Sheriff: No Guns For Pot Activist After Home Invasion Shootout

[mrjarrell]

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).

He could legally answer no to that question. He is not an unlawful user nor is he addicted to the drug, (anymore than any user of pharmaceuticals is addicted). State law should always trump federal law, unless it conflicts with an individuals rights, that's what the founders wanted.

 

[dross]

He could legally answer no to that question. He is not an unlawful user nor is he addicted to the drug, (anymore than any user of pharmaceuticals is addicted). State law should always trump federal law, unless it conflicts with an individuals rights, that's what the founders wanted.

Yes. I think most of us agree that the NICS is unconstitutional in the first place. In the second place, by what constitutional authority do the Feds regulate marijuana? Okay, perhaps its interstate transport, but if a State decides its citizens should be allowed to use a plant for medical purposes and that pland doesn't cross state lines, how can this be justified any more than the NICS and other 2A abridgements?

 

[phylodog]

He could legally answer no to that question. He is not an unlawful user nor is he addicted to the drug, (anymore than any user of pharmaceuticals is addicted). State law should always trump federal law, unless it conflicts with an individuals rights, that's what the founders wanted.

Depends on interpretation. There is no legal use of a schedule I narcotic per federal law. It's a Federal form which I would think could cause a problem.

 

[Fargo]

He's broken no federal laws, or he'd be under arrest for a federal drug crime. Possession isn't a federal crime.

Ummmm, I believe you are wrong about this. Possession is a federal crime, low level possession is never federally prosecuted because the states normally do it and the feds have no willingness to allocate resources on it. Obama has directed the U.S. Attorneys not to prosecute pot violations that are not also violations of state law, but that doesn't make it "legal".

As to "interstate commerce," the scotus held a couple of years ago that growing it in your backyard for your own personal use was "interstate commerce" and could be federally regulated. Federalism and the doctrine of enumerated powers basically became dead letters when FDR got is way on the Supreme Court.

Best,

Joe

Joe

 

[LPMan59]

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.

possession of a schedule I substance without the proper documentation (ie a dea registration number and a properly filed DEA form, 222 i think) is indeed illegal

 

[SedahDrol]

As far as medical marijuana goes Obama has put a moratorium on enforcing federal marijuana laws on those legitimately using medical marijuana. This would be a great case for the ACLU (medical privacy) and the NRA (gun rights) to get involved in a Joint venture (no pun intended).

 

[bigg cheese]

Why is the Sheriff getting Dinged here? What he did was a logical conclusion, given the current interpretation of the laws.

I admit, I've never been under the influence of anything other than one bottle of Hydrocodone and my wife, and while I don't support the use of currently controlled substances, I think we should legalize them.

But it doesn't make it the Sheriff's fault.

(slightly off-topic. It really cheese's me off when the Executive branch just assumes it can choose not to enforce the laws passed. If he doesn't want to enforce them, he needs to get them changed, but until that point, as far as I'm concerned, it's an impeachable and fireable offense.)

 

[smoking357]

(slightly off-topic. It really cheese's me off when the Executive branch just assumes it can choose not to enforce the laws passed. If he doesn't want to enforce them, he needs to get them changed, but until that point, as far as I'm concerned, it's an impeachable and fireable offense.)

So you're hammering Obama for going pro-freedom and respecting state's rights?

Each branch of the federal government is its own authority as to what's Constitutional. If Obama has decided that it's a violation of the Constitution to prosecute drugs, and that it's a violation of the 10th Amendment for the federal government to overrule California laws, then that's his right as President, and good for him.

Discussions such as this are why I cannot take seriously any Republican claim to be a restorer of freedom. Republicans aren't into freedom; they're just into their form of big government.

 

[bigg cheese]

I want to restore freedom. I want to carry my gun wherever I want to, but I don't -- because the law is what it is.

I don't recall Obama saying that he thought it was unconstitutional. Had he used that justification, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The same goes for the healthcare bill. If they "just" raised taxes, I wouldn't have an issue, but they decided to attach it to the commerce clause, which IS unconstitutional.

What's more, he's choosing not to pursue illegal immigrants from crossing the border, and hammering the "country's toughest sheriff" for enforcing the law. You can't have it both ways.

 

[smoking357]

I want to restore freedom. I want to carry my gun wherever I want to, but I don't -- because the law is what it is.

Which law? The real law holds you can carry that gun wherever you want. An inferior and immoral law prohibits it.

 

[bigg cheese]

exactly -- and yet we follow it

 

[Zoub]

For gun owners this is the reminder of "One is none."

If you rely on it, own three or more of it. The Smoker needs to focus on getting his guns back since he can't buy any more.

 

[BloodEclipse]

So you're hammering Obama for going pro-freedom and respecting state's rights?

Each branch of the federal government is its own authority as to what's Constitutional. If Obama has decided that it's a violation of the Constitution to prosecute drugs, and that it's a violation of the 10th Amendment for the federal government to overrule California laws, then that's his right as President, and good for him.

Discussions such as this are why I cannot take seriously any Republican claim to be a restorer of freedom. Republicans aren't into freedom; they're just into their form of big government.

That would be for the Judicial Branch to decide and not the Executive.

 

[BloodEclipse]

For gun owners this is the reminder of "One is none."

If you rely on it, own three or more of it. The Smoker needs to focus on getting his guns back since he can't buy any more.

He needs to fight to change the law.

If he has been told in is an improper person, a FTF transaction could land him in trouble.

 

[Fargo]

That would be for the Judicial Branch to decide and not the Executive.

Actually, the Executive Branch takes the exact same oath as a SCOTUS Justice and historically the branches have always been equal. There is a long history in this country of the Executive branch exercising independent judgment on the constitutionality of laws, both in deciding what to sign and what to execute. This goes back to the first decades of this country's existence.

Best,

Joe

 

[alfahornet]

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

Tricky. Problem is state and federal law are not on par on this and the Sheriff does have a point. Can he legally fight his entry as an improper person into NICS system?

 

[thompal]

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!"

Medical marijuana is apparently legal in Wash state, and this guy apparently had a prescription (or whatever), because the article states:

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

So, he wasn't breaking the law, even though he "used a controlled substance." It sounds like under that definition, anyone who gets ANY prescriptions filled could be denied his gun rights.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So, he wasn't breaking the law, even though he "used a controlled substance."

Incorrect. He was breaking the law and the Sheriff, rather than face misprison of a felony, did the lawful act in notifying the federal government of the violation.

 

[bigg cheese]

...furthermore, if it is unconstitutional, the ag should sue, rather than ignore it.

 

[smoking357]

Actually, the Executive Branch takes the exact same oath as a SCOTUS Justice and historically the branches have always been equal. There is a long history in this country of the Executive branch exercising independent judgment on the constitutionality of laws, both in deciding what to sign and what to execute. This goes back to the first decades of this country's existence.

Best,

Joe

Great response. Thanks for pitching in.