Are you an unlawful userof, or addicted to, marijuana orany depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, orany other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized
for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
So “yes, and alcoholics too, technically. Alcohol is a depressant.”
Thing is unless you’ve got prior convictions or get caught with both the gun and a substance, or try to buy the gun while obviously fucked up on something, it’s kinda hard to catch.
I suppose if you film yourself on drugs and then forget to go “no that wasn’t real drugs, it’s fake” like how they filmed Nice Dreams and didn’t get arrested for the weed, and then people put a political target on your back, then yeah that might get you caught too.
Also it’s a dumb rule and should be stricken from the form. Especially weed FFS, which also should be legal.
Are you sure about this? My English may be a bit rusty but doesn’t the “or any other controlled substance” imply that only controlled depressants count?
To me it reads like the author forgot there were depressants and stimulants that are not controlled. But I wouldn’t take that as a sign that the sentence only applies to the subset of controlled depressants or stimulants.
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant…
Alcohol being a depressant, it could be argued that “or addicted to any depressant” would be the more applicable part of the question, controlled or not.
I did some rapid web searches to dig in here because I was curious about how this might be abused. It turns out that is better worded than it would at first appear. I think the trick here is it depends on whose definition of “depressant, stimulant, narcotic” you go by.
For example, the CDC considers caffeine a stimulant, but the FDA says it’s a “food additive”. So there’s no FDA schedule for caffeine, which means you also can’t get a prescription for caffeine pills, nor pay for them through insurance. But that also means it’s arguably not a drug or “stimulant” under this definition.
Meanwhile, alcohol labeling is handled by the FDA, but it looks like everything about the substance itself falls under the ATF (it’s in the name after all). The ATF seems to take great care to not categorize alcohol as a depressant and goes out of its way to never call alcohol a “drug” (example). And, as it turns out, (Federally) alcohol is not a controlled substance.
Interesting, of course, I still think the law is dumb especially regarding weed, but you may be right they have it carved out as an exception with booze/caffeine. I wonder what would happen in court on a case like that, who’s definition would be used, or could it possibly be argued based off the definitions and it’d be the case that sets a precedent.
Actually question “21. f” on ATF form 4473 is:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.So “yes, and alcoholics too, technically. Alcohol is a depressant.”
Thing is unless you’ve got prior convictions or get caught with both the gun and a substance, or try to buy the gun while obviously fucked up on something, it’s kinda hard to catch.
I suppose if you film yourself on drugs and then forget to go “no that wasn’t real drugs, it’s fake” like how they filmed Nice Dreams and didn’t get arrested for the weed, and then people put a political target on your back, then yeah that might get you caught too.
Also it’s a dumb rule and should be stricken from the form. Especially weed FFS, which also should be legal.
Are you sure about this? My English may be a bit rusty but doesn’t the “or any other controlled substance” imply that only controlled depressants count?
To me it reads like the author forgot there were depressants and stimulants that are not controlled. But I wouldn’t take that as a sign that the sentence only applies to the subset of controlled depressants or stimulants.
I mean, alcohol is controlled, otherwise there wouldn’t be a legal drinking age, or consequences for driving drunk, one might argue.
One might, but that’s not the definition of controlled substance in this context.
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-is-a-controlled-substance
I know, I was making a devil’s advocate argument.
Sorry, I’m too literal sometimes.
All good dude 👍
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant…
Alcohol being a depressant, it could be argued that “or addicted to any depressant” would be the more applicable part of the question, controlled or not.
So then gun owners can’t drink coffee?
I am not a lawyer.
I did some rapid web searches to dig in here because I was curious about how this might be abused. It turns out that is better worded than it would at first appear. I think the trick here is it depends on whose definition of “depressant, stimulant, narcotic” you go by.
For example, the CDC considers caffeine a stimulant, but the FDA says it’s a “food additive”. So there’s no FDA schedule for caffeine, which means you also can’t get a prescription for caffeine pills, nor pay for them through insurance. But that also means it’s arguably not a drug or “stimulant” under this definition.
Meanwhile, alcohol labeling is handled by the FDA, but it looks like everything about the substance itself falls under the ATF (it’s in the name after all). The ATF seems to take great care to not categorize alcohol as a depressant and goes out of its way to never call alcohol a “drug” (example). And, as it turns out, (Federally) alcohol is not a controlled substance.
Interesting, of course, I still think the law is dumb especially regarding weed, but you may be right they have it carved out as an exception with booze/caffeine. I wonder what would happen in court on a case like that, who’s definition would be used, or could it possibly be argued based off the definitions and it’d be the case that sets a precedent.