The quote above you posted is not copy and pasted in that exact manner and you are making it look like it says something that it doesn’t. A real copy and paste (bolding mine):
I don’t think your correction is doing what you think it’s doing. He didn’t cut anything out that makes the passage misleading.
He said:
*By the way, Shodan, have you ever used any illegal drug while owning a firearm?
I was surprised to learn that is a felony.*
It’s not a felony under all circumstances, although that was his claim and what his altered copy and paste makes it seem.
I think you may be getting confused by the things you bolded, thinking they change the meaning of the passage. They don’t do so. There are two types of unlawful users impacted by this law. 1. A user of a controlled substance who has lost the power of self-control (in other words, an addict of a legal controlled substance); and 2. A user of an illegal substance, whether addicted or not.
As to the OP, yes, I think a majority of Americans have committed felonies. Lots of us just never get caught, because we aren’t the droids they are looking for.
How do you define “user”? The passage I quoted doesn’t seem to be defining one who has ever used an illegal drug, which is what Richard Parker has done.
It’s not anyone who has ever used an illegal drug. It is anyone who is a current user of a drug, with “current user” not requiring that they be shooting up while purchasing the gun. They cannot possess the gun and be a current user of drugs. They cannot purchase a gun if they are a current user. RP asked if Shodan had ever used illegal drugs while owning a firearm. He didn’t ask if Shodan had ever used illegal drugs then at some later date purchased a gun.
I know what RP asked. I never inferred that he asked if Shodan had ever used illegal drugs then at some later date purchased a gun.
What I quoted does not say that one who has ever used an illegal drug while owning a firearm has committed a felony. RP did claim that and he altered the quote to make it seem the same.
What do you think the alterations did? I have not read the whole link (and have no intention of doing so). But I have read both what RP said and what you are claiming and I do not agree at all that his alterations do what you claim they did. You put things back in that were immaterial for the statement he made. He did not address how long before purchase someone could use drugs and still be a user. What you put back in only addresses that aspect of the timing. It does not address using drugs while owning the firearm.
I told you several times. It made it support his statement that having ever used an illegal drug while owning a gun is a felony.
Okay.
But what you added back in does not contradict that. How do you feel it contradicts that?
Oh, for fuck’s sake! RP made the statement that having ever used illegal drugs while owning a firearm is a felony. He copy and pasted a portion of a cite that has parts snipped out that when cited in its entirety go into greater detail which show that it’s not as simple as just having used a drug.
When read intact, it makes it more clear that what is being referenced is not a one time or casual user, but one possessing attributes of one with a drug problem.
No, it doesn’t. It makes it clear that what is being referenced is two types of users, both of which are barred. Read your own quote: “Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” There is an “or” in there. To be an unlawful user does not require that you be addicted. It requires only that you use the substance and that your use does not conform to a prescription. That can be because it’s a legal drug but you do not have a prescription, that it is an illegal drug, or that your use is not in line with the prescription in some other way.
Go back to what RP said: “used an illegal drug while owning a firearm.” He specifies “illegal drug” which is an unlawful use. And the text you both quoted makes it clear that just being in possession of the drug will lead to an inference of unlawful use. So, it goes like this:
1: buy a gun
2: use an illegal drug while still owning the gun
3: you are in violation of this rule
The only wiggle room is when the order is reversed.
1: use an illegal drug
2: buy a gun at some unspecified time afterward
3: you may be in violation of this rule, depending on whether the circumstances warrant considering you a current user of the drug
I read it. That is the title of that section. The rest goes into more detail.
What do you mean by “use”? Do you mean even use once? Because that’s not what’s written in the statute.
Read intact:
I don’t interpret that to mean one use or casual use. I don’t think a judge would either.
No. It states attributes that defines one as an unlawful user and it the one instance of the term “unlawful use” is followed by “has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct.”
An “inference of current use” is “multiple arrests.” I wonder why “multiple” would be an inference of current use if the law is referring to even one time users?
Yes. an “inference.”
Multiple arrests is one avenue toward the inference. Others are “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.”
They will use multiple arrests to infer that you are a drug user. If you are standing in front of them with a needle in your arm, they do not need to look to multiple arrests. If they catch you with heroin in your pockets, they can infer you are a user. If you have multiple arrests, they can infer you are a user.
The “actively engaged” is opposed to someone who quit and is in rehab or the like, or someone who used drugs once and it was a while ago. That portion only applies to someone who used drugs at some point and then goes on at some later time to buy/possess a gun.
If you used drugs last month, they may or may not consider you actively engaged. If you used drugs last month while you owned a gun you were in violation of this rule. If you own a gun now and use drugs, you are in violation of this rule. If you have a pocket full of heroin, they will infer that you are a user and you will be in violation of this rule. If you have tons of arrests for drugs, they will infer that you are a user and you will be in violation of this rule.
And again, the RP statement was about someone using illegal drugs and owning a firearm at the same time. This is clearly a violation of this rule.
Do you see the semi-colon? That is showing that these are two separate ideas:
-
A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of the controlled substance (what we would call an addict)
-
Any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician (someone using an illegal drug or a legal drug unlawfully)
You only need to be one of the two types, not both. “A person who does X” and “any person who does Y” are both covered.
The rest describes how current the use has to be and describes the inferences they will use to make their argument that you are a current user. It does not say that you are only a user if you use all the time or are an addict. It does not say that the first one is free. It does not say that you can use drugs and not be considered a user. It is merely talking about how recent the use has to be and what other information they can use to demonstrate the use.
So, addicted to oxy? This applies to you. Addicted to Chapstick and caffeine? It doesn’t. Lawful user of oxy without addiction? It doesn’t.
User of any controlled drug without a valid prescription, which would include drugs for which there are no valid prescriptions? This applies to you. If the use predates the purchase, it depends on how long ago it was and under what circumstances to determine if you are still barred. But the gun and the drugs can never be at the same time. You cannot buy a gun one minute then snort coke up, or snort coke then buy a gun. You might be able to snort coke, go into rehab, then buy a gun, if circumstances show you are not actively engaged in drug use.
Yes, indeedy. An inference. They get to use things that are not iron-clad proof. They get to infer from circumstances that you are a user. They don’t actually need to infer from circumstances if you are using right in front of them. And, most importantly, if you are using drugs, YOU don’t need to infer anything to know you are using drugs and that you are in violation. RP asked Shodan if he had ever used illegal drugs while owning a firearm. I would expect Shodan to know, not to have to rely on inference, whether he used illegal drugs.
No, it wasn’t. “Using” implies use over time. He stated:
*By the way, Shodan, have you ever used any illegal drug while owning a firearm?
I was surprised to learn that is a felony.*
I went through this with you already. I also quoted what RP wrote several times and you still claim it was something else.
Yes, I see the semi-colon. I also see what comes after where you stopped quoting. Hell, even the part that you quote does not match up with RP’s claim. Note “current user” and “using.” More follows starting with “and any person who is a current user…”
then…
“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.”
It is clear to me that they are not referencing a one time user.
Want outside citations that agrees with me?:
http://www.williamslawonline.com/Press-Room/Top-10-Things-Know-About-Federal-Gun-Law.shtml
I think it’s fair to say that most people have committed at least one felony in their lives. DUI/DWI can be a felony, depending how many times you’ve done it. Most people have had a few drinks and driven at least a few times in their lives. Unless you’re testing your own BAC every time, you could be DUI and not even know for certain that you’re doing it. There is no perceptible difference between .079 and .08.
Most people don’t report use tax for internet purchases, either. That loophole is being closed by many states, but it existed for a long time.
No, that didn’t happen at all. You asserted that people know the penalties for pot possession from state to state. I think that’s extremely unlikely. I’ve lived in several states, and I am more attuned to legal niceties than most, and I have no idea the pot penalties.
So by this simple logic the rate of recidivism for all crimes should be very low, right?
You do know the opposite is true, right?
This is a terrible understanding of my argument. If you want me to explain it to you better, I’m happy to. But if you’re just going to toss off half-thought-out snark, I’ll pass on engaging you until you’re interested in debating in good faith.
But in most jurisdictions, none of those are felonies, which require additional circumstances, such as property damage, injury or loss of life.