CBD Oil & Cream And Firearms Ownership ??

[HiBC]

Given the language of the 2A, the Fed Gov,including the BATF ,should be advocates of Civilian Firearms ownership and use. The BATF should be fully supportive of the NRA,CMP,etc.
We should go back to having indoor smallbore ranges in our high schools ,YMCAs,etc.
The shooting sports pushed into the shadows and hidden can degenerate to "Holding the 9 sideways" etc. Bring shooting back into the sunlight. An honorable sport. Sort of like the Swiss. Or the USA of the 1930's . I graduated HS in 1970 and my HS had a range and a rifle team.

But no,the BATF seems (to me) to have the idea that the 2A, guns,shooting,etc are at least borderline criminal and the de facto enemy of the BATF.
We ought to have at least as many gun shops as pot shops and in Colorado,pot shops outnumber Starbucks and Liquor stores.

It is not inconceivable (and it may,in fact,be true) that Federal Agencies CAN be weaponized to persecute.

I agree,the Cannabis products being discussed will not get a fly high. They represent no threat to society. They may have benefit. I see no reason why they SHOULD be banned or restricted or have ANY effect on anyone's RTKBA.

That "SHOULD" word. I don't think suppressors "should" be restricted. I "should" be able to fire up my lathe and make one. Should.

Some folks have a hard time with the difference between "should" and "IS" or "Maybe Not"

BATF regs or rulings do not have to make sense to bite you. A cockroach who argues with a chicken is always wrong.

If our Military can lose their jobs over CBD cream, thats a clue about the Federal position on CBD cream.It might be stupid,but it can get real.

I think all the hoopla about AR pistols is stupid and "SHOULD" be no problem. The BATF has a wild hair . Some say "To be a pistol it has to be one handed,etc."

You can do whatever, I'm not here to control you and there is no "Winning the arguement"

The point of the discussion is knowing the information. Where the fences are.
Then you can make your own choices.

We have discussed at length here whether having a medical marijuana card (and using it) makes you a prohibited person. The paperwork that goes with a Colorado Concealed Carry permit makes it very clear. No,you can't have a gun or a permit. Whether you or I agree does not matter much, Its a choice.

Do it your way. I think the info we get here ought to be as accurate as possible per the letter of the law. We should at least know what we may be breaking.

These discussions always degenerate to the arguement between pot advocates proclaiming all the alleged benefits and "Yeah,dude! But what about alcohol..." The arguement is endless.

My interpretation of my reading of the 4473 leaves me living in a way I can fearlessly say "Bring me a cup to pee in!" And I believe in YOUR freedom.

I've spent time around long term heavy pot smokers (I know,CBD is different) Some folks go over the edge into a sort of schizophrenic psychosis. "They are doing things to me. I'm being sabotaged" Its very real to them. They can get agitated to the point of being dangerous. Its sad. It can be more debilitating than being a paraplegic.

I've seen it.

 

[JohnKSa]

There’s not as much information out there about the legality of using CBD products as there is for marijuana users.

Just to be clear, there is no legal use of marijuana in the U.S. The fact that some states have eliminated their laws has not eliminated the federal law against its possession and use. It is illegal to use or possess marijuana everywhere in the U.S. Period. No exceptions.

CBD products, on the other hand, can be legal or illegal--the problem is that there's essentially no way for a buyer to know for sure whether the product they purchased is legal or not.

 

[Metal god]

CBD products, on the other hand, can be legal or illegal--the problem is that there's essentially no way for a buyer to know for sure whether the product they purchased is legal or not.

This is a long thread , I read a lot of it but not all .

The original question was about filling out the 4473 if I’m not mistaken. If one believes and has every reason to believe the CBD oil they use is legal . Can they say no I’m not a user of marijuana honestly ?

Point being if for what ever reason he finds him self in court and has used CBD oil he truly believes to be legal . When being asked “did you lie on the 4473” can he answer no with out perjuring himself ?

Doesn’t the state have the burden? Yes I understand not wanting to be the test case etc . Don’t they need to prove the product you used is illegal rather then you needing to prove it’s not ?

Obviously this would be contingent on how much you kept your mouth shut at the beginning of the process but assuming it’s just a simple question did you lie and he says no . What then ?

 

[JohnKSa]

Your scenario is that the person wants to avoid doing something illegal while at the same time assuming that they chose to use CBD when they can't really be sure if using it is legal or not.

If one believes and has every reason to believe the CBD oil they use is legal . Can they say no I’m not a user of marijuana honestly ?

Sure. Will the state care about that if they have some sort of evidence that makes them think you did use marijuana? I doubt it.

When being asked “did you lie on the 4473” can he answer no with out perjuring himself ?

Again, yes, but I'm not sure if the state will care. Presumably you're in court because they have some evidence against you. I doubt they will be impressed at your claim of innocence in the face of that evidence--it's a rare defendant that doesn't claim to be innocent.

Doesn’t the state have the burden? Yes I understand not wanting to be the test case etc . Don’t they need to prove the product you used is illegal rather then you needing to prove it’s not ?

Yes, of course. But they don't have to prove the details of what caused you to test positive for THC, only that you did. Then it will be up to you to prove how the positive test results don't make you an unlawful marijuana user. It may be possible, but it won't be cheap.

 

[Metal god]

Yes, of course. But they don't have to prove the details of what caused you to test positive for THC, only that you did. Then it will be up to you to prove how the positive test results don't make you an unlawful marijuana user. It may be possible, but it won't be cheap.

That’s the answer right there , thanks

 

[Nathan]

Just remember, the federal government will likely be tryin to figure out if you are legal while keeping your prized collection in plastic trash cans with 4-8” of water in the bottom.

So, even if you win the case, did you ever really get “your” guns back?

As far as I can tell, there isn’t even any marijuana enforcement going on, but if tied to red flag law, you will likely never even have your dope seized, just your guns. That is the problem we face today.

 

[44 AMP]

At this point we seem to be just spinning in place, and swapping tales of various experiences on the subject of "cannabis chemicals" in drug tests and how govt and private employers react.

Many of the statutes and regs are written without any kind of amount limit or standard, which means any detectable presence can result in penalties being applied.

Until and unless there is a clear change in drug classifications as related to firearms law, any amount of anything on the "Controlled substance" list could be a disqualification or even possibly prosecutable.

I think we've taken this thread about as far as we can go at this time.

If you've got new, valid information, feel free to start a new thread.