has ever been tested.

    Now, if you have an MMJ card in your pocket I think there’s no denying that you are a ‘user’, and it certainly remains illegal under Federal law. Anyone who applied for an MMJ card has put their right to owning a gun under serious risk.

  12. SPQR Says:

    nk, my friend, you were thinking Prinz vs United States.

  13. Josh Says:

    Mike, strictly having the card in your pocket does not make you a user. I can speak for a few people who have cards, but do NOT use regularly. One is recommended by their cancer doc, but chose not to use due to their employment situation.

  14. Bram Says:

    What if an off-duty cop buys legal pot?

  15. Jake Says:

    Now, if you have an MMJ card in your pocket I think there’s no denying that you are a ‘user’, and it certainly remains illegal under Federal law.

    That’s one reason I asked the question I did. If federal law doesn’t address use, only possession/commerce, then someone using in accordance with state law is not an unlawful user, even if their possession of it is in violation of federal law.


    No, federal and state law is separate. The state does not have to enforce federal law, although many do anyway

  17. Ron W Says:


    The Obama Justice Dept went after Arizona to prevent them from enforcing federal immigration laws so wouldn’t they not want local and state police enforcing any other LAWFUL federal alws.

    But the Federal Gov’t has NO “delegated powers” for drug laws. Therefore, the 10th Amendment should mandate that State drug laws trump Federal ones. Moreover any federal drug laws should be declared null and void since they have no LAWFUL authority.

  18. A Critic Says:

    “Now, if you have an MMJ card in your pocket I think there’s no denying that you are a ‘user’, and it certainly remains illegal under Federal law.”

    Those federal laws are invalidated by the Constitution.

    There are no unlawful drug users, except for those who stole their stash.