Sheriff: No Guns For Pot Activist After Home Invasion Shootout

[mrjarrell]

Here's a man who has done nothing illegal, immoral or wrong and yet an overzealous sheriff, (remember, they're that last line of defence) has determined that he's not allowed to have any more firearms. Despite the fact that he just fought off a home invasion and the cops stole his guns afterward.

From Toke Of The Town

A Washington state medical marijuana activist -- who nearly killed an armed intruder in his home this month -- has been barred from buying guns, even though he says he has no criminal record.

Steve Sarich of CannaCare said he tried to buy a shotgun and a pistol a few days after the March 15 shootout at his home, to replace guns that were seized by investigators, reports Gene Johnson of The Associated Press. But Sarich said he failed the background check.


Sarich got an email from the King County Sheriff's Office Tuesday, attempting to explain the denial. It says Sarich showed law enforcement officers his paperwork as a medical marijuana patient -- and those papers create a presumption that Sarich is an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance.


Sarich is a legal medical marijuana patient under Washington's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1998.


The sheriff's office said that since federal law says using a "controlled substance" disqualifies someone from passing a background check for gun purchases, Sarich can't buy any more firearms.


Sarich said he finds it absurd that medical marijuana patients should have to give up their Second Amendment rights.

 

[smoking357]

Man, that's really scary. Gun owners need to demand an end to this nasty business of background checks. As long as there's an on/off switch to your rights, someone in the government can always shut your rights off.

We need the NRA to work toward repealing background checks. There's no 4473 to write a newspaper column.

 

[E5RANGER375]

i hope he has good neighbors that will gift him some deffense guns!

 

[smoking357]

i hope he has good neighbors that will gift him some deffense guns!

Can't he just go out of state and buy a long gun in a different jurisdiction?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Here's a man who has done nothing illegal, immoral or wrong

Right, other than smoking the dope, he was doing nothing wrong.

"All I was doing is just smoking a joint and the police came up and arrested me!"

 

[dross]

By that logic, prescription painkillers would disqualify.

 

[mrjarrell]

Can't he just go out of state and buy a long gun in a different jurisdiction?

No, because the sheriff has already informed the NICS people that he's not a "proper person" and they'll disallow any future purchases. Hopefully, he'll be able to find someone for a face to face private sale. He's a sitting duck for criminals now.

 

[mrjarrell]

Right, other than smoking the dope, he was doing nothing wrong.

"All I was doing is just smoking a joint and the police came up and arrested me!"

He's a legal medical marijuana patient. Licensed by his state. He's broken no laws.

 

[smoking357]

He's a legal medical marijuana patient. Licensed by his state. He's broken no laws.

Not only that, but how does the presence or absence of a law make something moral or immoral?

It is not in the capacity of humans to edit that which is moral. Laws can be immoral, just as legal acts can be immoral.

 

[esigler]

People on Pain Meds are next that will be whats nice about electronic records?

 

[HICKMAN]

yup, saddens me thinking about how many LTCH's will be denied to our guys suffering from PTSD. Sheriff shouldn't have this power....

 

[DocBoCook]

the only way to fix this is to sue. Plain and simple. I have a friend of the family that fought off a home invasion 3years ago now, with a 12ga. They took his shotgun, took two years to give it back, and only after he threatend to sue them for that and to expunge his record because the IMPD decided that because he shot they man who refused to leave his property and threatend his mother with a Hammer. Therefore putting him as a Not Proper Person in the eyes of IMPD. Wasn't till the ADA representing IMPD got ahold of the Incident report and told them they had to fix it because they would lose the lawsuit.

 

[Prometheus]

Not only that, but how does the presence or absence of a law make something moral or immoral?

It is not in the capacity of humans to edit that which is moral. Laws can be immoral, just as legal acts can be immoral.

 

[Aszerigan]

Well, when pot becomes legal in California, it will prevent all Californians from owning firearms, right?

 

[melensdad]

He's a legal medical marijuana patient. Licensed by his state. He's broken no laws.

He has broken no STATE laws but he has broken FEDERAL laws. The background check is a FEDERAL level check. Yes?

 

[phylodog]

The transfer of firearms through the NICS background check is controlled by the Federal Government. Regardless of the varying state laws the Federal Government has decided that marijuana is illegal, for medical or recreational use. Question 11e on the 4473 asks if the purchaser of the firearm "is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance". In the eyes of the Federal Government there is no such thing as a lawful user of marijuana since it's possession is a crime.

Not saying I agree with it, just stating how it is likely being considered. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that the BATFE pays this guy a visit for "lying" on his 4473 (if he answered no to question 11e).

 

[level.eleven]

Someday gun owners will realize the War on (some) Drugs and the War on Guns go hand in hand.

War on Drugs = Ginger Rogers
War on Guns = Fred Astaire

Also note the War on (some) Drugs has done to the 4th, 5th and 10th.

I don't know how the enforcer can sleep at night knowing he just denied the victim of a home invasion the right to defend himself.

 

[level.eleven]

He has broken no STATE laws but he has broken FEDERAL laws. The background check is a FEDERAL level check. Yes?

Thus the mention of the Sheriff. Who does he work for, feds or the people of the state?

 

[level.eleven]

By that logic, prescription painkillers would disqualify.

Don't forget about all the legal mood stabalizing pills too. Wellbutrin, Zoloft, Paxil....

 

[mrjarrell]

He has broken no STATE laws but he has broken FEDERAL laws. The background check is a FEDERAL level check. Yes?

The feds had no knowledge of his status until the sheriff advised them of it, as far as I can see. And, if he is truly guilty of a crime then it would behoove the DEA or FBI to arrest him, yet they don't. He's broken no federal laws, or he'd be under arrest for a federal drug crime. Possession isn't a federal crime. And he's not doing anything across state lines. Hopefully he'll do a face to face transaction with someone and sidestep the entire issue, while spitting in the face of the sheriff and NICS.