Posted on 01/06/2014 10:39:46 AM PST by LouAvul
I’ve never smoked pot, never been around anyone who has smoked it, but the Supreme Court’s decision made sense to me...if a person is using a prescription drug to fix something wrong with them, or alleviate pain, then that shouldn’t prohibit that same person from getting a CCW.
Would you also want all beer-drinkers to be exiled on a nature reserve somewhere?
Ed
Is that still a disqualifier? I'm assuming this would be a drug approved by the FDA, therefore federally legal. Part 'e' of the 4473 says, "Are you an unlawful user of ..?"
Those prescription drugs have been approved by the FDA, so no they would not be disqualifying, but you'd fail a pee test.
At this point the USA has descended into fascism. I know Conservatives pride themselves on following both the letter and the spirit of the law. I know I do. Still, at this time it’s a failure mode. We all need to start thinking the way Jews (should have) thought about the Nazi regime in the 1930s.
That hurts to admit, but it’s how I see it. We can’t continue to obsessively play by the rules with a “team” that is willing to do or say anything to enslave us.
Federal law prohibits the ATF from accessing the information on the 4473. Even when a dealer goes out of business and turns his accumulated 4473s over to the ATF, they still cannot peruse them.
What about Haynes v. U.S. (1968)?
Given Fast & Furious, how much of a restraint would you say that really is?
>> The feds have no Constitutional authority for a pot ban. That should be up to the states.
>
> Like it or not, the Feds use commerce and taxation to regulate firearms and drugs. So far, it’s constitutional.
Which is why I’d propose the following amendment:
Commerce Clause Amendment
Section I
The federal government shall directly subsidize no product or industry whatsoever, saving the promotion the progress of Science and useful Arts.
Section II
The federal government shall never prescribe nor proscribe what the Several States teach. Neither the federal government nor the several states shall ever deny the right of parents to teach and instruct their children as they see fit.
Section III
The congress may impose tariffs, excise taxes, and customs duties on anything imported or exported, provided that they are applied uniformly and in no manner restrict, subvert, or circumvent the second amendment.
Section IV
No law may impose prohibitions of any sort on the commerce between the several states due to the item itself.
And so does depriving someone of constitutional rights under the guise of some law [link] -- yet I don't see every member of the BATFE, FBI, DEA and ICE who was even remotely involved in it being punished, now do you?
Felons, prior to GCA 68 had no federal prohibition on owning/possessing purchasing firearms to my knowledge. Now they do, therefore Haynes is pretty much of no value. Not telling a LEO that you ( a felon) have a firearm or ammo still is protected by the 5th, them proving it will earn you up to $10k/10 yrs in the federal house.
Haynes is still good law. The issue is providing information that is an admission of a crime. In other words mandatory registration for a felon or other where it would admit to a crime. It’s a sick irony but because of Haynes and the 5th Amendment Felons do not have to register guns. This is not to say they can escape taxes. That’s a different issue. But, firearm registration laws completely miss the claimed population target and instead apply only to the law abiding.
In terms of active FFL dealers, it's a pretty good restraint. If the ATF came into a gun store demanding to see the dealer's storehouse of 4473s, the FFL is going to scream to high heaven. I've never met an FFL who didn't absolutely loathe the BATFE.
Now, if you're talking about 4473s that have been turned over to the ATF because the FFL went out of business, they're still prohibited by federal law from accessing or reviewing the records. Do they obey the law? I don't know, but what good would it do them? Some of the records are 20 years old. (That's how long the FFL has to keep them.)
Felons cannot register guns because they cannot posses them. GCA 68 made it so. A felon in possession has no defense (since I am a felon, registering would be self-incriminating etc), since GCA 68 made it illegal period for a felon to possess arms and or ammunition.
The right to not talk (self incriminate) is still protected, but the action of buying/possessing is made an illegal act.
I think we are dancing on the head of a pin here.
Best.
We are not in disagreement. The issue was only registration of guns and admitting under oath to committing a crime on an official form. As it stands right now firearm registration laws only apply to the law abiding and not to the felons that the gun registration laws were presented as preventing from purchasing firearms.
With respect to the original topic. The same argument applies. They cannot compel a person to admit to a crime - illegal use of drugs - on a form.
Yes, look at the 4473. It asks all of those questions (fugitive, illegal drug use, illegal alien, mental defective, etc) and to not answer or answer wrongly DQs from firearm purchase as a prohibited person. And is a crime which while not often prosecuted by the administration (s), is a federal felony that is upheld by the courts.
Note: I do not believe that permanent disenfranchisement of civil rights is constitutional or even necessary.
e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
If it is lawful in Colorado, they could honestly answer 'no'.
It’s hotly contested point, but the question pertains exclusively to Federal, not state, law. And pot is illegal re federal. It’s a felony to smoke dope and buy a gun by federal law.
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.