• AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    They’re just trying to find other ways to take guns from leftists and trans people.

    Also, since pot is federally illegal, and legal states don’t normally give the feds buyer info, how the hell would they even know? A form asking if you smoke pot? What stops someone from just saying they don’t?

    • flandish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      the question on the form is not temporally bound; it asks if you are currently using. i read it as “are you smoking while filling the form out?”

      the answer is always “no.”

      • solrize@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I have heard (not sure) that at least here in California, the rule applies to using pot in the past year, or maybe it was 5 years. I expect it is written down somewhere.

          • frongt@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            It doesn’t even say that. It says:

            Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana

            or other stuff. It does not define “user”.

            • flandish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              that’s it. yep. while ambiguity on a form gives leeway to the person who did not write it, this is still pretty clear to me. user of? (using while filling out form?) “addicted to”? ask any drunk they’ll tell you they’re not an addict. 😉

          • solrize@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Idk maybe it’s documented some other place or the dealer is supposed to explain it. I’ve never dealt with the process myself.

    • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      This is already the law, they are actually looking to overturn it. Despite having used it to prosecute Hunter Biden.

      • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        I guess, but “regularly” is hard to prove in court, or at least it was before 2025. Also before 2025, something would have to happen for you to be investigated for that in the first place. I’m sure now they’ll just make up a reason to investigate pot smokers.

        I do wonder how it would go over in court now. In a jury trial, the prosecution would likely still have to prove that you “regularly” smoke pot, right?

        I suppose my point is that it probably won’t be very effective in stopping pot smokers from owning guns (especially those that already own guns) if it’s just a yes/no on a form.