Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: No guns for pot activist after shootout

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    By GENE JOHNSON
    Associated Press Writer



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


    Steve Sarich said he tried to buy a shotgun and a pistol a few days after the March 15 shootout to replace ones that were seized by investigators, but he failed the background check.


    The King County Sheriff's Office sent him an e-mail Tuesday explaining the denial. It says that Sarich showed investigators his paperwork as a medical marijuana patient, and those papers create a presumption that Sarich is an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance.


    The sheriff's office says that under federal law, using a controlled substance disqualifies someone from passing a background check for gun purchases.
    Sarich says he finds it absurd that medical marijuana patients should have to give up their Second Amendment rights.

    http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=304194


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,026

    Post imported post

    But wait a minute..... I though health care was a RIGHT now?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    If Washington is regulating who can grow it, who can sell it, and who can use it, then wouldn't they now be lawful users of said controlled substance? I hope I never need vicadine again, I would hate to give up my right to own firearms because of some pain meds.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    Phssthpok wrote:
    But wait a minute..... I though health care was a RIGHT now?
    Apparently only the gubment can treat you, according to the Demorats.



  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676

    Post imported post

    Jayd1981 wrote:
    If Washington is regulating who can grow it, who can sell it, and who can use it, then wouldn't they now be lawful users of said controlled substance? I hope I never need vicadine again, I would hate to give up my right to own firearms because of some pain meds.
    No, not if your use of the controlled substance was legal as a matter of federal law.

    The MM activist may be a lawful user of a controlled substance under state law, but not federal law. Because he is an unlawful user of a controlled substance as a matter of federal law, federal law also prohibits him from possessing firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) prohibits any person "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))" from possessing firearms. There's a plethora of Supreme Court decisions interpreting various provisions of the Gun Control Act that clearly hold that except where Congress has expressly made a provision dependent upon state law (e.g., parts of the definitions of "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" and "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a) determining whether a "conviction" has been had based upon the laws of the jurisdiction in which the offense was tried and disregarding pardoned or expunged convictions or convictions for which a person has had civil rights restored), all federal statutory issues must be decided strictly as a question of federal law without regard to state law, including analogous state laws on the same issue.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  6. #6
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884

    Post imported post

    The Federal law is wrong.
    "Think lightly of yourself and deeply of the world." ~ Musashi

  7. #7
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    I wonder since I have been on pain meds (percocet)that would preclude me from owning guns.Personally I think its none of their f..n business.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    WVCDL, I do understand that it is illegal by federal law. I was just trying to be ironic. And I agree federal law is wrong in this case. Unfortunately our federal government seems unwilling to give up on thier lost cause they call the war on drugs.

  9. #9
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    Since the health care bill all our edical records will go on government data bases.They will cross reference a cpl applicant to see if he has had any such meds and use it as an exuse to take guns away or bar ownership. They could say ,well he was on pain eds a few years ago so he is a potential addict so we can't allow this person to own firearms.Personally I am about fed up with this move towards a police state. Just waiting for that "Reichstag fire " incident they will use for marshall law and confiscation. Sorry getting carried away....

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    West Plains, ,
    Posts
    388

    Post imported post

    I wonder since I have been on pain meds (percocet)that would preclude me from owning guns.
    I guess that would depend on whether you were a "legal" user with a prescription or an "illegal" user who buys them off the street.

    And if you put down on the 4473 that you were a user of illegal drugs ("federal laws") you would be prohibited from owning firearms.

    But, you knew that.



    bob

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Snohomish County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    117

    Post imported post

    I wonder if his girlfriend is able to pass a background check...

    And if his cannabis use makes him ineligible from being issued a CPL, he'll just have to open carry.
    Hoplophobia is a social disease.

  12. #12
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    Of course I have a perscription.I'm just thinking they will even use that as a way to keep folks from buying guns.I saw somewhere where in one of the proposed gun ban bills that even a traffic ticket would preclude you from owning guns....Insane.People this governemnt is getting way in our business and has virtually abandoned the constitution.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

    I have little doubt that question is lied about on many occasions. When it works, I guess it works though.

    So, hypothetically, let's say it becomes ok to be a pothead and legally buy a gun. Where do we draw the line from there? Do we drop the domestic violence restriction? Should felons own firearms? Only certain felons?

    Someone on another thread talked about marijuana rights and firearms rights being tied together. I really don't feel any overwhelming need to make owning a firearm easier for habitual drug users though.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    I wonder if he can own black powder guns until this is resolved.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Norman wrote:
    Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

    I have little doubt that question is lied about on many occasions. When it works, I guess it works though.

    So, hypothetically, let's say it becomes ok to be a pothead and legally buy a gun. Where do we draw the line from there? Do we drop the domestic violence restriction? Should felons own firearms? Only certain felons?

    Someone on another thread talked about marijuana rights and firearms rights being tied together. I really don't feel any overwhelming need to make owning a firearm easier for habitual drug users though.
    Herein lies the answer...

    "....shall not be infringed."

    Have criminals serve their full and longer sentences. Violent felons should die of natural causes in prison.

    Habitual drug users already own firearms (alcohol, nicotine, caffine).
    Live Free or Die!

  16. #16
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    So if I have a long term script perscribed by my doctor for narcotic pain meds you don't think I should own guns???

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    Go- we are already infringed. The supreme court says certain infringements are ok. Yelling fire in a theater not considered protected speech yadayadayada. I also realize that habitual drug users own firearms already. I'm not keen on alcoholics owning firearms either...but I can't think of a way to control that. Nicotine and caffeine fall short in comparison to marijuana or other controlled drugs.

    Deros- I don't know. That's the best answer I can give in this situation. I don't think you should handle a firearm if you are under the influence of a pain-killer. I don't know you from Adam, but you seem like an intelligent guy, and I'm sure you wouldn't do something like that. I have known too many drug users in my lifetime. The idea of any of them owning a firearm legally or otherwise is not a happy feeling.

  18. #18
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    People will tell you I am quite compitent and skilled with firearms.Pain meds are not mind altering.I'm the only one fit to decide if that would be true.I have had 4 heart attacks 6 angios and a month ago open heart surgery.I actually had one loon tell me I shouldn't be allowed to carry because I could have another heart attack pass out and someone steal my gun. I don't know how much life I have left but I intend to protect it especially from folks who would think they know better than I if I should carry or not and try to take away that right.

    And funny I've been the one on TV about 10 times last year representing this group..

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667

    Post imported post

    Norman wrote:
    Go- we are already infringed. The supreme court says certain infringements are ok. Yelling fire in a theater not considered protected speech yadayadayada. I also realize that habitual drug users own firearms already. I'm not keen on alcoholics owning firearms either...but I can't think of a way to control that. Nicotine and caffeine fall short in comparison to marijuana or other controlled drugs.

    Deros- I don't know. That's the best answer I can give in this situation. I don't think you should handle a firearm if you are under the influence of a pain-killer. I don't know you from Adam, but you seem like an intelligent guy, and I'm sure you wouldn't do something like that. I have known too many drug users in my lifetime. The idea of any of them owning a firearm legally or otherwise is not a happy feeling.
    Ugh! The case was 'you can not FALSELY yell fire in a CROWDED theater.' However, that case was replaced by the current standard and test in Brandenburg v Ohio. You can not in speech ' incite imminent lawless action'. And because we are already infringed is not a reason to tirelessly argue against infringement!

    Your second part should draw us all to think hard. We can not control that! In a free society we must all accept things that we can not control, that is liberty! I can not control the stupid things Nancy Pelosi says, that is liberty!

    And I only showed caffine and nicotine to show that there are in fact very different levels of drugs. A spectrum from very harmful to less harmful.
    Live Free or Die!

  20. #20
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522

    Post imported post

    DEROS72 wrote:
    I wonder since I have been on pain meds (percocet)that would preclude me from owning guns.Personally I think its none of their f..n business.
    Now since the Govt rules health care, it is all their business. There will be no such thing as patient confidentiality.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Olympia, Washington, USA
    Posts
    172

    Post imported post

    I think our best bet is to agree to disagree Deros. My mind is pretty altered on pain medicine. I'm sure if I was pulled over an officer would agree with that as well. As far as carrying with a bad heart, I don't see how that affects anyone else. If it were somehow bad for your heart then that is your own cross to bear. If someone is on some mind-altering medication and decides to carry, that affects everyone else.

    Go- Ok, so throw out the 1st amendment example, I still stand by the rest. I'm not an anarchist, I don't believe that everyone should run around free to do whatever they feel they want to do. We have laws set up that prohibit certain people from buying firearms, I'm ok with most of them at this point. Just like I'm ok with drunk people not being able to drive, or convicted child molesters having to register there place of residence.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Yakima County, ,
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    10th Amendment!



  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923

    Post imported post

    WVCDL wrote:
    Jayd1981 wrote:
    If Washington is regulating who can grow it, who can sell it, and who can use it, then wouldn't they now be lawful users of said controlled substance? I hope I never need vicadine again, I would hate to give up my right to own firearms because of some pain meds.
    No, not if your use of the controlled substance was legal as a matter of federal law.

    The MM activist may be a lawful user of a controlled substance under state law, but not federal law. Because he is an unlawful user of a controlled substance as a matter of federal law, federal law also prohibits him from possessing firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) prohibits any person "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))" from possessing firearms. There's a plethora of Supreme Court decisions interpreting various provisions of the Gun Control Act that clearly hold that except where Congress has expressly made a provision dependent upon state law (e.g., parts of the definitions of "crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" and "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a) determining whether a "conviction" has been had based upon the laws of the jurisdiction in which the offense was tried and disregarding pardoned or expunged convictions or convictions for which a person has had civil rights restored), all federal statutory issues must be decided strictly as a question of federal law without regard to state law, including analogous state laws on the same issue.



    The federal Government has NO authority to make ANY gun laws (accept arguably interstate sales) Read article 1 section 8 of the Constitution for the united states and tell me where it gives congress power to decide who can buy/own a gun. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  24. #24
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    I have never had a felony ,I'm military trained with combat experience and have been carrying openly now for about 3 years .Ask anyone that has been to the range with me if I was not competent.Go Go dawgs ,Bookman,M1 gunr .My bank, the safeway.It's not up to anyone else to decide that.Although I used to have a pilots license but the FAA won't let me fly anymore but I can still skydive (been doing that for over 30 years).Don't need a license for that.All on a truck load of meds.Keeping me alive.etc.Now if you'll excuse me I am going to take a percocet ,pour a glass of merlot and clean up my .45 I took to the range the other day.....







    Sarcasm...

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923

    Post imported post

    King County sheriff dept. needs to stand up to this kind of federal usurpation of power. They should read and learn from good ol sheriff Richard Mack.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •