• 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.

i guess the law is the law

911Boss

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
753
Location
Gone... Nutty as squirrel **** around here
imported post

I just did a quick perusal of the RCW (9.41.040) and there doesn't appear to be anything in STATE law that bars an un-convicted drug user from owning or possessing weapons.

The issue here is FEDERAL law and the restriction on FFL dealers in selling to someone with a history of drug use.

If he answered "NO" to question 12 e (Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?) of the 4473's he filled out while attempting to buy those new guns, he could be subject to prosecution on felony charges.

I am sure his argument is that he is not an "unlawful" user because state law allows it, but I seem to remember pretty clearly when CA first allowed MM, and then when we did it, the whole State vs. Feds issue coming up. If he is in the business of taking advantage of these laws for profit you would think he knows about the Federal stance. Pretty silly argument that you were thinking about state law when filling out a federal form.

Interesting catch 22 when the Feds continue to list marijuana as a controlled substance without any legitimate medical use and states decide to allow "medical" use. Is it right or fair? I don't know, but the law is the law.

Knowledge is power.

My suggestion would be the more he whines and gets attention, the less sympathy he is going to get. Sounds like he is facing charges under state law for being a little fast and loose with the rules. Maybe he should just shut up and find someone to do a private sale. I imagine he has made enough coin selling weed that he can afford it...
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
imported post

911Boss wrote:
I just did a quick perusal of the RCW (9.41.040) and there doesn't appear to be anything in STATE law that bars an un-convicted drug user from owning or possessing weapons.

The issue here is FEDERAL law and the restriction on FFL dealers in selling to someone with a history of drug use.

If he answered "NO" to question 12 e (Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?) of the 4473's he filled out while attempting to buy those new guns, he could be subject to prosecution on felony charges.

I am sure his argument is that he is not an "unlawful" user because state law allows it, but I seem to remember pretty clearly when CA first allowed MM, and then when we did it, the whole State vs. Feds issue coming up. If he is in the business of taking advantage of these laws for profit you would think he knows about the Federal stance. Pretty silly argument that you were thinking about state law when filling out a federal form.

Interesting catch 22 when the Feds continue to list marijuana as a controlled substance without any legitimate medical use and states decide to allow "medical" use. Is it right or fair? I don't know, but the law is the law.

Knowledge is power.

My suggestion would be the more he whines and gets attention, the less sympathy he is going to get. Sounds like he is facing charges under state law for being a little fast and loose with the rules. Maybe he should just shut up and find someone to do a private sale. I imagine he has made enough coin selling weed that he can afford it...

That makes a lot of sense.

As I predicted very early on, I'm betting some sort of charges will be filed against Steve. And he just keeps digging the potential hole deeper, and deeper imho (both legally, and in regards to PR).
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
imported post

911Boss wrote:
The issue here is FEDERAL law and the restriction on FFL dealers in selling to someone with a history of drug use.

If he answered "NO" to question 12 e (Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?) of the 4473's he filled out while attempting to buy those new guns, he could be subject to prosecution on felony charges.
Would this not be just mere suspicion as they do not have proof he uses marijuana, just that he has a prescription for it and grows it in his home.
He has not been convicted of drug possession or a urine test to show use, where the proof?
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
imported post

BigDave wrote:
911Boss wrote:
The issue here is FEDERAL law and the restriction on FFL dealers in selling to someone with a history of drug use.

If he answered "NO" to question 12 e (Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?) of the 4473's he filled out while attempting to buy those new guns, he could be subject to prosecution on felony charges.
Would this not be just mere suspicion as they do not have proof he uses marijuana, just that he has a prescription for it and grows it in his home.
He has not been convicted of drug possession or a urine test to show use, where the proof?
No proof, other than his admissions to the media, and postings on various forums.
 
Top