Posted on 01/06/2014 10:39:46 AM PST by LouAvul
I’d rather be around an armed pothead than an armed drunk.
Frog in a pot said, “Is it possible by “appropriately” you suggest that the applicant lie to the feds in a sworn statement?”
Since the question on the form requires you to violate your Fifth Amendment Rights then arguably it sets up a possible defense to a claim of perjury on that form. Since you have two protected rights involved the form is defective for asking the person to admit to a crime and infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)
“A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under § 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under § 5851. Pp. 390 U. S. 95-100.”
Give a drunk a gun and he'll go out and shoot someone. Give a stonner a gun and he'll take it apart and lose half the pieces.
The government always wants too much information. Just lie.
I’m a Native American. I was born here.
Knowing you as I do, I would be surprised if you did. Because then all they would have to do is trace the applicant's retail purchase to the falsified statement and detain her somewhere in a camp.
Like it or not, the Feds use commerce and taxation to regulate firearms and drugs. So far, it's constitutional.
By federal standards, alcohol is legal. Hell, prescription pain medication is legal when prescribed, and there’s an enormous epidemic of illegal pain medication abuse in this country, yet none of those addicts would be lying on a 4473.
Lost all my grass in a boating accident. Unfortunately all my weapons were also lost.
Yeah, Haynes was “fixed” by the GCA of 1968. Now, there is no defense against either, failing to register nor possession of (and we are talking about NFA weapons, mind you, not non NFA arms).
“Recreational” happy smoke has its consequences. LOL!
Just because SCOTUS has tortured those concepts beyond recognition doesn’t mean it’s right. If more people stood up to that kind of crap it could be curtailed. Instead, folks have no problem with the feds banning stuff they don’t like.
Here’s another one. Apparently it is legal in my state, KY, to buy and sell guns between private parties all you want without any sort of registration, etc. However, If you do, you are violating FEDERAL LAW and if they ever did get into your house and find such guns, you could be in a world of hurt.
If they ever felt motivated to do that.
That there is just damned funny!
Thank for qualifying your response. Without looking at the case you cited, I would say the privilege against self-incrimination is a hell of a lot more established than the 2d's right to bear (buy, own, etc.) firearms. We can look at the 5/4 USSC to see how fragile is the latter.
Don't know about you, but most of us do not have the money or time to test the proposition at the highest court.
“Right. Wonder if the feds have a way of tracking retail purchase of mj?”
A lot would depend on if you use cash or the debit card.
Private sales are legal in Florida, as they should be. The burden of proof would be on the Fedguv to show that your guns aren’t yours.
Yep. So-called conservatives seem to care about the constitution only when it suits them.
The LGS is correct, but I bet they get sued anyway.
So you lie. What’s the big deal? It’s just a government form.
Medical marijuana falls under the protection of HIPPA. In Colorado pot is recreational. The feds can access those accounts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.