View Single Post
Old April 2, 2010, 08:56 AM   #28
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,524
Inference: n. the reasoning involved in drawing a conclusion or making a logical judgment on the basis of circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions rather than on the basis of direct fact or observation.

Let's see, we have 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which declares that
"it shall be unlawful for 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));
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce."
Then we have the controlling CFR (Code of Federal Regulations, which specify how the statute is enforced); 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 defines an unlawful user:
Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.
There are also 2 relevant cases which say, “that to sustain a conviction under § 922(g)(3), the government must prove ... that the defendant took drugs with regularity, over an extended period of time, and contemporaneously with his purchase or possession of a firearm.” United States v. Purdy, 264 F.3d 809, 812–13 (9th Cir. 2001), and in United States v. Herrera, 313 F.3d 882 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc), the government conceded "that, for a defendant to be an ‘unlawful user’ for § 922(g)(3) purposes, his ‘drug use would have to be with regularity and over an extended period of time.’"

But, we aren't talking about a conviction here. We aren't even talking about known possession, which is clearly covered in the CFR, but was not the reason for the NICS denial. We are talking about placing a person into the category of a prohibited person, thereby depriving that person of his rightful use of necessary tools for self defense, by mere inference, without any seeming evidence of actual use (let alone addiction), other than possession of a medical marijuana use card (for lack of a better term).

One cannot infer that because you have a drivers license, that you actually drive. There must be some other evidence, in order to make that connection.

Likewise here, one cannot infer that because you posses a medical marijuana use card, that you actually use marijuana, as the FBI has done by inserting this information into the NICS system. (<--this by inference of the AP article )

This isn't about the power of Congress to regulate an item that may have some economic impact over interstate commerce (Gonzales v. Raich). It is about Congress saying that once an item enters interstate commerce, that item remains forever in commerce and therefore the Congress may regulate the item at all times, until the item is destroyed.

It is also about using the power of Interstate Commerce, without a trial, without probable cause, without a reasonable articulable suspicion, but by mere inference, to deprive a person of a fundamental right.

Stop and think for a moment where this type of power can ultimately lead. Do you really want the Feds, the State or local government(s) to be able to deny your fundamental rights, based merely upon inference of some possibly unlawful action or activity?
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.03502 seconds with 7 queries