• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

No guns for pot activist after shootout

XD45PlusP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
250
Location
, ,
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
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

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

Jayd1981

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
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.
 

XD45PlusP

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2007
Messages
250
Location
, ,
imported post

Phssthpok wrote:
But wait a minute..... I though health care was a RIGHT now?:question:

Apparently only the gubment can treat you, according to the Demorats.
 

JimMullinsWVCDL

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
676
Location
Lebanon, VA
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.
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Jayd1981

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Richland, Washington, USA
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.
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
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....
 

BobR

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
391
Location
West Plains, ,
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
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Norman

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
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.
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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).
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
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???
 

Norman

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
172
Location
Olympia, Washington, USA
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.
 

DEROS72

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
2,817
Location
Valhalla
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..
 

gogodawgs

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
5,669
Location
Federal Way, Washington, USA
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.
 

amzbrady

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,521
Location
Marysville, Washington, USA
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.
 
Top