The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 11, 2020, 02:45 PM   #51
bill460
Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2019
Location: Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Posts: 93
I can agree with most everything you have said. When laws are not clear and concise, and are left up to extreme interpretation, it usually results in a legal mess that quickly grows out of proportion.
bill460 is offline  
Old January 11, 2020, 05:22 PM   #52
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
Laws should be easy to understand and enforce. Otherwise they are a form of persecution--whether that's the explicit intent or not.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 11, 2020, 06:07 PM   #53
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
I have read that between RFK and J Edgar Hoover the desire to "Get something on this guy" led to some very invasive surveillance on Martin Luther King.

Bad law often remains on the books simply through apathy. There has been so much bad law written those who would have to purge it are making other priorities or are just lazy.

We settle for "No one has been prosecuted under that law since....the Civil War?"

Yet the law remains on the books.

Discretionary prosecution becomes discretionary persecution when it is driven by politics,or grudge,or agenda or hate.

And these do happen. Note the firing of some FBI officials and matters yet to come.

The best way to get rid of bad law is to universally enforce it...on everyone.

Imagine a weekly random drug and alcohol UAI for Congress. Suppose you'd find any coke users? Should they have the power,the salary,perks and pension? And gun permit? Why do we let them get away with it?

Last edited by HiBC; January 12, 2020 at 04:23 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old January 11, 2020, 08:08 PM   #54
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
Quote:
Discretionary prosecution becomes discretionary persecution when it is driven by politics,or grudge,or agenda or hate.

...

The best way to get rid of bad law is to universally enforce it...on everyone.
Well said. I would add that regardless of the motive behind discretionary prosecution it's just plain wrong.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 11, 2020, 08:58 PM   #55
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
There was an anti-fortunetelling law in Connecticut a number of years ago. I was there at the time, married to wife v.2. A couple of nice young ladies who ran a new age book store wanted to put on a psychic fair, and the cops in their town told them if they did so they would be arrested under this law.

They cancelled the fair, but the started a movement to repeal the law. It turned out that the law had been on the books for over eighty years. In that time, there had been ONE prosecution under that law. That was only a year or two prior to the ill-fated psychic fair, and that case was throown out of court when the defense showed the judge that neither the police nor the prosecution even understood what the law said. A year after the psychic fair incident the law was quietly repealed.

My great-grandfather was a professor of law. I was brought up with the understanding that laws which are enforced sporadically and/or capriciously are worse than no laws at all, because selective prosecution results in universal disrespect for the rule of law.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 27, 2020, 10:03 PM   #56
langenc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,551
I rfecall seeing offers to 'get in on the ground floor' or some such for big profits.

I also see offers for the one oz dropper bottle--$50 if you buy one gets down to about 35 if you buy 4 or 5 bottles.

Ive read where some high power politicians have socked lots of $$ into marketing the stuff.. BS ?? maybe. Looks like it is profitable. Wonder how many of the profiteers are bellyaching about big pharma making BILLIONS?
langenc is offline  
Old January 28, 2020, 03:10 AM   #57
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
There was an anti-fortunetelling law in Connecticut a number of years ago.
probably something put on the books to combat fraud. Bet it was only a crime if you charged money for it...still, One prosecution in 80 years and that one thrown out means the law is worse than useless.

I did go to psychic, one time, may years ago. I don't think she was a very good one, though. She took my CHECK!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 30, 2022, 11:45 AM   #58
FrankUnderwoodd
member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2022
Posts: 1
You bring up an interesting point. There’s not as much information out there about the legality of using CBD products as there is for marijuana users.
FrankUnderwoodd is offline  
Old December 30, 2022, 12:53 PM   #59
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,869
Quote:
not as much information out there about the legality of using CBD products ...
https://www.fedweek.com/issue-briefs...ty-clearances/
Fail a random drug test due to CBD usage, however, and you're toast....
mehavey is offline  
Old December 30, 2022, 03:15 PM   #60
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 11,654
The way I look at it--regardless of amount, what it's in etc and so on it remains under federal schedule 1 control. I personally would like to try CBD with a bit of THC in it for real chronic Lyme treatment. But I won't risk it as long as I have my firearms. CBD use probably a lot less of a health risk than alcohol consumption IMO.
__________________
"Everyone speaks gun."--Robert O'Neill
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old December 30, 2022, 04:53 PM   #61
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,274
Given the language of the 2A, the Fed Gov,including the BATF ,should be advocates of Civilian Firearms ownership and use. The BATF should be fully supportive of the NRA,CMP,etc.
We should go back to having indoor smallbore ranges in our high schools ,YMCAs,etc.
The shooting sports pushed into the shadows and hidden can degenerate to "Holding the 9 sideways" etc. Bring shooting back into the sunlight. An honorable sport. Sort of like the Swiss. Or the USA of the 1930's . I graduated HS in 1970 and my HS had a range and a rifle team.

But no,the BATF seems (to me) to have the idea that the 2A, guns,shooting,etc are at least borderline criminal and the de facto enemy of the BATF.
We ought to have at least as many gun shops as pot shops and in Colorado,pot shops outnumber Starbucks and Liquor stores.

It is not inconceivable (and it may,in fact,be true) that Federal Agencies CAN be weaponized to persecute.

I agree,the Cannabis products being discussed will not get a fly high. They represent no threat to society. They may have benefit. I see no reason why they SHOULD be banned or restricted or have ANY effect on anyone's RTKBA.

That "SHOULD" word. I don't think suppressors "should" be restricted. I "should" be able to fire up my lathe and make one. Should.

Some folks have a hard time with the difference between "should" and "IS" or "Maybe Not"

BATF regs or rulings do not have to make sense to bite you. A cockroach who argues with a chicken is always wrong.

If our Military can lose their jobs over CBD cream, thats a clue about the Federal position on CBD cream.It might be stupid,but it can get real.

I think all the hoopla about AR pistols is stupid and "SHOULD" be no problem. The BATF has a wild hair . Some say "To be a pistol it has to be one handed,etc."

You can do whatever, I'm not here to control you and there is no "Winning the arguement"

The point of the discussion is knowing the information. Where the fences are.
Then you can make your own choices.

We have discussed at length here whether having a medical marijuana card (and using it) makes you a prohibited person. The paperwork that goes with a Colorado Concealed Carry permit makes it very clear. No,you can't have a gun or a permit. Whether you or I agree does not matter much, Its a choice.

Do it your way. I think the info we get here ought to be as accurate as possible per the letter of the law. We should at least know what we may be breaking.

These discussions always degenerate to the arguement between pot advocates proclaiming all the alleged benefits and "Yeah,dude! But what about alcohol..." The arguement is endless.

My interpretation of my reading of the 4473 leaves me living in a way I can fearlessly say "Bring me a cup to pee in!" And I believe in YOUR freedom.

I've spent time around long term heavy pot smokers (I know,CBD is different) Some folks go over the edge into a sort of schizophrenic psychosis. "They are doing things to me. I'm being sabotaged" Its very real to them. They can get agitated to the point of being dangerous. Its sad. It can be more debilitating than being a paraplegic.

I've seen it.

Last edited by HiBC; December 30, 2022 at 05:10 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old December 30, 2022, 05:28 PM   #62
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
Quote:
There’s not as much information out there about the legality of using CBD products as there is for marijuana users.
Just to be clear, there is no legal use of marijuana in the U.S. The fact that some states have eliminated their laws has not eliminated the federal law against its possession and use. It is illegal to use or possess marijuana everywhere in the U.S. Period. No exceptions.

CBD products, on the other hand, can be legal or illegal--the problem is that there's essentially no way for a buyer to know for sure whether the product they purchased is legal or not.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 1, 2023, 02:38 AM   #63
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
CBD products, on the other hand, can be legal or illegal--the problem is that there's essentially no way for a buyer to know for sure whether the product they purchased is legal or not.
This is a long thread , I read a lot of it but not all .

The original question was about filling out the 4473 if I’m not mistaken. If one believes and has every reason to believe the CBD oil they use is legal . Can they say no I’m not a user of marijuana honestly ?

Point being if for what ever reason he finds him self in court and has used CBD oil he truly believes to be legal . When being asked “did you lie on the 4473” can he answer no with out perjuring himself ?

Doesn’t the state have the burden? Yes I understand not wanting to be the test case etc . Don’t they need to prove the product you used is illegal rather then you needing to prove it’s not ?

Obviously this would be contingent on how much you kept your mouth shut at the beginning of the process but assuming it’s just a simple question did you lie and he says no . What then ?
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; January 1, 2023 at 02:45 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old January 1, 2023, 03:08 AM   #64
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,929
Your scenario is that the person wants to avoid doing something illegal while at the same time assuming that they chose to use CBD when they can't really be sure if using it is legal or not.
Quote:
If one believes and has every reason to believe the CBD oil they use is legal . Can they say no I’m not a user of marijuana honestly ?
Sure. Will the state care about that if they have some sort of evidence that makes them think you did use marijuana? I doubt it.
Quote:
When being asked “did you lie on the 4473” can he answer no with out perjuring himself ?
Again, yes, but I'm not sure if the state will care. Presumably you're in court because they have some evidence against you. I doubt they will be impressed at your claim of innocence in the face of that evidence--it's a rare defendant that doesn't claim to be innocent.
Quote:
Doesn’t the state have the burden? Yes I understand not wanting to be the test case etc . Don’t they need to prove the product you used is illegal rather then you needing to prove it’s not ?
Yes, of course. But they don't have to prove the details of what caused you to test positive for THC, only that you did. Then it will be up to you to prove how the positive test results don't make you an unlawful marijuana user. It may be possible, but it won't be cheap.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 1, 2023, 03:42 AM   #65
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
Yes, of course. But they don't have to prove the details of what caused you to test positive for THC, only that you did. Then it will be up to you to prove how the positive test results don't make you an unlawful marijuana user. It may be possible, but it won't be cheap.
That’s the answer right there , thanks :-)
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old January 2, 2023, 12:51 AM   #66
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
Just remember, the federal government will likely be tryin to figure out if you are legal while keeping your prized collection in plastic trash cans with 4-8” of water in the bottom.

So, even if you win the case, did you ever really get “your” guns back?

As far as I can tell, there isn’t even any marijuana enforcement going on, but if tied to red flag law, you will likely never even have your dope seized, just your guns. That is the problem we face today.
Nathan is offline  
Old January 2, 2023, 02:23 AM   #67
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
At this point we seem to be just spinning in place, and swapping tales of various experiences on the subject of "cannabis chemicals" in drug tests and how govt and private employers react.

Many of the statutes and regs are written without any kind of amount limit or standard, which means any detectable presence can result in penalties being applied.

Until and unless there is a clear change in drug classifications as related to firearms law, any amount of anything on the "Controlled substance" list could be a disqualification or even possibly prosecutable.

I think we've taken this thread about as far as we can go at this time.

If you've got new, valid information, feel free to start a new thread.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.05792 seconds with 8 queries