Dave Workman
Regular Member
imported post
SteveSarich wrote:
Welcome aboard, Steve.
SteveSarich wrote:
Welcome aboard, Steve.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
More about the medical marijuana shootout
- Thread starter Dave Workman
- Start date
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
SteveSarich wrote:
The medical marijuana community needs to get serious about this kind of stuff.
I'm also afraid this issue may be beyond the scope of a single lawsuit.
SteveSarich wrote:
I was afraid of this.
The medical marijuana community needs to get serious about this kind of stuff.
I'm also afraid this issue may be beyond the scope of a single lawsuit.
SteveSarich
Regular Member
imported post
I won't take this lying down. I suspect that King County will also deny me a concealed carry permit. This will require two lawsuits. The one in state court should be fairly easy. There is plenty of previous case law. Then I'll have to sue the Feds.
I'm glad I found this place. Thanks for the warm welcome.
Steve
I won't take this lying down. I suspect that King County will also deny me a concealed carry permit. This will require two lawsuits. The one in state court should be fairly easy. There is plenty of previous case law. Then I'll have to sue the Feds.
I'm glad I found this place. Thanks for the warm welcome.
Steve
joshcdc
Regular Member
imported post
Good luck I hope you win back your rights. I was afraid it would come to this. What does shall not be infringed mean, anyway?
in·fringe (
n-fr
nj
)v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es v.tr.1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.v.intr. To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
I wonder if this issue has ever come up for people with chronic pain or people on anti anxiety meds? Those are illegal without a prescription too. Lots of meds are. Seems to me that all you need to do is find some people with a prescription to a drug that would otherwise be illegal who also have CPL's. That would prove a double standard for MM, at least, as I think opiates are specifically mentioned by the firearms purchase form. I'm no lawyer though.
Good luck I hope you win back your rights. I was afraid it would come to this. What does shall not be infringed mean, anyway?
in·fringe (
I wonder if this issue has ever come up for people with chronic pain or people on anti anxiety meds? Those are illegal without a prescription too. Lots of meds are. Seems to me that all you need to do is find some people with a prescription to a drug that would otherwise be illegal who also have CPL's. That would prove a double standard for MM, at least, as I think opiates are specifically mentioned by the firearms purchase form. I'm no lawyer though.
joshcdc
Regular Member
imported post
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf
this is the link to the form.
question 11e is the relevant part. I think the ATF is abusing the intent.
Any lawyers around? Am I wrong?
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf
this is the link to the form.
question 11e is the relevant part. I think the ATF is abusing the intent.
Any lawyers around? Am I wrong?
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
imported post
SteveSarich wrote:
SteveSarich wrote:
You'd lose. Form 4473 and Federal Law is very clear on that.
Norman
Regular Member
imported post
[align=left]Form 4473[/align]
[align=left]e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?[/align]
[align=left]Although you may be using legally, are you addicted? I would question whether or not you could obtain a CPL. State rules are different than federal. Going by this federal form though, I would say you probably are not legal to own a firearm. Can you be a medicinal marijuana user and not be addicted? For that matter, can you prove that you are not addicted to the substance (I'm not sure how that works) because given your activities I would say you have a pretty big "firearm-denial bullseye" painted on you. If I were privately selling a gun and recognized you as the buyer I would be running for the hills.[/align]
[align=left]Form 4473[/align]
[align=left]e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?[/align]
[align=left]Although you may be using legally, are you addicted? I would question whether or not you could obtain a CPL. State rules are different than federal. Going by this federal form though, I would say you probably are not legal to own a firearm. Can you be a medicinal marijuana user and not be addicted? For that matter, can you prove that you are not addicted to the substance (I'm not sure how that works) because given your activities I would say you have a pretty big "firearm-denial bullseye" painted on you. If I were privately selling a gun and recognized you as the buyer I would be running for the hills.[/align]
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
imported post
Norman wrote:
Marijuana is a FederalSchedule I drug, which means afaik that the Feds say it has no medical value. Addiction is irrevelant, because it also asks about just "use" -- and use alone is cause for denial of purchase.
Medical Marijuana is not recognized under Federal Law (or by the ATF or DEA afaik). SCOTUS has ruled, afaik, that yes the states can do what they want in regards to MMJ... but that the FEDs can totally ignore those state laws.
So the language of form 4437 would indeed bar (imho) any MMJ user from legitimatly answering "No" to that questions about illegal drugs.
If it was a state form asking about illegal drugs he might have a leg to stand on because MMJ is recognized by state law.
Norman wrote:
Marijuana is a FederalSchedule I drug, which means afaik that the Feds say it has no medical value. Addiction is irrevelant, because it also asks about just "use" -- and use alone is cause for denial of purchase.
Medical Marijuana is not recognized under Federal Law (or by the ATF or DEA afaik). SCOTUS has ruled, afaik, that yes the states can do what they want in regards to MMJ... but that the FEDs can totally ignore those state laws.
So the language of form 4437 would indeed bar (imho) any MMJ user from legitimatly answering "No" to that questions about illegal drugs.
If it was a state form asking about illegal drugs he might have a leg to stand on because MMJ is recognized by state law.
midiwall
Regular Member
imported post
Steve;
Given that you're getting turned down for a shotgun, and the above discussion about a CPL doesn't look like it's going well in your behalf, then how is it that you had the .22's in the house? Are they in the GF's name?
You might wanna not talk too much out here in public. You've said that LEO cleared you, but I fear that the conversation you're having here could be used to bring up a different aspect of the case... that being the illegal possession of a firearm.
PLEASE be careful.
Steve;
Given that you're getting turned down for a shotgun, and the above discussion about a CPL doesn't look like it's going well in your behalf, then how is it that you had the .22's in the house? Are they in the GF's name?
You might wanna not talk too much out here in public. You've said that LEO cleared you, but I fear that the conversation you're having here could be used to bring up a different aspect of the case... that being the illegal possession of a firearm.
PLEASE be careful.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
imported post
midiwall wrote:
He isn't necessarily prohibited from owning a firearm. The requirements for purchasing from a FFL are very different than from simply owning a firearm.
For instance, I believe Montana automatically restores all rights to a felon after they serve their sentence. That means they can vote, run for public office, own a firearm, get a state issued hunting permit, etc. Federal Law respects thoserestored rightsafaik (including the RKBA). But if such a person had to fill out a 4473 they'd have to answer yes to being a felon and would be denied, but it should be legal (based on case law) for them to buy a firearm via a private transfer and posess it.
Compare that a felon who had their conviction expunged. Someone who had a felony conviction expunged could answer no to that question on form 4473 -- depending on the expungment law and wording on the state where the conviction occurred.
And while LEO might have cleared Steve for the self defense shooting... he has been part of a 3 month long criminal investigation for drug distribution. The search warrant that was served after that shooting was based on that investigation afaik. An investigation that involved surveillance and informants.
midiwall wrote:
Steve;
Given that you're getting turned down for a shotgun, and the above discussion about a CPL doesn't look like it's going well in your behalf, then how is it that you had the .22's in the house? Are they in the GF's name?
You might wanna not talk too much out here in public. You've said that LEO cleared you, but I fear that the conversation you're having here could be used to bring up a different aspect of the case... that being the illegal possession of a firearm.
PLEASE be careful.
He isn't necessarily prohibited from owning a firearm. The requirements for purchasing from a FFL are very different than from simply owning a firearm.
For instance, I believe Montana automatically restores all rights to a felon after they serve their sentence. That means they can vote, run for public office, own a firearm, get a state issued hunting permit, etc. Federal Law respects thoserestored rightsafaik (including the RKBA). But if such a person had to fill out a 4473 they'd have to answer yes to being a felon and would be denied, but it should be legal (based on case law) for them to buy a firearm via a private transfer and posess it.
Compare that a felon who had their conviction expunged. Someone who had a felony conviction expunged could answer no to that question on form 4473 -- depending on the expungment law and wording on the state where the conviction occurred.
And while LEO might have cleared Steve for the self defense shooting... he has been part of a 3 month long criminal investigation for drug distribution. The search warrant that was served after that shooting was based on that investigation afaik. An investigation that involved surveillance and informants.
midiwall
Regular Member
imported post
Dave_pro2a wrote:
Dave_pro2a wrote:
Ahh, you're right - of course... I keep thinking of standing at the shop filling out that FFL. Private sales exclude that... doh
amzbrady
Regular Member
imported post
So certian medications can prevent you from owning?
So certian medications can prevent you from owning?
SteveSarich
Regular Member
imported post
midiwall wrote:
Before anyone makes any judgements, please continue to watch this story and you'll find out that I'm not a drug criminal. Be aware that you are not an "addict" because you are using what you doctor has recommended for you. If that were the case, almost no one could own a gun. I'm sure that's another tool that the Brady Bunch would love to use if they could.
We'll see how the Ninth Circuit Federal Court defines "addict".
Just so we're clear, I DO NOT want to be going through this...but I'm happy to if it will keep others from having to go through this BS.
Steve
midiwall wrote:
Before anyone makes any judgements, please continue to watch this story and you'll find out that I'm not a drug criminal. Be aware that you are not an "addict" because you are using what you doctor has recommended for you. If that were the case, almost no one could own a gun. I'm sure that's another tool that the Brady Bunch would love to use if they could.
We'll see how the Ninth Circuit Federal Court defines "addict".
Just so we're clear, I DO NOT want to be going through this...but I'm happy to if it will keep others from having to go through this BS.
Steve
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Steve is right, the legal definition of "addict" precludes legitimate, necessary medicinal use, even where physical or psychological dependency is present.
If my understanding is correct, one may not really be "addicted" to something that one is using for a legitimate, necessary medical purpose. Even though one may be dependent on that something.
I'm pretty sure the sole issue here is the schedule status of marijuana.
I wonder if the schedule status could be challenged in court, in light of the mainstream medical community's recognition of the medical uses of marijuana. Isn't that schedule status clearly a lie, entirely arbitrary, and shouldn't it be challengeable by those with a serious medical need?
Steve is right, the legal definition of "addict" precludes legitimate, necessary medicinal use, even where physical or psychological dependency is present.
If my understanding is correct, one may not really be "addicted" to something that one is using for a legitimate, necessary medical purpose. Even though one may be dependent on that something.
I'm pretty sure the sole issue here is the schedule status of marijuana.
I wonder if the schedule status could be challenged in court, in light of the mainstream medical community's recognition of the medical uses of marijuana. Isn't that schedule status clearly a lie, entirely arbitrary, and shouldn't it be challengeable by those with a serious medical need?
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
imported post
SteveSarich wrote:
You can be a legal MMJ under state law, NOT an addict, but to the feds you a using an illegal drug. Thus you can't purchase from an FFL, end of story.
SteveSarich wrote:
The fact is that form 4473 asks about use of illegal drugs, as defined by Federal law, not just addiction.
You can be a legal MMJ under state law, NOT an addict, but to the feds you a using an illegal drug. Thus you can't purchase from an FFL, end of story.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
imported post
amzbrady wrote:
amzbrady wrote:
If you're taking something like Oxy w/oa prescription, then I'd guess yes... you could not legally purchase a firearm from an FFL.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Dave_pro2a wrote:
Edit: Never mind, didn't see the "without". Key word, that.
Dave_pro2a wrote:
I'm nearly certain you're incorrect about this.
Edit: Never mind, didn't see the "without". Key word, that.
SteveSarich
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
"Dependence" and "addiction" are very different and should never be confused. I'll give you one example that should explain the difference. Diabetics that must take insulin are totally "dependent" on that drug. Without it, they could very well die. No one would argue that they are "addicted" to insulin.
The DEA is using their Schedule 1 status on marijuana as their excuse. We will be challenging this as never before and we'll do that this year. Can you believe the DEA has marijuana in a Schedule that indicates that it is far more dangerous than cocaine and meth. Ask every cop you know if that's even close to realistic. Even drug cops will tell you that this is ridiculous.
Steve
marshaul wrote:
"Dependence" and "addiction" are very different and should never be confused. I'll give you one example that should explain the difference. Diabetics that must take insulin are totally "dependent" on that drug. Without it, they could very well die. No one would argue that they are "addicted" to insulin.
The DEA is using their Schedule 1 status on marijuana as their excuse. We will be challenging this as never before and we'll do that this year. Can you believe the DEA has marijuana in a Schedule that indicates that it is far more dangerous than cocaine and meth. Ask every cop you know if that's even close to realistic. Even drug cops will tell you that this is ridiculous.
Steve
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Also, thanks to Heller, you have a Federally-recognized right to acquire guns and keep them in your home for self-defense.
You have been denied this right without due process, by what is I would note a Federal agency.
This ought to give you standing in court, I'd think. And it ought to call into question the validity of pre-emptive bans on firearm possession by people who have not had the benefit of, at the bare minimum, some sort of court hearing.
Also, thanks to Heller, you have a Federally-recognized right to acquire guns and keep them in your home for self-defense.
You have been denied this right without due process, by what is I would note a Federal agency.
This ought to give you standing in court, I'd think. And it ought to call into question the validity of pre-emptive bans on firearm possession by people who have not had the benefit of, at the bare minimum, some sort of court hearing.
SteveSarich
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
I really appreciate your input. You are either an attorney...or like me...someone who has had to learn the law out of necessity.
marshaul wrote:
I really appreciate your input. You are either an attorney...or like me...someone who has had to learn the law out of necessity.