Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #561  
Old 12-16-2017, 6:17 PM
Brush Guard Brush Guard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 497
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
That's complete nonsense. And the negative results in cities and states that have legalized it prove it. Even the uber liberal Democratic governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper has publically said legalizing pot in Colorado was a big mistake.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/23...t-was-bad-idea

So whoever these people are, who are supposedly, "in the know", evidently don't know much. An intoxicant is going to disable good behavior. That's a fact. It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. More intoxicants will lead to more poor behavior. Have you ever seen anyone worth a damn when they were drunk or stoned? I haven't. But I've seen a lot of stoners and drunks fired, divorced, or in car accidents. It wouldn't have mattered if the pot they got stoned on was legal. Any more than it mattered that the booze they got drunk on was. Intoxicated is intoxicated. This country already acts stupid enough. It doesn't need anything else to accelerate the process.

We are getting way off topic and are muddying the waters of this important thread.

RickD427, Fiddletown and other knowledgeable, helpful people have given their time so that some calgunners can make informed decisions. Thank you all.

Iíll answer your last reply, but perhaps a new thread in off topic would be a better place to discuss the pros and cons of cannabis legalization.

The article you posted only says he thinks it was a bad idea because as of yet there are no federal regulations or guidelines to follow, like there are for alcohol. He says there are unknowns yet to be discovered. The article does not state anything about negative social impacts of legal cannabis.

Indeed abuse of any drug is bad. No doubt that abusing cannabis all day every day will have negative impacts. No argument here. People need to take responsibility for their actions.

Any streetwise person is one of those in the know.

My knowledge of cannabis vs alcohol comes from years of working as a bartender in a high volume night club. I have seen firsthand the negative social impacts of alcohol that simply do not exists with cannabis. The drunk drivers, lost jobs, ruined bodies, broken families, violent encounters etc. are largely the result of alcohol, not cannabis.

It would be difficult to convince any streetwise person otherwise. Far from nonsense.

If I could wave a magic wand and suddenly change every alcoholic to an abusing stoner, even a stoner of the worst kind, the negative social impacts on all levels, would be greatly reduced in countless ways. The world would be a better place.

Itís a fact that for those who have addictive, abusive, tendencies and switch from alcohol to cannabis are much better off, as are those around the abuser.

I have worked in the tech industry with many high level achievers who use cannabis after work, daily. In short, cannabis use does not equal reefer madness.

We can go tit for tat forever, but this is not the place for it.

I apologize for participating in the derailment of this tread.
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 12-16-2017, 6:43 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,191
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brush Guard View Post
We are getting way off topic and are muddying the waters of this important thread.

RickD427, Fiddletown and other knowledgeable, helpful people have given their time so that some calgunners can make informed decisions. Thank you all.

Iíll answer your last reply, but perhaps a new thread in off topic would be a better place to discuss the pros and cons of cannabis legalization.

The article you posted only says he thinks it was a bad idea because as of yet there are no federal regulations or guidelines to follow, like there are for alcohol. He says there are unknowns yet to be discovered. The article does not state anything about negative social impacts of legal cannabis.

Indeed abuse of any drug is bad. No doubt that abusing cannabis all day every day will have negative impacts. No argument here. People need to take responsibility for their actions.

Any streetwise person is one of those in the know.

My knowledge of cannabis vs alcohol comes from years of working as a bartender in a high volume night club. I have seen firsthand the negative social impacts of alcohol that simply do not exists with cannabis. The drunk drivers, lost jobs, ruined bodies, broken families, violent encounters etc. are largely the result of alcohol, not cannabis.

It would be difficult to convince any streetwise person otherwise. Far from nonsense.

If I could wave a magic wand and suddenly change every alcoholic to an abusing stoner, even a stoner of the worst kind, the negative social impacts on all levels, would be greatly reduced in countless ways. The world would be a better place.

Itís a fact that for those who have addictive, abusive, tendencies and switch from alcohol to cannabis are much better off, as are those around the abuser.

I have worked in the tech industry with many high level achievers who use cannabis after work, daily. In short, cannabis use does not equal reefer madness.

We can go tit for tat forever, but this is not the place for it.

I apologize for participating in the derailment of this tread.
So years of enabling alcoholics makes one an expert on MJ. Interesting. I did not know that.
__________________
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 12-16-2017, 7:58 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,457
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The whole "is marijuana being legal good or bad" is a rabbithole. Whenever the subject of marijuana comes up, folks wind up going down that rabbithole, and nobody gets anywhere.

The lesson that counts for the folks on Calguns, and other gun forums, is that state law is irrelevant; and any user of marijuana is a prohibited under federal law from having possession of a gun or ammunition. That's the bottom line for gun owners.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 01-17-2018, 7:04 AM
carrywisely_ca's Avatar
carrywisely_ca carrywisely_ca is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 43
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I'm happy to have a discussion. Being lectured at is not helpful.
My point in posting is only to mention the challenge to people who own firearms AND who participate in state-sanctioned cannabis programs.

Would you have taken the position during the 13 years of alcohol prohibition that the law is rational and MUST be abided?

[QUOTE=RickD427;20950997]There's a couple of problems with your posting:



Quote:
1) There is no "Conflict" in the law where a state has chosen to eliminate state criminal sanctions for use. There is no requirement, anywhere, that state law duplicate federal law. If a state choses to criminalize drug usage, in addition to the federal law, all that means is that the drug user faces to potential of both state and federal charges. About the only way you could create a "Conflict" is if the state used it law-making powers to require a person to use drugs that are federally prohibited. No state has done that.
-Nope. The definition of "conflict" suggests that there is one when Federal and State laws do not preclude the same item, activity, or action.


Quote:
2) Marijuana use in states that have chosen to remove their state level sanctions is not "legal." The use still remains illegal under federal law. There is certainly a greatly reduced risk or prosecution to the user, the feds don't typically target individuals for enforcement, but that doesn't make the use "legal."
-Your statement is half-right. Please look up the word "legal", and understand that I am referring to State ordinances. I am aware that cannabis remains a Schedule I narcotic.

Quote:
3 So long as the federal law is violated by marijuana use, a user is violating federal law by responding that they are not an unlawful user on Form 4473. A person is responsible for following both the federal and state laws.
-You're right. Laws are not effective in educating people about the law, they are great for punishing people who run afoul of the law. We're here to understand the law, its nuance, and to share our perspective. I will adhere to the law, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the law.

Quote:
4) As person may well be able to take advantage of medical privacy laws to shield evidence of usage from prosecution officials, but that does not eliminate or otherwise shield them from criminal liability if caught. Illegal activity does not become legal simply because one is able to get away with it.
-You're right.

Last edited by carrywisely_ca; 01-17-2018 at 7:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 01-17-2018, 8:32 AM
billt's Avatar
billt billt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
The whole "is marijuana being legal good or bad" is a rabbithole. Whenever the subject of marijuana comes up, folks wind up going down that rabbithole, and nobody gets anywhere.

The lesson that counts for the folks on Calguns, and other gun forums, is that state law is irrelevant; and any user of marijuana is a prohibited under federal law from having possession of a gun or ammunition. That's the bottom line for gun owners.
Very true. The fact is it's NOT LEGAL. Regardless if these states declare it legal with some bogus, "Voter Referendum" that say's it is, because of a popular vote of the people. Simply put, the people cannot, "vote" to disobey Federal law. It really is that simple, regardless if people choose to digest that fact or not.

"Civil Disobedience" has consequences. One of those consequences in this case is having your right to own firearms terminated. That is a very high price to pay just so you can get high. Or else, "relieve pain" by blazing up. When there are 100 or more alternative pharmaceutical drugs that could be legally prescribed to do the same.

As far as I'm concerned, this is all much to do about nothing. I've been listening to this silly nonsense about how much we're all, "missing out on the positive benefits of Marijuana", since the Hippies were singing the same tune people are now, all the way back in the 60's. Nothing has changed. And nothing will change until the Marijuana laws in this country are CHANGED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. And that is no closer to happening now, than it was back then. Everything else is just a bunch of smoke filled, coffee house crap.
__________________
If common sense was so common, why don't liberals possess any?
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 01-17-2018, 9:18 AM
HectorEscaton HectorEscaton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

For what it's worth, anyone using opioids for the management of chronic pain, even if they were legally prescribed, is very likely addicted to them in an objective biological sense, and would also be required to answer "yes" to the question on the 4473.
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 01-17-2018, 9:24 AM
billt's Avatar
billt billt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HectorEscaton View Post
For what it's worth, anyone using opioids for the management of chronic pain, even if they were legally prescribed, is very likely addicted to them in an objective biological sense, and would also be required to answer "yes" to the question on the 4473.
I just purchased a new firearm last week. There was nothing on the 4473 Form about prescription medication use. Only Marijuana.
__________________
If common sense was so common, why don't liberals possess any?
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 01-17-2018, 9:31 AM
HectorEscaton HectorEscaton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
I just purchased a new firearm last week. There was nothing on the 4473 Form about prescription medication use. Only Marijuana.
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

That covers a lot more than marijuana, and prescription opioids are controlled substances. It would also prohibit alcoholics from purchasing guns.
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 01-17-2018, 9:34 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
I just purchased a new firearm last week. There was nothing on the 4473 Form about prescription medication use. Only Marijuana.


ETA: Dang, I need to learn to use crayons faster....
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Opiod 4473.jpg (10.9 KB, 158 views)
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 01-17-2018, 9:40 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,215
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carrywisely_ca View Post
Would you have taken the position during the 13 years of alcohol prohibition that the law is rational and MUST be abided?
You're talking about two separate things here. Let's remove the word "and." Those two things are not connected. The question of whether the law was rational is purely a matter of personal opinion. My personal opinion is that it was not rational. But that is irrelevant to my duty to obey the law. So long as the law is in effect I have the duty to obey it. This comment is sure to invite some comparison to the holocaust or to the Nuremberg trials. It's also important to note that in a Republic, citizens elect their leaders and are responsible for the conduct of their leaders.


Quote:
Originally Posted by carrywisely_ca View Post
Nope. The definition of "conflict" suggests that there is one when Federal and State laws do not preclude the same item, activity, or action.
And just where did you come up with this definition of "conflict'? There is no requirement for state law to duplicate federal law on a subject. If you believe that such a requirement exists, please cite the controlling case. There is quite a body of case law going all the way back to McCulloch v Maryland (1918).

Quote:
Originally Posted by carrywisely_ca View Post
-Your statement is half-right. Please look up the word "legal", and understand that I am referring to State ordinances. I am aware that cannabis remains a Schedule I narcotic.
There is no mechanism where a person can isolate themselves from the application of federal law while resident in a state. So long as there is a federal law prohibiting marijuana, it's illegal. I understand that you are referring to state law only, and that there is no state law prohibiting marijuana (in the uses contemplated here). But remains a fiction to call that legal so long as there is a federal law against it.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 01-17-2018, 10:02 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,457
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
...There is quite a body of case law going all the way back to McCulloch v Maryland (1918)......
I think you mean 1819.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 01-17-2018, 10:13 AM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,215
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
I think you mean 1819.
You're right. I'm dyslexic until after my second cup of coffee. Thanks.

Any additional thoughts of the subject of state-federal law conflict? I recall reading of a case that essentially provided that so long a there was a course of action that satisfied the laws of both sovereigns that there was no conflict, but I've not been able to recover the case citation. I had to deal with the issue in the mid-90's when I was running LE services for the County's Housing Authority. We had a federal statutory requirement to conduct criminal background checks on applicants and state law prohibition on doing so. That's where I was pointed to the case that I now can't re-locate.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 01-17-2018, 10:30 AM
billt's Avatar
billt billt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HectorEscaton View Post
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

That covers a lot more than marijuana, and prescription opioids are controlled substances. It would also prohibit alcoholics from purchasing guns.
Marijuana is what they are specifically asking about. If you have a prescription drug that is prescribed to you, it is NOT illegal to use it, or be in possession of it. Regardless if you are "addicted" to it or not. Using Marijuana will get your Second Amendment rights removed. Regardless if your state has "legalized" it, or not. Or if you have a "Medical Marijuana" card, or not. In fact, applying for, and having a card will only give them the proof they need you're using it. That won't happen with an opiate prescription. You're trying to make something happen here that won't happen.
__________________
If common sense was so common, why don't liberals possess any?
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 01-17-2018, 10:59 AM
warbird's Avatar
warbird warbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: East of Sacramento
Posts: 1,137
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Legalized by the state or not do you want someone with an addiction to a mind altering substance running around with a gun in your neighborhood or near public venues and when they kill multiple people then claim they are sick and not responsible for their actions. why not issue them a card to kill and make them 007 agents like in the movies? Is deliberately taking a narcotic or alcohol before driving murder or manslaughter? the same poor judgement causes the use and then the driving. Studies now show the adverse effects of Marijuana use and yet they are basically ignored. whether the law is appropriate or not do you want someone running around with guns who can not control an addiction that could cause them to use that gun while they are mentally altered and maybe prone to commit violence that would otherwise be controlled by them in a normal state of mind? There are serious medical and social downsides to Marijuana just like opioids but why isn't the state going after doctors who prescribe these drugs well.
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 01-17-2018, 12:38 PM
Dan_Eastvale's Avatar
Dan_Eastvale Dan_Eastvale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 722
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yet federal employees will soon have to disclose they are on PRESCRIPTION opiate medications and will be monitored..

https://www.fedsmith.com/2017/06/27/...es-opioid-use/

I think that either the federal gun ownership prohibition on MJ will be scrapped or possibly expanded to include 'legal' meds.
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 01-17-2018, 1:17 PM
HectorEscaton HectorEscaton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
Marijuana is what they are specifically asking about. If you have a prescription drug that is prescribed to you, it is NOT illegal to use it, or be in possession of it. Regardless if you are "addicted" to it or not. Using Marijuana will get your Second Amendment rights removed. Regardless if your state has "legalized" it, or not. Or if you have a "Medical Marijuana" card, or not. In fact, applying for, and having a card will only give them the proof they need you're using it. That won't happen with an opiate prescription. You're trying to make something happen here that won't happen.
No, Iím just reading a very simple English sentence. The reason marijuana is on that list is not because itís illegal. Speeding is illegal, too, but it wonít bar you from buying a gun. The reason marijuana is on that list is because it is considered by the Federal government to be an intoxicant, the use of which is incompatible with gun ownership.
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 01-17-2018, 2:13 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,457
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HectorEscaton View Post
"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

....It would also prohibit alcoholics from purchasing guns.
That's not accurate.
  1. The question on the 4473 is not the law. It's only a rough paraphrasing of the actual law, and only the actual law itself can be the basis for a criminal charge. The actual law is 18 USC 922(g)(3), and it provides that anyone:
    Quote:
    ...who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));...
    is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition.

  2. Under 21 USC 802(6), a controlled substance is:
    Quote:
    ...a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. ...
  3. So alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine, among other things, is not a "controlled substance" for the purposes of 18 USC 922(g)(3).

  4. However, if you are an unlawful user of, or addicted to, anything included under that definition, you are prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 01-17-2018, 2:28 PM
billt's Avatar
billt billt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HectorEscaton View Post
The reason marijuana is on that list is because it is considered by the Federal government to be an intoxicant, the use of which is incompatible with gun ownership.
Wrong. Marijuana is on the list because it is a FEDERALLY illegal controlled substance, not because it is an intoxicant. Alcohol is an intoxicant, and it IS compatible with gun ownership. You can be a hardened alcoholic and still legally own guns. Because it's legal. As I said, you're trying to make something happen that won't happen.
__________________
If common sense was so common, why don't liberals possess any?
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 01-17-2018, 3:24 PM
HectorEscaton HectorEscaton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
Wrong. Marijuana is on the list because it is a FEDERALLY illegal controlled substance, not because it is an intoxicant. Alcohol is an intoxicant, and it IS compatible with gun ownership. You can be a hardened alcoholic and still legally own guns. Because it's legal. As I said, you're trying to make something happen that won't happen.
It is not illegal to be addicted to opioids, and yet they are a controlled substance, an addiction to which makes one ineligible to own a gun. If you are addicted to opioids, you are prohibited from owning a gun, and it has nothing to do with how you obtained them or whether your possession of them is legal.

I admit the alcohol question is more complicated, but if an alcoholic answered the question ďno,Ē they would be lying on the form.
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 01-17-2018, 3:40 PM
billt's Avatar
billt billt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HectorEscaton View Post
It is not illegal to be addicted to opioids, and yet they are a controlled substance, an addiction to which makes one ineligible to own a gun. If you are addicted to opioids, you are prohibited from owning a gun, and it has nothing to do with how you obtained them or whether your possession of them is legal.
I'm sorry but you are wrong again. Opioids are a controlled substance. But you can legally possess and use them if they are prescribed to you. You cannot possess or use Marijuana in accordance with FEDERAL LAW. Marijuana is an ILLEGAL drug. Pharmacies don't stock it. And doctors can't write for it. Opiates are not. They are simply regulated by the Federal government.

This whole addiction thing you are so fixated on doesn't matter, as long as the drug or substance you are addicted to is LEGAL. Alcohol, and opiates with a doctors prescription are both legal. You can be addicted to either one or both, and still legally own guns. You just better not use them while you're under the influence. Much like with driving a car. It's illegal to drive drunk. It doesn't matter if you're an alcoholic or not. Just as long as you don't operate it while you're under it's influence. Prescribed opiates with guns are no different.
__________________
If common sense was so common, why don't liberals possess any?
Reply With Quote
  #581  
Old 01-17-2018, 3:44 PM
HectorEscaton HectorEscaton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
I'm sorry but you are wrong again. Opioids are a controlled substance. But you can legally possess and use them if they are prescribed to you. You cannot possess or use Marijuana in accordance with FEDERAL LAW. Marijuana is an ILLEGAL drug. Pharmacies don't stock it. And doctors can't write for it. Opiates are not. They are simply regulated by the Federal government.

This whole addiction thing you are so fixated on doesn't matter, as long as the drug or substance you are addicted to is LEGAL. Alcohol, and opiates with a doctors prescription are both legal. You can be addicted to either one or both, and still legally own guns. You just better not use them while you're under the influence. Much like with driving a car. It's illegal to drive drunk. It doesn't matter if you're an alcoholic or not. Just as long as you don't operate it while you're under it's influence. Prescribed opiates with guns are no different.
This is a serious question: have you actually read the sentence in question? Because all of your posts suggest you haven’t. I can’t spell it out any more simply if you are unable to comprehend it. The very phrasing of the law itself carves out a space for a person who is addicted, but not an unlawful user, AND THIS PERSON WOULD BE PROHIBITED.

“...unlawful user of *OR* addicted to...”

Last edited by HectorEscaton; 01-17-2018 at 3:46 PM.. Reason: Clarification
Reply With Quote
  #582  
Old 01-17-2018, 3:50 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,215
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HectorEscaton View Post
This is a serious question: have you actually read the sentence in question? Because all of your posts suggest you havenít. I canít spell it out any more simply if you are unable to comprehend it. The very phrasing of the law itself carves out a space for a person who is addicted, but not an unlawful user, AND THIS PERSON WOULD BE PROHIBITED.

ď...unlawful user of *OR* addicted to...Ē
^^^^THIS^^^^^

A person who is a lawful user (with a legal prescription) of a controlled substance, and who is also addicted to that lawfully prescribed substance, is a prohibited person. He is the key language from 18 USC 922(g)(3):

"who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); "
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #583  
Old 01-17-2018, 3:54 PM
billt's Avatar
billt billt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HectorEscaton View Post
This is a serious question: have you actually read the sentence in question? Because all of your posts suggest you havenít. I canít spell it out any more simply if you are unable to comprehend it. The very phrasing of the law itself carves out a space for a person who is addicted, but not an unlawful user, AND THIS PERSON WOULD BE PROHIBITED.

ď...unlawful user of *OR* addicted to...Ē
As you were told before, a 4473 form is not the law as it's written.
__________________
If common sense was so common, why don't liberals possess any?
Reply With Quote
  #584  
Old 01-17-2018, 3:57 PM
HectorEscaton HectorEscaton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
As you were told before, a 4473 form is not the law as it's written.
So you havenít read the law either.
Reply With Quote
  #585  
Old 01-17-2018, 3:58 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 5,215
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
As you were told before, a 4473 form is not the law as it's written.
billt,

Hector's still right. You may win the battle of Form 4473. You're right, the form is only an instrument to help carry out the law. It's the actual text of the law that counts, and that's were you lose this war. The "or" as it appears in 18 USC 922(g)(3) is very significant.
__________________
What is really needed here is less "Tactical" thinking and more "Strategic" thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #586  
Old 01-17-2018, 4:50 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,457
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
As you were told before, a 4473 form is not the law as it's written.
So let's have another look at the law (18 USC 922(g)(3)) as written, but with a bit more emphasis added, stating that anyone:
Quote:
...who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));...
is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition.

The disqualifying condition of being an unlawful user and the disqualifying condition of being addicted are stated in the disjunctive. So either one all by itself will disqualify you.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #587  
Old 01-17-2018, 4:56 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,457
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
....I recall reading of a case that essentially provided that so long a there was a course of action that satisfied the laws of both sovereigns that there was no conflict, but I've not been able to recover the case citation....
That doesn't ring any bells, but I'll do a bit of digging.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #588  
Old 01-19-2018, 9:26 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,193
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
The question on the 4473 is not the law. It's only a rough paraphrasing of the actual law, and only the actual law itself can be the basis for a criminal charge.
A quick technical question...

While 4473 is clearly just a short summary of the law, it has to be signed under penalty of perjury. As such, intentionally answering incorrectly a question on the form appears to be by itself a perjury.

For example, the question about "...depressant, stimulant, ...", as stated on the form, would be technically answered incorrectly by an alcoholic, even though it's not included in the law that the question refers to. This is because alcohol is both "depressant" and "stimulant," and the person answered the question directly and incorrectly.

How does this work in practice and has anyone ever been prosecuted for perjury, if not for the underlying penal code?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #589  
Old 01-19-2018, 9:57 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 11,524
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Many laws are reserved for selected enforcement. We have so many there is a law against everything and anything, under the correct situation.

Selective enforcement is a political decision. Laws are enforced depending on the political views of the authorities.

That is why sanctuary states exist.
Reply With Quote
  #590  
Old 01-19-2018, 10:02 AM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,387
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by HectorEscaton View Post
This is a serious question: have you actually read the sentence in question? Because all of your posts suggest you havenít. I canít spell it out any more simply if you are unable to comprehend it. The very phrasing of the law itself carves out a space for a person who is addicted, but not an unlawful user, AND THIS PERSON WOULD BE PROHIBITED.

ď...unlawful user of *OR* addicted to...Ē
Somehow, and I cannot figure out why, you've missed the fact that weed is NOT legal under federal law. QED, under federal law you are an 'unlawful user".
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf
I see the gulf of Mexico
As tiny as a tear
The coast of California
Must be somewhere over here, over here
Greatful Dead
ďHeaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.Ē
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #591  
Old 01-19-2018, 10:23 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
A quick technical question...

While 4473 is clearly just a short summary of the law, it has to be signed under penalty of perjury. As such, intentionally answering incorrectly a question on the form appears to be by itself a perjury.

For example, the question about "...depressant, stimulant, ...", as stated on the form, would be technically answered incorrectly by an alcoholic, even though it's not included in the law that the question refers to. This is because alcohol is both "depressant" and "stimulant," and the person answered the question directly and incorrectly.

How does this work in practice and has anyone ever been prosecuted for perjury, if not for the underlying penal code?
It's not a Penal Code issue; it's federal.

Google "Abramski". (Brief summary, here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...s/573/12-1493/)

While not "perjury" (and that term isn't used in the signature certification of the ATF 4473), SCOTUS found Abramski in violation of 18 U.S.C. ß922(a)(6), which makes it unlawful to falsify facts "material to the lawfulness of the sale,” and 18 U.S.C. ß924(a)(1)(A), which prohibits misrepresentation with respect to information which is required to be maintained on record.

Last edited by Dvrjon; 01-19-2018 at 10:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #592  
Old 01-19-2018, 10:49 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 13,193
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I remember the Abramski case and it shows up quite a bit when people talk about gifts (which are explicitly legal), but my question was more nitpicking than that - we are talking about something that is legal under the USC (it's not CA Penal Code, but the "C" is still for "Code"), but the question as posed is technically not answered correctly/truthfully simply because of the way it's phrased on the form.

It's akin to Martha Stewart being convicted of obstruction of justice (lying), even though there was no underlying crime (at least not proven).
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #593  
Old 01-19-2018, 11:23 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,457
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
... but the question as posed is technically not answered correctly/truthfully simply because of the way it's phrased on the form.....
But materiality always matters.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #594  
Old 01-19-2018, 11:48 AM
billt's Avatar
billt billt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
billt,

Hector's still right. You may win the battle of Form 4473. You're right, the form is only an instrument to help carry out the law. It's the actual text of the law that counts, and that's were you lose this war. The "or" as it appears in 18 USC 922(g)(3) is very significant.
This all revolves around determining "addiction". Not playing with words. Who would, or even could prove you lied on a 4473, by claiming you were NOT addicted? It would involve a battery of expensive medical tests that would have to be administered by professionals. Who would even call for such tests? Who would pay for them? Who would then determine the results as they translated to gun ownership? This is all much like running in place trying to get somewhere.

The bottom line with all of this, is if you have prescribed opiates in your possession, and you checked "NO" on the box asking if you are addicted to Marijuana, and or other drugs, you are good to go. Regardless if you lied and are in fact addicted, or not.

If you have a Medical Marijuana Card, and do the same. You're dead meat, and are going to loose your guns. Nothing else matters.
__________________
If common sense was so common, why don't liberals possess any?
Reply With Quote
  #595  
Old 01-19-2018, 11:51 AM
HectorEscaton HectorEscaton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
Somehow, and I cannot figure out why, you've missed the fact that weed is NOT legal under federal law. QED, under federal law you are an 'unlawful user".
What does this have to do with anything I've said? Of course marijuana use disqualifies you, but I never said anything about that.

The reason you can't figure out why is because you've misread the posts. We're talking about opioids. One can be addicted to a controlled substance, or an unlawful user of a controlled substance, or both an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance, and any of those scenarios disqualify you.

Last edited by HectorEscaton; 01-19-2018 at 11:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #596  
Old 01-19-2018, 12:01 PM
HectorEscaton HectorEscaton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
This all revolves around determining "addiction". Not playing with words. Who would, or even could prove you lied on a 4473, by claiming you were NOT addicted? It would involve a battery of expensive medical tests that would have to be administered by professionals. Who would even call for such tests? Who would pay for them? Who would then determine the results as they translated to gun ownership? This is all much like running in place trying to get somewhere.

The bottom line with all of this, is if you have prescribed opiates in your possession, and you checked "NO" on the box asking if you are addicted to Marijuana, and or other drugs, you are good to go. Regardless if you lied and are in fact addicted, or not.

If you have a Medical Marijuana Card, and do the same. You're dead meat, and are going to loose your guns. Nothing else matters.
I admit it's not likely to be an issue, but it also won't be an issue for the thousands of weed smokers who check "no" on that box and buy guns. The point is the potential exposure if you end up with LEO contact related to firearms and it turns out you've been on a healthy dose of (legally prescribed) Oxy for the past 10 years. It could make your life a lot more complicated, and in a state like CA, I could definitely see it happening.

Last edited by HectorEscaton; 01-19-2018 at 12:02 PM.. Reason: clarity
Reply With Quote
  #597  
Old 01-19-2018, 12:06 PM
billt's Avatar
billt billt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HectorEscaton View Post
One can be addicted to a controlled substance, or an unlawful user of a controlled substance, or both an unlawful user of and addicted to a controlled substance, and any of those scenarios disqualify you.
How and by who? As I said, this would involve a big expensive legal and medical process to even attempt to prove "addiction". By having a Medical Marijuana Card, You've just proven your illegality, and convicted yourself as it pertains to firearms ownership. Big difference.

People in Hawaii are losing their weapons as we speak directly because of my second sentence. Can you provide a single instance where someone has lost their firearms due to results of my first sentence? I can't.
__________________
If common sense was so common, why don't liberals possess any?
Reply With Quote
  #598  
Old 01-19-2018, 12:08 PM
billt's Avatar
billt billt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Glendale, Arizona
Posts: 1,114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HectorEscaton View Post
I admit it's not likely to be an issue, but it also won't be an issue for the thousands of weed smokers who check "no" on that box and buy guns.
Not if they live in Hawaii and are in possession of a Medical Marijuana Card. Their doorbells are already ringing, and it's not Domino's with dinner.
__________________
If common sense was so common, why don't liberals possess any?
Reply With Quote
  #599  
Old 01-19-2018, 12:10 PM
HectorEscaton HectorEscaton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
How and by who? As I said, this would involve a big expensive legal and medical process to even attempt to prove "addiction". By having a Medical Marijuana Card, You've just proven your illegality, and convicted yourself as it pertains to firearms ownership. Big difference.

People in Hawaii are losing their weapons as we speak directly because of my second sentence. Can you provide a single instance where someone has lost their firearms due to results of my first sentence? I can't.
That's not the argument. The argument is what the law says, and what would constitute a violation of it. Whether or not you could get away with it is a separate question. You could keep an automatic weapon locked in your safe and probably never get caught with it. It would still be illegal and potentially risky. Like I said, if you get sideways with the law regarding guns and it comes to light you've been on controlled painkillers for a significant length of time, even if they were legally prescribed, it could easily become an issue. Anyone who might be in that situation should think carefully about it.
Reply With Quote
  #600  
Old 01-19-2018, 12:15 PM
HectorEscaton HectorEscaton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billt View Post
Not if they live in Hawaii and are in possession of a Medical Marijuana Card. Their doorbells are already ringing, and it's not Domino's with dinner.
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/1...cation-policy/

You are exaggerating what's happening in Hawaii. They got huge blowback when this happened (letters sent to 30 gun owners) and they immediately walked it back to "review the policy."

That said, it's obviously a bad idea to own guns and have a medical marijuana card.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:53 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.