• 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

Norman

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

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
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
 

DEROS72

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







Sarcasm...
 

Jayd1981

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

I see so many people here trying to get society to accept that just because you openly carry a pistol that you are not some gun crazed wanna be cowboy. Now some of you are saying just because the person has a prescription for medical majiuana, that you are going to assume he's some pot head and wants to carry a gun while he's stoned out of his mind. I would like to give the individual the benefit of the doubt while they are still a law abiding citizen (read has not been convicted of a felony) and allow them to practice their right to bear arms as they see fit. Now if they commit a crime, such as actually brandishing a firearm, then they should be treated like anyone else and be arrested and tried in court. To assume anyone is anything but a law abiding citizen absent actual evidence of a crime is a travisty IMHO.
 

Norman

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

Now if they commit a crime...

Which is what the original subject of this thread is doing. It is a federal law, not state, and it happens to be a law that some folks on this site disagree with. I seem to be the lone anti-marijuana Washingtonian ;)
 

kparker

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
1,326
Location
Tacoma, Washington, USA
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.

Behold:

Although the e-mail from Swartz said Sarich is barred from buying or possessing guns, Sarich said he borrowed one shortly after the shooting. He no longer has it, he said.

Investigators saw the weapon at his house but did not notify federal authorities because "they can enforce their own laws," sheriff's spokesman Sgt. John Urquhart said. [emphasis added.]
Not perfect, but pretty good for the time being, wouldn't you say?

(From the KOMO News article.)
 

DEROS72

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

So Norman some of us don't know you.So you could someday have an accident in you car and someone get hurt .So we will decide if you should drive .So you need to relinguish your drivers license because of what may happen in the future.

This guy if he was selling to others then that is wrong.But if he was legal to use medical pot then there is no reason he should have his rights revolked.If he has no other issues then leave him him alone. I have never had a felony ,I have passed all my background checks for a CPL and purchased firearms.No one has the right to say I'm not competent because I have a doctors perscribed medications.None are phycotopic.
 

Jayd1981

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

Norman wrote:
Now if they commit a crime...

Which is what the original subject of this thread is doing. It is a federal law, not state, and it happens to be a law that some folks on this site disagree with. I seem to be the lone anti-marijuana Washingtonian ;)
Which he is not being prosecuted for. Last time I checked, here we were innocent until proven guilty. If there are no charges and no criminal history, then sorry there is no reason to deny someone thier right to bear arms.
 

Norman

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

I have passed all my background checks

And he did not. No, you don't know me, but if I was driving around drunk multiple times, yet hadn't hurt anyone in the process, I would hope that I end up losing my license. Sarich is using an illegal substance. Period. End of story. He not only is a user, he is an advocate and willingly admits to being a user. I am perfectly ok with him not being able to buy a firearm. I'm sorry that this strikes a nerve with you, but I'm not changing my mind because you throw all kinds of different scenarios at me. I'm anti-drug.

If there are no charges and no criminal history, then sorry there is no reason to deny someone thier right to bear arms.

Being declared mentally incompetent isn't a crime either, yet you can't own a firearm. Being dishonorably discharged doesn't always come with a criminal charge, yet you can't own a firearm. He is a proud admitted user of an illegal drug. You don't have to be a criminal to be denied a right to own a firearm. Obviously.
 

gogodawgs

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

Norman wrote:
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.
While I concur that some should not be able to 'buy' firearms legally (and we know they will be able to buy them illegally and posses them illegally) that standard should be very strict, and very narrow. And if you commit a crime with a firearm you should go to jail. If you want to prevent that person from getting out and getting firearms, then you must not let them out. I am not an anarchist either, but it says "...shall not be infringed." The correct way to change that is through the amendment process, not the legislative process.
 

Norman

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

Ok, I've really come to respect some of you on this board, so I'm going to walk away from this thread at this point. Otherwise it's just going to be a back and forth situation. Plus V is on the tube right now, and I really want to pay attention. :p
 

DEROS72

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

I am anti illegal drug also.But if state law allows the use of medical marijauna and he has the license do do so he should not lose other constitutional rights.

I'm a user also if you want to get technical I spent in the last six weeks prior and post surgery $620.00 on drugs.All legally perscribed and legal in that context.I am again not a felon,have had a pretty normal life untill I got sick.

If he was selling to others then he should be prosecuted,If the state changes the law regarding medical marijauna then that changes things.A couple of the guys from this board and I have had beers in resturants while carrying.It's legal and we are very responsiple folk.You can't start prosecuting or condeming one for something you think they might do in the future because they are on a legally doctor perscribed medication. By the way I do not support the legalization of pot.

So untill he is proven guilty of a crime he should not be giving up his rights because of medication.By the way it's no ones business and should never be on a background check what meds you have been perscribed or medical conditions unless one already has a proven history of bad behavior.
 

Jayd1981

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

Norman wrote:
Being declared mentally incompetent isn't a crime either, yet you can't own a firearm. Being dishonorably discharged doesn't always come with a criminal charge, yet you can't own a firearm. He is a proud admitted user of an illegal drug. You don't have to be a criminal to be denied a right to own a firearm. Obviously.

Your right, being declared mentally incompetent isn't a crime, but you are assumed competent unless a professional declares you otherwise. This is not decided by any of us here, the general public, or the police (local or federal).

As fas as your understanding of a dishonorable discharge, your wrong. They are handed down from a general court martial. Any conviction by a general court martial is the same as being convicted of a felony.
A dishonorable discharge (DD), like a BCD, is a punitive discharge rather than an administrative discharge. It can only be handed down to an enlisted member by a general court-martial. Dishonorable discharges are handed down for what the military considers the most reprehensible conduct. This type of discharge may be rendered only by conviction at a general court-martial for serious offenses (e.g., desertion, sexual assault, murder, etc.) that call for dishonorable discharge as part of the sentence.

With this characterization of service, all veterans' benefits are lost, regardless of any past honorable service. This type of discharge is universally regarded as shameful. Additionally, US federal law prohibits ownership of firearms by those who have been dishonorably discharged.[2][/suP]
I quoted it from Wikipedia, sorry don't feel like sifting through pages upon pages of UCMJ.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Norman wrote:
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.
And you probably don't carry in this condition, do you?

Whereas many users of marijuana can competently and unimpairedly drive, shoot, take college exams, etc. while under the "influence" (I've personally witnessed all of the above. Check out where I live.) I've also seen these same people interact with police, who give no indication they suspect the slightest degree of impairment (for example, during a traffic stop).

Why eliminate personal choice? Why abrogate personal responsibility?

The one-size-fits-all solution modeled after your own personal experience is guaranteed to be inapplicable to a majority of others.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

Jayd1981 wrote:
I see so many people here trying to get society to accept that just because you openly carry a pistol that you are not some gun crazed wanna be cowboy.  Now some of you are saying just because the person has a prescription for medical majiuana, that you are going to assume he's some pot head and wants to carry a gun while he's stoned out of his mind.  I would like to give the individual the benefit of the doubt while they are still a law abiding citizen (read has not been convicted of a felony) and allow them to practice their right to bear arms as they see fit.  Now if they commit a crime, such as actually brandishing a firearm, then they should be treated like anyone else and be arrested and tried in court.  To assume anyone is anything but a law abiding citizen absent actual evidence of a crime is a travisty IMHO.
+∞

This is all you need. You don't need a slew of malum prohibitum offenses to keep people from losing all control.
 

END_THE_FED

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
925
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

The federal governmernment does not have the power to evenmake a drug illegal let alone try to make use of said drug a disqualifying condition for owning/buying a gun.

If congress wants to regulate such things it needs to do so by amending the constitution not ignoring it.
 
Top