1 in 8 Colorado residences denied right to bear arms

[PAMedic=F|A=]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27...federal-survey

As marijuana legalization took hold in Colorado, the estimated percentage of regular cannabis users in the state jumped to the second-highest level in the country, according to new federal data.

When asked, roughly one out of every eight Colorado residents over the age of 12 reported using marijuana in the previous month. Only Rhode Island topped Colorado in the percentage of residents who reported using marijuana as frequently.

The results come from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health and represent the average of estimates gathered in 2012 and 2013.

The numbers are among the first measurements of marijuana use in Colorado to be released after it became legal in late 2012 for people over 21 to use and possess marijuana in the state. But because they do not include data from this year, the numbers aren't able to answer the question experts have watched Colorado closely for: How will widespread commercial sales of marijuana impact use?

"This is not surprising, given what's going on on the medical side," Mark Kleiman, a University of California-Los Angeles professor who studies marijuana policy, said of the increase, referring to the uptick in medical marijuana patients in Colorado in the same period. "I don't think this tells us about the long-term impacts of legalization."

State-specific data from the survey are averaged over two-year periods to compensate for relatively small sample sizes.

For the 2011-12 period, 10.4 percent of Coloradans 12 and older reported using marijuana in the month prior to being surveyed. That placed Colorado seventh in the country for monthly marijuana use.

Monthly use in Colorado jumped to 12.7 percent — a 22 percent increase — in the 2012-13 data. The result means the survey estimates about 530,000 people in Colorado use marijuana at least once a month.

Nationally, monthly marijuana use by people 12 and older nudged upward by about 4 percent to 7.4 percent. In Washington state — which, like Colorado, in 2012 legalized marijuana use and limited possession for adults — monthly marijuana use rose by about 20 percent to 12.3 percent.

Kleiman said researchers will get a better idea about marijuana use in Colorado once they are able to zoom in on data showing how many people use marijuana daily. A study commissioned by Colorado's Marijuana Enforcement Division this year found that people who use marijuana almost every day account for about 22 percent of cannabis users in Colorado but consume nearly 67 percent of the marijuana used. Other studies have warned about a possible uptick in heavy marijuana use.

"The fraction of people who are monthly users who are in fact daily users has gone way, way up," Kleiman said.

Monthly marijuana use increased across all age groups in Colorado, according to the new survey numbers. The number of people who reported using marijuana in the past year also increased in Colorado in the 2012-13 data, but the state ranked only sixth nationally in the measurement. Measurements for alcohol consumption and illicit drug use increased, as well.

This month, a different federally funded survey found that teen marijuana use had not increased nationally, despite marijuana legalization. A Colorado survey released this year found no increase in marijuana use by high schoolers in 2013.

************************************************** ********

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/p...users-27792048

Colorado was the first state to legalize recreational marijuana sales. Now the state's voters may consider a ballot measure to allow pot smokers to carry a concealed firearm.

The "Colorado Campaign for Equal Gun Rights" is working to put a question on the November 2016 ballot to have Colorado ignore guidelines from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives about firearms and pot.

The measure would change state law to prevent sheriffs from denying concealed carry permits because of marijuana use. It's a new frontier in the marijuana wars, and one that has divided gun-rights activists.

"It's just ridiculous," said Edgar Antillon, one of the campaign organizers, who argues that firearms aren't kept from alcohol drinkers. "Somebody can get extremely drunk ? Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and all week if they want ? and they can still get a concealed carry permit."

He said he and his campaign partner, Isaac Chase, who run a firearm training business called "Guns For Everyone," are reaching out to gun rights groups for support, including those involved in last year's recall of two state senators who supported stricter firearm laws. Colorado organizers need more than 86,100 signatures to send the question to voters, and it's unclear whether Antillon's campaign will get enough support to launch.

The campaign would put Colorado again in direct conflict with federal guidelines about the drug.

In 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sent states a directive to keep guns away from marijuana users.

Earlier this year, Democratic Sen. John Walsh of Montana tried to change that, suggesting an amendment to bar federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients who own firearms. The amendment failed.

The matter divides gun enthusiasts. The president of the Colorado State Shooting Association said his members would oppose letting pot users carry guns.

"Federal law prohibits the possession and use of marijuana and its derivatives, and therefore its possession and use is incompatible with legal, responsible firearms ownership," said Tony Fabian, president of the Colorado State Shooting Association.

The County Sheriffs of Colorado are lining up against the idea, too.

But it's an open debate whether marijuana-using gun owners are more dangerous than others ? or even how many people lose gun rights over pot.

Colorado keeps no data on the question. And the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, which runs background checks for applicants and gun buyers, doesn't track how many are denied concealed carry permits because of pot. Neither does the County Sheriffs of Colorado.

People are asked, under oath, 14 questions on Colorado's concealed carry application, including whether the person has a restraining order, has been convicted of a felony, or has been treated for alcoholism within the past 10 years.

They're also asked if they're "an unlawful user of" marijuana "or any other controlled substance." The application is processed by county sheriffs.

The conflict has surfaced in other states that allow medical or recreational marijuana use, including Washington and Oregon.

In Washington state, forms for concealed weapons permits also ask if someone is an "unlawful user" of marijuana, without differentiating between state or federal law.


In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from an Oregon sheriff who had been prohibited from denying a concealed handgun license to a medical marijuana user. The decision meant the woman and other medical marijuana cardholders could obtain concealed handgun licenses.

Antillon, whose company provides the firearm training required for concealed carry applicants, said several students have told him they've been denied a permit because they use marijuana, either medically or recreationally. He said it's unjust that marijuana users are being "punished and can't defend their lives."

He argues that marijuana users can also be responsible firearm owners.

"It's going to be that initial battle of educating people. The challenge is people thinking that we're allowing people who are high to possess handguns," he said.

[Deleted]

The article does not even have the word "right" "firearm" "bear" "arms" "guns" or anything that even remotely references firearms rights in it.

[Curmudgeon]

The article does not even have the word "right" "firearm" "bear" "arms" "guns" or anything that even remotely references firearms rights in it.

Read the 2nd article.

[Deleted]

Read the 2nd article.

lol thanks!!! After reading the second article I have to agree with the premise that if you are going to issue permits to users of legal alcohol then you should be issuing them to users of legal marijuana. Permits are a state issue not a federal one so don't use federal illegality as a crutch.

[Gunsnwater]

I can't be the only one who saw this comming a mile away.

[thefirstndsecond]

I can't be the only one who saw this comming a mile away.

No you're not.

A buddy of mine worked here in the delval area. He was interested in purchasing a firearm.

He had a medical marijuana card from Cali and was a silent partner in a business out there. I told him to call a lawyer and ask them. I had no idea how he should answer.

[Solaran_X]

I'm confused...the article pertains to Coloradans who are trying to get a CCW. But I didn't see a single mention of ATF Form 4473 in either article, which should now be required for ALL transfers since Colorado has UBCs?

[Sam1911]

I told him to call a lawyer and ask them. I had no idea how he should answer.

This is where a whole lot of folks in the US are going to get educated on federalism. The idea that states can "legalize" marijuana is a bit of mis-speak. The state can say they, themselves, will not prosecute you for using that controlled substance, but they cannot do anything (outside of a little bluster and bluff) to stop the feds from prosecuting you, and they can do nothing at all to make it federally legal.

The 4473 is a federal form. Federally, if you are an unlawful user you are PROHIBITED from possessing a firearm at all, or from having one transferred to you, according to 18 USC 922(g).

Smoke weed, have a gun = felon. Smoke weed, lie about it on the 4473? Same. Not a state issue; a federal issue.

The legalization states have put folks into an interesting position where a lot are going to THINK they're legal, and they're absolutely not.

In the end this is probably a good thing, as the more "good" folks who are jacked up and inconvenienced by such laws, the more likely we are to get laws changed so that doesn't happen. But it isn't a good situation for the folks caught up in it now.

[ungawa]

This is where a whole lot of folks in the US are going to get educated on federalism. The idea that states can "legalize" marijuana is a bit of mis-speak.

First let's give the federal government a lesson on The Constitution. The idea that the federal government can "criminalize" marijuana is false.

Regarding the article, I expected more people smoked weed out there before the law passed. In the 1990s we had a neighbor out there that had a 14' x 5' plot of weed about 7 feet high in his backyard. Thick as a hedgerow. This was a suburban neighborhood in Boulder with 1/8 acre lots. Whenever the subject came up, anybody out there that didn't like the idea seemed more concerned with the smoking part of smoking weed than the weed part of smoking weed.

[thefirstndsecond]

This is where a whole lot of folks in the US are going to get educated on federalism. The idea that states can "legalize" marijuana is a bit of mis-speak. The state can say they, themselves, will not prosecute you for using that controlled substance, but they cannot do anything (outside of a little bluster and bluff) to stop the feds from prosecuting you, and they can do nothing at all to make it federally legal.

The 4473 is a federal form. Federally, if you are an unlawful user you are PROHIBITED from possessing a firearm at all, or from having one transferred to you, according to 18 USC 922(g).

Smoke weed, have a gun = felon. Smoke weed, lie about it on the 4473? Same. Not a state issue; a federal issue.

The legalization states have put folks into an interesting position where a lot are going to THINK they're legal, and they're absolutely not.

In the end this is probably a good thing, as the more "good" folks who are jacked up and inconvenienced by such laws, the more likely we are to get laws changed so that doesn't happen. But it isn't a good situation for the folks caught up in it now.

Right this is why I told him to see a lawyer. He had a card from California when he lived there. Then he moved to PA. So how should he answer the question? As it pertains today? No idea. I am sure this will effect many many more people who care and probably not so many who don't.