Smoke Weed Everyday …Should That Even Matter, ATF Thinks So


Smoking Cannabis Stock Photo iStock-Charles Wollertz 948307088
iStock-Charles Wollertz

USA – -( New Federal Court Ruling, in the wake of Bruen.

Last week, a federal judge in OK ruled that federal law prohibiting marijuana users from legally acquiring and owning guns is unconstitutional, insisting that this federal regulation is inconsistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation (relying on guidance from last year’s Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision)

Marijuana is heavily regulated under federal law, as are many other drugs that are deemed “harmful.”

Yet, most states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and a growing number of states have also legalized it for “recreational purposes.” This is all in direct contradiction with unchanged federal law on the same subject. In those permissive states, federal law is still ostensibly in place but not enforced (although it could be without warning).

This obvious contradiction has confused many.

“Which of these contradictory laws am I supposed to obey?” ask more than a few, including me!

However, this conspicuous contradiction has not confused ATF! In order to purchase a gun at retail, marijuana users must lie on the federal form (4473). That is a federal offense, and ATF is there to investigate, and US Attorneys are there to prosecute. That’s what they get paid to do! […just not in the case of Hunter Biden]

Accordingly, I’ve always advised students that when they use marijuana (in any form, in any amount, in any state, and for any purpose) to forget about being gun owners, as they cannot acquire any gun without violating federal law and thus invite federal prosecution, even though the state in which they live, as well as the local prosecutor, may not care one way or the other.

In light of last week’s ruling, however, I’m now not sure what to tell students!

Last week’s decision will likely make its way before our Supreme Court, and they may have something to say about it. On the other hand, they may not! They may well let this ruling stand as it is without comment.

Assuming this decision does stand, ATF will have to modify its 4473 form, and all previous versions will become instantly obsolete. In fact, they may all be obsolete now!

On the medical side, I’m far from an expert on the subject of marijuana. However, as a personal decision, I don’t use it and never have, as I’m persuaded (at least from what little I do know) exposure is not in my best interest.

Most of my physician students are of the opinion that marijuana is harmful and has no health benefits. But, other doctors disagree, and being a non-expert, I’m currently undecided, although, as noted, I have decided that I do not want any exposure to marijuana personally.

We could probably have a similar conversation about ethyl alcohol. However, alcoholic beverages are legal to buy and consume (assuming you’re over twenty-one) in all fifty states (since 1933), and federal law has never declared alcohol consumption incompatible with legal gun ownership.

Currently, even a DUI conviction will not bounce a NICS check. Conversely, any use of marijuana will!

On the political side, it strikes me that gun-hating leftists have adopted a baneful strategy of progressively eliminating entire swaths of the US population from eligibility for gun ownership.

For example, we might agree that the “mentally ill” should be prevented from owning guns. Yet, as the “rule” is ultimately written, in my opinion, even talking with a marriage counselor suddenly sweeps you into the “prohibited category” forever.

Their hope is, of course, to progressively reduce the percentage of the population that is (by their definition) “perfect enough” to legally own guns to such a small number that their votes will be insignificant.

That “perfect-enough group” will, of course, exclude many police officers and most politicians. Still, less-than-honest politicians will quietly exempt themselves from having to comply with their own laws.

They always do!

I suspect this Federal Judge in OK plainly saw through this pernicious Marxist hypocrisy and decided that politicians shouldn’t be allowed to withhold Constitutional Rights from entire swaths of the population while exempting themselves simply because those particular citizens don’t endorse a specific (leftist) political agenda and thus cannot be counted upon for patronage.

For that reason, I believe this judge’s ruling was correct.

As we unhappily experienced during Prohibition (1920-1933), sometimes the “cure” is far worse than the “disease.”


About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc

As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor, John Farnam will urge you, based on your beliefs, to make up your mind about what you would do when faced with an imminent lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance, if any. Defense Training International wants to ensure that its students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or in-actions.

It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to Planet Earth. Mr. Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit:

John Farnam
John Farnam
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It is fairly simple all firearm laws all drugs laws are not about the use there of.

It is about the government disarming the people maintaining and getting more power.

The item is just the excused used.


Yes but the ATF appears to approve of Hunter Biden and his crack smoking habit . Do you see a contradiction at the ATF ? I guess if your name is Hunter Biden then you get an exemption from the laws that the rest of us are held too ! Until Hunter is prosecuted the ATF does not have any legal authority or grounds to single anyone else out . Equal protection under the law applies to all . So the ATF now has zero basis to bother anyone over pot or crack it appears. Precident counts and the Hunter… Read more »


hunter biden has NOTHING to do with constitutional protections and everything to do with selective enforcement, corruption and tyranny.

F’ the bidens!

Wild Bill

I like the selective enforcement defense, but that will not even slow down the BATFE.


The “Hillary Defense” and others like it have been tried many a time and the result is always the same: “Guilty.”


when i saw the picture i thought it was hunter smoking meth.


Prohibition was constitutionally legal. Federal level bans on any substance are unconstitutional . Prohibition proves the latter conclusively. The states do retain the right to ban (or not ban) substances. George Washington grew hemp. it is the Feral government, as usual, that is rogue and wrong.

Wild Bill

Congress has the sole authority over interstate commerce. Congress has the Constitutional power to ban anything it pleases from interstate commerce. GW grew hemp for rope. They used a lot of rope in those days.


No one is talking interstate commerce here, this is state by state nullification. Ex post facto is still illegal.

Wild Bill

Even minor impacts on interstate commerce by pure intrastate commerce is under Congress’s authority. in the Heart of Atlanta Hotel case. The hotel’s business was entirely intrastate, except that the hotel bought its napkins through interstate commerce. The S. Ct found that was sufficient nexus that the hotel falls under the authority of the interstate commerce clause. Sorry.

Roland T. Gunner

The interstate commerce clause has been abused and expanded by orders of magnitude beyond it’s original intent; and such abuse is blatantly unconstitutional.


So purchase all supplies locally and produce a product which is not shipped interstate due to federal prohibition and you should be golden. Feds got away with claiming locally grown produce (believe it was corn), grown for local consumption – did impact interstate commerce because the product is a commodity traded interstate. Thus locally produced and consumed goods impacted market and pricing of interstate goods and thus was covered. Think most agree this was an over-reach! With pot it is a locally legal substance grown for local consumption, with none allowed to be shipped interstate. Since none is traded interstate… Read more »


Unlike all other businesses the cannabis industry is using cash only, this is making a huge difference and cuts out most banks, Your analogy of the Atlanta Hotel case is therefore flawed. Also SCOTUS is inconsistant and often wrong.

Wild Bill

The point is interstate commerce, which is much broader than banks. The use of cash is an interesting factor because cash is an important part of interstate commerce.

Last edited 1 month ago by Wild Bill

Art I, sec 8, the commerce clause is used to take over everything.

Wild Bill



Yup. And the fed will tell you with a straight face that the sky is really not blue; but green!

Wild Bill

Also true.


Agree, “Prohibition,” was enacted per the Constitution, first State by State and then by Amendment. Therefore, Constitutionally, Congress and the States could ban firearms by repealing Amendment 2 of The Bill of Rights.


No, the bill of rights is another matter entirely and cannot be repealed without repealing the entire constitution, read the history.

Wild Bill

And that total repeal could easily happen in an Article V convention.


As well as the 2nd amendment blossoming into full fruition.

Wild Bill

How is that?


To the point where, WE, The People have to show / remind government in the actual way as to WHY we maintain the 2nd.

Wild Bill

The last time that there was a convention of the states, the delegates were empowered to only modify the Articles of Confederation. The delegates threw out the document and installed the Constitution, which they were not empowered to do.
The problem with an Article V convention of the states’d delegates is that they can do anything that they want. Do you trust any modern politician to defend our natural Rights?


I’ve argued this before. With the people in power right now I don’t trust them to do anything that would benefit gun owners or the 2nd amendment. Getting together to strengthen something that if it were followed properly in the first place would not be necessary. The deviation from what the document states is the problem. This might sound strange, but I liken it to this. Some people renew their vows and get married again. I don’t understand the logic behind it but some think it is a romantic thing. My problem with that is if you are truly married… Read more »


Spot on.


Only force can force a state to remain within the union. Change rules enough and there is no moral reason to stay.

National divorce is an extremely unattractive option, though far more attractive than “full fruition of the second” (thanks to USMC for that turn of phrase!). Want to live in tyranny, stay in NY, CA, WA, NJ, MY, MA, etc. Want to live free, stay with the Central States of America (aka Constitutional State of America).

Wild Bill

Union is perpetual. Texas v. White.


The delegates did not ‘install the Constitution’, they put it forth for ratification by the States. But yeah, they did give up on just trying to amend the Articles of Confederation.

Wild Bill

They took out one part and put in another … install. The states only ratified after a Bill of Rights was added.

Wild Bill

The professional politicians in office at the time control the agenda of an Article V convention. Would you trust your Rights to the current crop?

Wild Bill

Not quite. Remember the Second Amendment only guarantees our Right to keep and bear arms. Our Right to keep and bear arms in not dependent on the Second Amendment for its existence. Were the Second Amendment repealed, we would still have the Right to keep and bear arms, but not the Constitutional guarantee. That is Constitutional theory. Having said that, neither our Right to keep and bear arms, nor the Constitution level guarantee of the Second Amendment is currently protecting our fundamental natural law Right to keep and bear arms. Same with our Right to peaceably assemble, Speak, travel, or… Read more »


Are you sure the 2nd Amendment isn’t there to restrict the government from infringing on our right to keep and bare arms? And that these rights don’t protect us but rather give us the right and authority to protect ourselves, depending of course on each person’s level inherent resolve or backbone to do so?

Wild Bill

Each of the amendments guarantees our natural Rights by restricting governmental action. Restriction is the mechanism, the check, by which the Right is guaranteed. In Constitutional theory.

As a practical matter the various levels of government are ignoring our Rights, the amendments that guarantee those Rights and even portions of the Constitution, itself (e.g. city councils passing anti-gun ordinances violates the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause, which belongs to Congress).

Wild Bill

Restriction is the mechanism, the check, on government that guarantees our Rights. Sorry if I was unclear.


You were very clear. The only variable missing in all of this is a majority of The People to recognize that they too have a part in all of this and to take an actual active part in maintaining what we have left and persevering forward to reclaim so much of what we have lost. I will never forget the tears I seen in the eyes of a Korean War Veteran when we stood talking about “yesterday” and today… He started to explain how things were when he was a child, then a young teen, to when he joined The… Read more »


no one has the authority to tell you what you can or cannot consume. if you want to poison yourself feel free but you will be suffering the consequences. that weed is a schedule 1 drug, same as heroin is absurd and should be removed from the schedule. i have seen alcohol and other drugs do way more harm to people, families and communities than weed. if you legalize it the black market goes away along with the crime associated with it. no government in the history of the world has been beneficial to the freedoms of the individual. America… Read more »


I see great hypocrisy from the government here! I really don’t care for medically using Pot. However, I do use an opiate for major, disabling pain. And, to the G*d damn Government, that’s ok.

Last edited 1 month ago by hippybiker

This is true, BUT! WE that must rely on these drugs to survive and function for any semblance of quality of live still must jump through the various hoops in order to obtain these drugs. I for instance must travel 260 miles, one-way every two months just to pee in a cup and get a months’ prescription and a second prescription where I only have to travel about 75 miles one-way to refill. If I happen to be in central f=Florida or northern Indiana, (Which is often for family visit and matters) I am forced to have to travel upwards… Read more »


VA care? Given cost of travel and availability of less than exorbitantly priced opioids – you might consider going “out of network” for at least this piece of your care. Then write to your congressman about the insanity to provide ammo for VA reform. Shortly after opioids gained so much focus, I had knee surgery. Doc prescribed opioid for recovery period. Wife insisted I fill it and gave me one dose that first day. After recovery I had to deliver remaining pills to doctor’s office and pee in a cup. Sometime later I received a $5k bill drug test performed… Read more »


I AM going, “out of network” to the closest Doc for my treatment. I AM utilizing the quickest, most efficient manner for where I reside.


Good luck in the upcoming days. As with guns those of us who do things by the books are the ones bearing the burden of the bullshit that is our government. The DEA is the next group that should be dissolved.

Last edited 1 month ago by BMG_Gunner

Their hope is, of course, to progressively reduce the percentage of the population that is (by their definition) “perfect enough” to legally own guns to such a small number that their votes will be insignificant.

This has been my belief as well.


So federal law is clear on MaryJane. Local laws and enforcement is conflicting with it. As a gun owner, I choose the avoid the conflict by not using. Can we be truly free so long as our reps chase lobbies as opposed to representing our wants and needs?


OUR duty as WE, The People is to steer our elected officials onto the path that best suits the needs of WE, The People and to never waver from that duty as we have for well over 45 years as many have chased their own personal needs wants and desires, leaving behind the best interests of the people, our counties, states and country.


Sweatshirt from Dinesh S’Souza website: “This is the government the Founders warned about.” I’m encouraging them to add the tag….”and, for which they penned the Second Amendment.”


“reserved to the many states.” End of discussion.


Buy from a private seller. DO NOT lie on a 4473! Even though Hunter Biden has apparently gotten away with it you probably do not have a president for father!


There are other problems here as well as just ‘use’. In most states it is illegal to carry while ‘under the influence’. States have set measurable limits to define ‘under the influence’ for alcohol. How does one measure that for marijuana and what is the ‘legal’ limit?


There is no “legal” limit. Under text, history and tradition (Bruin) there is no legal analog from the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, therefore, there can be no infringement. PERIOD!

Many of the framers grew marijuana. They were all familiar with it. All prohibitions against using marijuana have zero effect on 2A…….Marbury v Madison…..”any law repugnant to the constitution is void”


The clause, “in common use” also pertains to the heroin, opium, cocaine and other “hard drugs” sold daily over the counters across the United States WITHOUT a prescription. It wasn’t until recent years that the federal governments discovered that by regulating these drugs FOR PROFIT around the same time of the creation of the Military Industrial Complex that it became “good business” to become a public servant and enjoy the control over WE, The People. Then during the Great Depression, er, I mean oppression, the federal government regulated OUR firearms at the very time these hard drugs were still being… Read more »


Technically, there is no “legal limit” for alcohol either. The blood alcohol levels you read about are merely the point that police can automatically declare you to be impaired, regardless of any observed behavior. For driving, at least, all consumption of any impairing substance is illegal. Even unsuccessful DUI charges are big money, that system is gamed to the hilt.


Your Doc SHOULD be able to give you a prescription that day of appointment and one for the next month to alleviate you the stress of having to make the trip monthly. Should, being the action word. I know LEOs that have to jump through the very same hoops. I hopefully have a Senator’s office starting to work on this after demanding full refund for having to make a 3300 PLUS mile round trip for a refill.


While mild to moderate use of marijuana may not cause any problems, heavy to extremely heavy use has been found to cause some serious issues. These can be issues such as mood disorders, something that would not be ideal if one was in possession of a firearm. That’s just my thoughts on the matter.


True. However, the same applies to alcohol, sugar, etc, and those substances are legal. Marijuana as a Schedule II is just a Prohibition-minded holdover pushed by authoritarians. It’s a dumb rule that needs to be abolished.


I wouldn’t be too sure about a DUI not putting you on the prohibited list. Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts was interviewed by Cam Edwards ( on 17 January. He said that ‘if he ever got a DUI he’d never own a gun in Massachusetts again.’ Perhaps MA is one of the States that does not use NICS but apparently drunk driving will get you banned there.


If Bruen is to mean anything, then it has to mean that the test of regulations is whether they line up with regulations that existed when the amendment was ratified. If society has changed so that we need regulations that did not exist back then, the solution is also found in the constitution: amend the constitution. At the time the 2nd was ratified, there was no ban on inebriates having firearms, nor felons, nor domestic abusers. Yet we have laws against all of those. Under Bruen, those laws should be found unconstitutional (though they won’t be). The solution would be… Read more »


That’s too bad for the ATF. Because they are certainly gonna put up it!




Grunt, apparently Ledesma is already a user….. Dumb ’em down in school, drug ’em up in life. Easier to control Useful Idiot Government Plantation Dwellers


A little consistency here please. Alcohol use is legal for 21 and over and in 2023 Marijuana use should be also. We all know how dangerous alcohol impaired people can be when operating a vehicle or doing anything that requires care and concentration. One just needs to look at the annual statistics showing the large amount of injuries and deaths caused by impaired alcohol users each year who should not be driving or operating machinery. It should be the same for pot users. If you’re “high” don’t drive or operate potentially dangerous machinery to avoid unintended injuries and potential deaths.… Read more »

The Crimson Pirate

Sorry to burst this bubble but “Currently, even a DUI conviction will not bounce a NICS check. Conversely, any use of marijuana will!” is not accurate. The DUI issue varies by state and even by time within a state. Noted Pennsylvania gun lawyer Phil Kline has stated repeatedly that if you have a DUI in PA he has to have the exact disposition of your case, the date of the offense and disposition, and consult about 5 law books to figure out if you are prohibited or not. And he does this kind of thing everyday for a living. This… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by The Crimson Pirate