View Single Post
Old December 1, 2017, 11:31 PM   #17
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by highrolls
...OK back to Wilson v. Lynch and question is for Frank Ettin : As I understand my reading, this case began as an attempt by Ms Wilson to purchase a firearm from her LGS and when the LGS became aware of her Medical Marajuana card, refused to sell to her. So far so good. It is not clear to me how the LGS became aware of the card and whether or not the 4473 was completed and refused by the LGS or the transaction was refused at the very start ?....
Although I don't know this for sure and haven't been able, in the course of cursory research, to find good information about the backstory of Wilson v. Lynch, it has all the earmarks of a "set up job."

The ATF had previously sent a letter to FFLs advising them that they could not transfer a gun to anyone with a medical marijuana card. Wilson, together with others, decided to challenge the ATF's instructions. So they set up a situation to serve as the basis of a lawsuit to test the validity of the ATF instructions to FFLs.

Accordingly, Wilson got a medical marijuana card, but did not use marijuana or other illegal drugs. She did not at the time possess any guns. She went to buy a gun at a small shop in a small community and made sure the dealer knew that she had a medical marijuana card. As expected, the dealer refused to sell her a gun. She now had a nice, clear, tightly controlled situation on which to base a lawsuit testing exactly what she wanted to test.

This sort of thing is not uncommon, especially in civil rights litigation. Lawyers' look for, or arrange, a factually clean situation, without extraneous issues. That way they can expect a focused court decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiBC
...If a couple is having a domestic dispute,is the state obligated to arrive,produce a clip board,and get a signed statement from the couple acknowledging "Any domestic violence will result in your arrest and forfeiture of your Second Amendment Rights"

Renouncing citizenship,a dishonorable discharge,etc....No Life Referee shows up and asks "Are you sure you want to do this? You will lose your guns,you know"

It IS sad folks are so unaware . But ultimately,you and I are responsible for knowing and remaining within the law.

Selective enforcement can hurt people...we can argue. Or does it enable people to hurt themselves?
Ultimately it comes down to selective compliance,doesn't it?. "I don't buy into this law,so I can break it? Many people get away with it,I will,too?...
Good summary. The bottom line is that each of us is responsible for understanding laws which can affect the things we do, and the fact that someone hasn't been prosecuted for something is not a reliable indication of what the law is.

Prosecutorial discretion (a better term than "selective enforcement") is, and always will be a fact of life. It reflects the reality that (1) persons accused of crimes have a constitutional right to a speedy trial; and (2) resources available to prosecutors and courts are limited. Prosecutors out of necessity must have discretion as to how to use the limited resources available. So a prosecutor might not pursue certain violations because other violations are more socially significant and better warrant his attention.

But the key word is "discretion." No one can count on it.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; December 2, 2017 at 12:11 AM. Reason: correct typo
Frank Ettin is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03035 seconds with 8 queries