Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 71

Thread: Ban on Possessing Guns While an Illegal User of a Controlled Substance

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-19-08
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,783

    Ban on Possessing Guns While an Illegal User of a Controlled Substance

    Interesting case and discussion going on here....

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-21-08
    Posts
    705
    What's to discuss?

    Three felonies keep him from owning OR having a firearm in his possession. End of story.
    BN-Life member - NRA.

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-19-08
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,783
    And which three felonies were those?

  4. #4
    he only needs the one felony the selling the crack to the cop. or the felony for possessing the crack

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-19-08
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,783
    he only needs the one felony the selling the crack to the cop. or the felony for possessing the crack

    And that is why I suggested the discussion was fascinating... let's let Mr. Bellmore answer the faulty logic expressed here...

    You can take somebody’s civil liberties away upon conviction of a crime, but if I’m convicted next Tuesday, I still have my civil liberties today.

    In this case, we’re talking about passive exercise of a civil liberty, and the government is reaching back to a time when you hadn’t yet had it stripped from you, and punishing you for having exercised it.

    Or, viewed from another perspective, the government is setting up a system where, instead of losing your civil liberty upon conviction, you lose it upon doing the act the government might eventually get around to convicting you for. Kind of like saying, “You didn’t lose your 2nd amendment rights when we committed you, you lost them at the point we later decided you had become committable. That’s due process? No, that’s retroactive.

    The whole idea of sentencing enhancement for passive conduct unrelated to the underlying crime is dodgy. It makes a certain amount of sense to say that assaulting somebody with a horse whip is a different, perhaps worse crime, than simple assault. It makes no sense to say that assaulting somebody while owning a horse whip, but not using it in the assault, is a different crime. When the passive conduct is the exercise of a civil liberty, it becomes more than dodgy. This is like applying a hate crime enhancement because the offender had “nigger” in his vocabulary, even though he didn’t actually SAY IT. The guy did not use the guns in relation to the crime, he just owned them.

    Of course, the courts are going to say it’s ok, on the principle that the courts don’t like guns, and so the 2nd amendment isn’t really a real civil liberty, just something they have to make civil liberty noises about to avoid being lynched.

    And the courts are so far from caring about actual unconstitutionality, that expecting them to care that something is merely “dodgy” is hopeless. Sophistry isn’t a swear word in our legal system, it’s the basis of it.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-28-09
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,851
    I like this comment on that article:

    Malvolio says:

    Hmmm, could it be made illegal to criticize the government while using illegal drugs? Could it be illegal to practice Judaism while using illegal drugs? Is the 2nd Amendment somehow inferior to the 1st?
    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - Wayne LaPierre
    Republicans: The Other Democratic Party

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-19-06
    Location
    Jacksonville Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,244
    Once you have allowed the government to make choices in your life (such as what drugs you can and can't use), it is very difficult to stop them from building on that power. This is a perfect example.
    ----
    Rick
    Repeal the 17th Amendment, let’s put America back to the Republic the founding fathers intended!
    A right should restrict the government, not obligate it!

  8. #8
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-21-08
    Posts
    705
    And which three felonies were those?
    The article says:
    After a confidential informant bought 1.9 grams of crack cocaine from defendant Brandon Hendrix on April 21, 2009, law enforcement officers obtained a warrant to search his residence. When they arrived, they found defendant present and under the influence of marijuana, crack cocaine and alcohol. Their search uncovered a loaded SKS rifle, a .45 caliber Ruger pistol, a Winchester shotgun, ammunition, knives and drug paraphernalia. Defendant was arrested the next day and charged in federal court with knowing and unlawful possession of firearms while being an unlawful user of marijuana and crack cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)....

    [D]efendant’s argument fails because he has not shown that he is subject to any real burden. If he does not use controlled substances, then § 922(g)(3) imposes no restriction on his possession of guns. If he chooses to use them, then he cannot legally possess a gun.
    Three felonies: 1) Sale of illegal substance 2) Use of illegal substance 3) Possession of loaded firearm while under the influence of illegal substance.

    Need more?
    BN-Life member - NRA.

  9. #9
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-27-08
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    3,582
    I'm confused. When was he convicted a these felonies versus when was he in illegal possession of a firearm?
    Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master.
    - Sallust

  10. #10
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-19-08
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,783
    I'm confused. When was he convicted a these felonies versus when was he in illegal possession of a firearm?
    Give the man a cookie for spotting what seems to have escaped other posters.

  11. #11
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-19-08
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,783
    Need more?
    Perhaps you need to reread Mr. Bellmore's response above...

  12. #12
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-28-09
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,851
    Three felonies: 1) Sale of illegal substance 2) Use of illegal substance 3) Possession of loaded firearm while under the influence of illegal substance.

    Need more?
    Nope. Not if you're a gun controller, this is plenty. A confidential (as unnamed and often non-existent) informant said he is a bad guy so his Constitutional rights are gone.


    By the way, Pat-inCO. About that pound of marijuana you sold me last week...
    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - Wayne LaPierre
    Republicans: The Other Democratic Party

  13. #13
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-19-08
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,783
    Three felonies: 1) Sale of illegal substance 2) Use of illegal substance 3) Possession of loaded firearm while under the influence of illegal substance.
    One does not lose their 2nd Am rights while committing a felony. One loses them by being CONVICTED of committing a felony.

    What you are advocating is no different from a person who embezzles ten thousand dollars from his employee while he has a gun locked up in his safe at home... and then is charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm.

  14. #14
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-26-07
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Posts
    808
    Of course, the courts are going to say it’s ok, on the principle that the courts don’t like guns, and so the 2nd amendment isn’t really a real civil liberty, just something they have to make civil liberty noises about to avoid being lynched.

    A judge is nothing but a Fedgov shyster in a black robe. The only difference between a judge and a persecuting (no, I didn't mean prosecuting) shyster is that the judge has to feign neutrality. Presumption of innocence, fair trial, and any connection between law and justice are just legal fictions with no basis in reality. It's the difference between de jure and de facto. Anyone who trusts the law or believes in blind justice is delusional and needs to retitrate their thorazine dosage.
    Last edited by revjen45; April 10th, 2010 at 10:32 PM. Reason: afterthought
    revjen45@hotmail.com
    Better to perish in the struggle for freedom than live to see defeat. There ARE things to be feared more than death.

  15. #15
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-02-07
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    568
    Once you have allowed the government to make choices in your life (such as what drugs you can and can't use), it is very difficult to stop them from building on that power. This is a perfect example.
    I agree. I always try to explain to people that once you allow the government into your life, begin the countdown until they overstay their welcome. It WILL happen.

  16. #16
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-01-09
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    6,288
    We have a charge here in OK for posession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. However , the firearm must be present during the felony if its at home and the crime is committed away from home then that charge doesnt apply.

    I see where he is going with this . I started a thread a while back titled "A New Felon and His Guns". Where I was asking the question what are you supposed to do with your guns at your res. if your going to trial over a felony charge. Once you are convicted the posession would be illegal when leaving the courthouse and returning home.

    This instance is about the guy being a gun owner before he is convicted. They are trying to retroactively charge him with posession of a firearm. I agree that the courts are going to go along with it b/c they dont like guns or people committing crimes so therefore they will retroactively charge him and convict him . The answer is NO they cannot do this , but , I am sure they will.

    I hate to say it , but , this would be a poster child of a case for the NRA to step in on. There is some serious rights violation going on here.

  17. #17
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-01-09
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    6,288
    A judge is nothing but a Fedgov shyster in a black robe.
    I agree . This is a human being that loses family members just like the rest of us. These people have bad days just like the rest of us . A judge will harbor prejudices just like everyone else. They are subject to all human emotions and I am sure that all of them will try and enforce their version of the law whenever they see fit.

  18. #18
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-28-09
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,851
    This instance is about the guy being a gun owner before he is convicted. They are trying to retroactively charge him with posession of a firearm. I agree that the courts are going to go along with it b/c they dont like guns or people committing crimes so therefore they will retroactively charge him and convict him . The answer is NO they cannot do this , but , I am sure they will.
    There. I fixed it for you. I'm pretty sure that the courts don't dislike crime or criminals. They do, on the other hand, dislike guns in the hands of non-violent people, felons or otherwise.

    Remember playing cops and robbers as a kid? Well, that's what this whole thing is about: only the cops and robbers should have guns. No one else is allowed in the game.
    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - Wayne LaPierre
    Republicans: The Other Democratic Party

  19. #19
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    01-15-08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,140
    Anyone who trusts the law or believes in blind justice is delusional and needs to retitrate their thorazine dosage.
    Nobody uses thorazine anymore - there are safer and more effective medications available these days.

    But if they did use it while possessing a firearm - would they be committing a felony? I guess not if it was prescribed by a doctor.

    I have a friend with a medical marijuana card who owns firearms. Is he in felony possession of a firearm?

    Why did we ever allow the government to enact infringements on a fundamental right? And why do otherwise staunch supporters of that right support those infringements - as long as they apply to somebody else?
    Best regards,
    Rainbowbob

  20. #20
    Possession of marijuana is still a federal offense.
    I carry a GUN, because cops are just too darned heavy.

  21. #21
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-19-08
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,783
    I have a friend with a medical marijuana card who owns firearms. Is he in felony possession of a firearm?
    Short answer... no. One cannot be a "felon" until one is convicted of a felony, which some of the people here seem to miss. Can he be denied his gun rights? Yes.

  22. #22
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-28-09
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,851
    Why did we ever allow the government to enact infringements on a fundamental right? And why do otherwise staunch supporters of that right support those infringements - as long as they apply to somebody else?
    A lot of so-called libertarians here would have encouraged the arrest of the founding fathers because, to some, you must obey the law of the land, no matter what that law is - even if those enacting the law had no authority to enact the law.
    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - Wayne LaPierre
    Republicans: The Other Democratic Party

  23. #23
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    01-15-08
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,140
    One cannot be a "felon" until one is convicted of a felony
    Let me re-state my question:

    Is he committing a felony by possessing a firearm while "legally" (according to state law - not federal) using cannabis?
    Best regards,
    Rainbowbob

  24. #24
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-28-09
    Location
    Northeast Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,851
    Is he committing a felony by possessing a firearm while "legally" (according to state law - not federal) using cannabis?
    I saw an interesting statement on the news about the mandatory health insurance bill and those states who have already passed state laws exempting themselves from the federal law. The talking head said, "Federal law trumps state law."

    I remember being told the same thing as a kid. But it just ain't so and I really don't get where they would say such a thing. The Constitution clearly states the opposite. The federal government has no power not explicitly granted by the states.
    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." - Wayne LaPierre
    Republicans: The Other Democratic Party

  25. #25
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-01-09
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    6,288
    Oh what a tangled web we weave.

    The gov. (state, fed , county , municipal) seems to contradict themselves frequently. The whole damn mess has gotten so far out of hand i dont know what to believe. Take the medicinal Mj issue of CA. CA said its cool to posess and use for medical purposes . Then the feds stepped in and said no it isnt . The feds arrested and jailed several people for doing so. Even though the feds dont trump the state they do it any way. Who is going to stop them? There is no recourse other than sitting in jail and hiring a lawyer to try and get you out of it. I am sure that the process would take a couple of yrs at least. Try to tell the feds that you dont recognize their authority or power to arrest you and you will more than likely get killed or wished you were after they got through beating you to a pulp.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •