This is interesting. Bruen is going to have far reaching implications.

I am not necessarily opposed to this decision, don’t see it much different than those who use alcohol or prescription drugs that may effect reason and judgement.

My concern is unlawful or unsafe use under the influence instead of “pre-emptive” laws based on what “might” happen.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/mar...firearms-judge-rules

It's a silly provision to begin with. If we separate out cannabis from alcohol because it is (mostly) illegal, why not include LSD and peyote, which are also illegal?

Are you an unlawful user of LSD or peyote? Why don't they ask? Unlike marijuana, if you ingest a sufficient amount of strong hallucinogenics, you become completely detached from reality. This is far more dangerous in terms of handling firearms than cannabis.

Typical governmental nonsense and inconsistency.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's a silly provision to begin with. If we separate out cannabis from alcohol because it is (mostly) illegal, why not include LSD and peyote, which are also illegal?

Are you an unlawful user of LSD or peyote? Why don't they ask? Unlike marijuana, if you ingest a sufficient amount of strong hallucinogenics, you become completely detached from reality. This is far more dangerous in terms of handling firearms than cannabis.

Typical governmental nonsense and inconsistency.

It does ask that. The question reads:

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

Peyote and LSD are both controlled substances. Federal law prohibits unlawful users of any controlled substances from purchasing a firearm.

I wonder, how long has the Marijuana question been on the form 4473?

It has asked about marijuana and other controlled substances since its inception in 1968 with the GCA.

quote:

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to,... any ..., stimulant, ...”

I dropped the coffee years ago. I'm feeling much bettah, Thank you.

While i agree the headline of the ruling, i think what is more telling is this came from an Oklahoma judge.

"Addicted" is a loaded word, many people, for example, find the sound of their own voice quite stimulating. I am sure that one can think of other examples, some of which we see occasionally on this forum. A strict reading of the language might be used to exclude many who might otherwise be qualified. I admit this is a bit of a stretch, but it wouldn't be the first time that language has been (mis)interpreted for a desired purpose.

I’ve read the Obama-era federal guidelines that allowed these state “experiments” with legal/decriminalized marijuana.

There were all manner of strange statements, but in the end, the document created a 14th amendment claim likely legally fatal the feds. In the policy it stated that federal resources would not be used to enforce the CSA Schedule 1 status of cannabis in states adhering to the federal guidelines (e.g., California, Colorado, Washington), but would enforce those same anti-cannabis federal laws in states not participating in the great “experiment” (e.g., Florida, Texas, Virginia). That is unequal application of the law, ergo a 14th amendment violation. The fed.gov would be well served legalizing marijuana.

Like far out man.

Soon there will hopefully be a ruling that states that a person cannot have a lifetime firearms ban simply for a simple, non-violent felony. If a person has paid their debt to society, and are now allowed to vote, etc, why is the 2A carved out for a lifetime ban? Why should a man in his seventies be prohibited today because he took a stolen car for a joy ride back in 1965, and hasn't had so much as a parking ticket since?

In the process of reigning in the ban, I would be nice to see a good steamrolling of the Lautenberg Amendment. In a world where he-said / she-said always results in she-said, I think this prohibition is ridiculous. The Lautenberg Amendment has done ¡¡NOTHING!! to reduce domestic violence, but it has eliminated a lot of innocent people's gun rights.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Soon there will hopefully be a ruling that states that a person cannot have a lifetime firearms ban simply for a simple, non-violent felony. If a person has paid their debt to society, and are now allowed to vote, etc, why is the 2A carved out for a lifetime ban? Why should a man in his seventies be prohibited today because he took a stolen car for a joy ride back in 1965, and hasn't had so much as a parking ticket since?

There already exist processes through which such a person could have his non-violent felony conviction expunged, or pardoned, or otherwise have his firearms rights restored.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
There already exist mechanisms through which such a seventy-something man could have his 1960s non-violent felony expunged or pardoned, or otherwise have his firearms rights restored.

Yes, he can petition his government masters and beg for his rights. That's not really a right. There's plenty of jurisdictions in this country that deny all petitions outright, and I seem to remember that awhile back the ATF said they didn't have the funding to enter such expunged records into NICS. Maybe I'm off base, but having to ask to exercise a right doesn't seem like much of a right.

Does a person have to go through an arbitrary process to restore his voting rights? Or 1A,4A, or 5A rights?

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Does a person have to go through an arbitrary process to restore his voting rights? Or 1A,4A, or 5A rights?

It varies from state to state. Restoration of voting rights for felons isn't automatic in every state, though it is in some.

And even felons don't lose their 1st/4th/5th/etc. amendment rights, except as it pertains to certain specific legally allowed restrictions on things like their right to freedom of assembly and their right against searches while incarcerated inside correctional facilities, or while on parole (which is considered by the courts to be an outside extension of a correctional facility in certain regards) or probation (in which the person voluntarily agrees to conditions like a search waiver in exchange for being afforded probation in lieu of imprisonment).


As to the process of a convicted felon having their firearms/voting/public office/etc. rights restored being "arbitrary" (e.g. random or applied on a whim), that's not the case.

For an expungement or a non-automatic restoration of felon's rights, the process typically involves filing a petition in court, which is reviewed by a judge to determine whether it should be granted.

For a pardon, the petition is reviewed by the office of the governor or president to determine whether it should be granted.

Either way, there are typically specific criteria that must be met, often involving stuff like it being non-violent, it having occurred at least X number of years ago, the person having a clean record in the interim, them having completed their sentence and paid all outstanding restitution, etc.

So it's not "arbitrary", but it is reviewed on a case-by-case basis according to specific criteria when requested by that person, rather than an across-the-board automatic process for everyone like you're wanting.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
and I seem to remember that awhile back the ATF said they didn't have the funding to enter such expunged records into NICS. Maybe I'm off base

Yep, that would keep them real busy. If they had anything to do with NICS. To which they don’t. The FBI maintains NICS and does all FEDERAL entries. The states enter their own. So, theoretically, the FBI could slow roll a small percentage of FEDERAL expungements. The ATF has nothing to do with it.

If you read something like that, it was a lie.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
"Addicted" is a loaded word, many people, for example, find the sound of their own voice quite stimulating. I am sure that one can think of other examples, some of which we see occasionally on this forum. A strict reading of the language might be used to exclude many who might otherwise be qualified. I admit this is a bit of a stretch, but it wouldn't be the first time that language has been (mis)interpreted for a desired purpose.

Except that the statute doesn't just bar "addicts," it bars "unlawful users" of controlled substances. There's no stretch about this. If it's a controlled substance, and it's not prescribed in a manner consistent with Federal law, and you use it: You're an "unlawful user."

I'm firmly in the camp of "If you don't want to see long-reaching consequences for possessing/using it, then lobby Congress to take it off the Schedules."

Here's my experience.

I have a good friend who I've known for decades, since the Army. When he was 18, he bought a four-wheeler from a friend while he was living in MD. He was prosecuted for purchasing stolen goods, even though he didn't know it was stolen. The DA said that such a good deal, he should have known. He took some type of plea deal which was supposed to be knocked down to a misdemeanor after a time, but it remained as a felony on the record. He didn't know that until trying to buy a rifle twenty-five years later. Now living in Utah, he petitioned a court in MD to have it expunged, but MD just wouldn't do it. My only guess is because MD just doesn't want anybody to have a gun. That was his only offense, ever.

My ex-BIL got the state to expunge his early offenses, which were drug related non-violent, but last I saw him, he said he couldn't get the Feds to process it so he could pass a background check. Utah cleared him, but the Feds wouldn't do what they needed to do. He said he'd sent it in several times, and two years later, nothing. Still prohibited in NICS.

We can argue semantics about the word "arbitrary" or about which agency is responsible for updating a database, but at the end of the day, that's two examples of people I personally know who are prohibited over stuff from decades ago. When the government doesn't obey its own laws and policies, or simply does not do its job, it seems arbitrary to me. Rights are still denied.

Facts matter- You said the ATF was slow rolling data entries. You said they claimed they didn’t have the money to enter it. That is simply false. It’s not arguing “semantics”.

It is a flat out falsehood.

Your story about your BIL has zero to do with any federal agency. A state charge is entered into NCIC by a state agency. True expulsions are removed from NCIC by a state agency. The NICS check conducted by the FBI merely looks at the data the state puts in.

The feds, can’t and won’t, fix state charges or convictions. Either the entry is there, or it isn’t. When you appeal a denied NICS check, the FBI just looks at the prohibitors to ensure that the convictions are proper and procedure is followed. The don’t “fix” anything in the entry.

Oh, and as to an individual denial, you can submit paperwork to clear a record for the purposes of that transaction. It is done by submitting the documents, along with the claim number to the Appeal Services Team. The appeal services team will authenticate the documents, and give a proceed for that transaction only. If Utah won’t correct it, he may have to appeal it each time and submit the documents each time as transactions aren’t kept.

If in fact it truly clears it. A lot of people get these “expungements”, particularly from state democrats. When you actually read the fine print......it’s for voting “Rights” only, and clearly states that there is no implied firearms disabilities expulsion.

Yep. Sounds like your ex-BIL needs to have a chat with Utah BCI, not the feds.

The cannabis worm is turning fast now that products containing delta 8,9 & 10 THC are loophole legal. Every gas station in Kentucky sells them and storefronts are popping up in Indiana advertising the cannabis lite buzz. For example: https://cbd.co/

Like it or not cannabis is here to stay and most like & will vote for it. Whitmer wouldn't be gov of Michigan except she ran on legalizing pot and now she's in. Colorado too. Put marijuana legalization to the vote and legalize wins most every time.

I put some gambling money in shares of Cronos Growth (cron) recently as it's trading near 52 wk low @ $2.50 sh. Been in the 6-7 range. Plenty of risk but Philip Morris, Altria (mo), owns a big chunk and in my opinion it will pop when banking regulations gets some clarity on how to handle cannabis dispensary proceeds - since pot is illegal at fed level the banking system is theoretically off limits. Credit Unions and private banks are the improvised solutions but that is temporary. I hope to take profit when/if the new banking deregulations are announced.

As far as guns go most of mine come from private party gun show sales and questions like that are never asked.