SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Court rules marijuana users cannot be barred from firearm ownership - result of Bruen ruling
Page 1 2 3 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Court rules marijuana users cannot be barred from firearm ownership - result of Bruen ruling Login/Join 
Told cops where to go for over 29 years…
Picture of 911Boss
posted
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






What part of "...Shall not be infringed" don't you understand???


 
Posts: 11420 | Location: Western WA state for just a few more years... | Registered: February 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 110098 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 33466 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
A day late, and
a dollar short
Picture of Warhorse
posted Hide Post
I wonder, how long has the Marijuana question been on the form 4473?


____________________________
NRA Life Member, Annual Member GOA, MGO Annual Member
 
Posts: 13731 | Location: Michigan | Registered: July 10, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
It has asked about marijuana and other controlled substances since its inception in 1968 with the GCA.
 
Posts: 33466 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of dsiets
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 7541 | Location: MI | Registered: May 22, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Unmanned Writer
Picture of LS1 GTO
posted Hide Post
While i agree the headline of the ruling, i think what is more telling is this came from an Oklahoma judge.






Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.



"If dogs don't go to Heaven, I want to go where they go" Will Rogers

The definition of the words we used, carry a meaning of their own...



 
Posts: 14260 | Location: It was Lat: 33.xxxx Lon: 44.xxxx now it's CA :( | Registered: March 22, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Optimistic Cynic
Picture of architect
posted Hide Post
"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.
 
Posts: 6945 | Location: NoVA | Registered: July 22, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Step by step walk the thousand mile road
Picture of Sig2340
posted Hide Post
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.





Nice is overrated

"It's every freedom-loving individual's duty to lie to the government."
Airsoftguy, June 29, 2018
 
Posts: 32374 | Location: Loudoun County, Virginia | Registered: May 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Who Woulda
Ever Thought?
posted Hide Post
Like far out man.
 
Posts: 6610 | Registered: August 25, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
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.



Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
 
Posts: 8292 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 33466 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
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?



Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
 
Posts: 8292 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
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.
 
Posts: 33466 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
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.




www.opspectraining.com

"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"



 
Posts: 37307 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Objectively Reasonable
Picture of DennisM
posted Hide Post
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."
 
Posts: 2565 | Registered: January 01, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sigcrazy7
posted Hide Post
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.



Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus
 
Posts: 8292 | Location: Utah | Registered: December 18, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
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.




www.opspectraining.com

"It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it works out for them"



 
Posts: 37307 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
Yep. Sounds like your ex-BIL needs to have a chat with Utah BCI, not the feds.
 
Posts: 33466 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Victim of Life's
Circumstances
Picture of doublesharp
posted Hide Post
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.


________________________
God spelled backwards is dog
 
Posts: 4870 | Location: Sunnyside of Louisville | Registered: July 04, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Court rules marijuana users cannot be barred from firearm ownership - result of Bruen ruling

© SIGforum 2024