You’re eliding important phrases as you quote statute, and simultaneously chiding me about good faith debate?
Wow.
You have no idea what you’re taking about. Before you respond again, try actually reading the relevant posts.
A’ight. Before I cop to any of the felonies I may have committed, I want a promise of blanket immunity.
ETA: does it count as distribution if you don’t make a profit?
I know exactly what I’m talking about. You’re taking every single ambiguity in your favor. You’re construing a few state laws as blanketing the entire country, and asserting it doesn’t make a difference because apparently you were talking about “moral” felonies. You’re asserting that a federal felony occurs any time a person uses marijuana while owning a firearm, while carefully not posting the caselaw that eviscerates that claim.
Unfortunately for my older brother, yes.
Like where I assumed that the 5.5% and 6.5% in the tax study weren’t cumulative? Or like where I assumed that everyone in the drug distribution network was captured by the SAMHSA data?
Once again you utterly fail to charitably or remotely correctly characterize my argument.
“While carefully not posting the caselaw that eviscerates that claim…” This doesn’t even make sense even if the premise–that caselaw eviscerates my claim–were true. What the fuck does it mean to “carefully not post” a Fifth Circuit opinion when I make a side comment about a particular crime? You’re deep into crazytown.
Let’s recap. I noted that there is a federal statute which states that it is unlawful for someone who is an unlawful user of drugs to possess a firearm. That’s the statutory language. I suggest you read it.
Then I helpfully quoted ATF guidance on the subject, which further elaborates, though of course is not binding. You accused me of misleadingly quoting the statute–a double falsehood since you apparently weren’t reading close enough to understand what was being quoted was ATF guidance, and since my quote accurately captured the meaning. And, in any event, I linked to the page from which I pulled the quote.
Now your new claim is that I was being misleading because I did not post the Circuit Court of Appeals decision which noted in dicta (!) that prosecutors claimed they would not charge for a single use.
What is wrong with you? In what world does that eviscerate my claim, much less show that I was being misleading in quoting the ATF guidance?
I conclude from this that you aren’t reading carefully and are just being pissy–for reasons entirely unclear to me. I don’t have the energy or interest in responding further until you give me some glimmer of good faith.
Jack smokes a marijuana joint.
Next week, he purchases a pistol.
Are you contending that either of those acts are a felony?
US v. Purdy, 264 F. 3d 809 (9th Cir. 2001). Page 813.
Yes, RP asked if Shodan had ever used illegal drugs while owning a firearm.
But that’s not enough to trigger the law. The use of drugs can’t be single or occasional: it must be with regularity, over an extended period of time.
Once again, no, you didn’t. This is what you wrote:
*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 believe I have presented sufficient evidence that a common sense reading of the statute when not edited by you and you adding “[is]” (which changes how one would interpret the passage). “Unlawful user” ≠ anyone that has ever used a drug ulawfully. It was also interpreted just as I have by the Fifth Circuit, as you already noted, and the Fourth Circuit.:
This is not accurate. Someone can say, “Yes, I have used an illegal drug while owning a firearm,” and still not be guilty of a felony. Because, you see, the drug use in question under 922(g)(3) must be… (say it with me):
I didn’t finish the first sentence in the fourth paragraph above. It should have read:
I believe I have presented sufficient evidence that a common sense reading of the statute when not edited by you and you adding “[is]” (which changes how one would interpret the passage) does not make it a felony to partake in one-time or casual illegal drug use while being the owner of a firearm.
No. We’re not saying that people’s actions are less of a factor than their circumstances. It’s a truism that everyone is responsible for his or her own actions, and that the decision to engage in whatever action it is is step one in the process. That doesn’t need to be debated.
What we are saying is two related things: 1) that people’s circumstances are a large factor in whether or not they end up being called criminals; and 2) that most people engage in the stupid behaviors that get them past step one and into the circumstance-hopper that may or may not result in them being called criminals.
Trivial example that will illustrate the principle: speeding tickets. “Everyone” speeds, right? And if you get a speeding ticket it’s your own fault and it isn’t your circumstances’ fault. But go ahead and go speed in a Subaru wagon while being a blond lady in Greenwich, Connecticut, and then go speed in a Crown Vic with tinted windows in Flint. It’s not because of the environment that you got a speeding ticket, it’s just that practically speaking, the difference between one person and another in terms of classifying them “speeders” is often enough environmental that the distinction is useless. If everyone speeds but 85% of group B gets tickets for it and 15% of group A gets them, and then you discriminate against speeders, all you’ve really done is doubly discriminate against group B.
Well, no. You had it, you had it, and then you lost it. Yes, it is that felonies are being committed by everyone. No, it’s not that the minority is the people who commit felonies. There’s a minority even within the community of people that commit felonies. The intra-group distinction between erstwhile felons who haven’t been caught and actual felons who have been caught is a huge and very much environmentally-determined. As a result, it doesn’t matter whether it’s trivially easy to avoid committing felonies or not, because most people don’t avoid it.
As a slightly tangential point, there’s also a significant self-reinforcing effect which is created by considering certain groups of people as inordinately felony-prone, and then considering that group’s behavior inherently suspect, and then evaluating our ideas about what behaviors deserve societal approbation based on those suspicions.
It seems then that the court should strike down the ATF implementation of the rule where they will deny a purchase to one with a possession conviction in the last year or multiple arrests within five years.
The last one is the most egregious. They are using acquittals as a reason to deny someone a basic right.
If the use must be with regularity and over an extended period of time, then one conviction for possession shouldn’t be sufficient either. It could have been the only time the guy used.
ETA: It would seem like the law would be unenforceable. If you get caught smoking weed with a gun on your waistband, just say today was the first time smoking.
I love that you asked me this, then proceeded to answer your own question, and then proceeded to quote and correct my initial question to Shodan–all before I had a chance to respond. You were so eager to show that the premise of my question for Shodan was wrong, you couldn’t even wait for me to just come back and answer. (All while never taking responsibility for incorrectly saying I misleadingly quoted the statute and not acknowledging that the cases you now cite had not been cited.)
Well, I agree. Having now read the Court of Appeals cases that actually did decide this issue, unlike the earlier-cited Fifth Circuit opinion, I am persuaded that prosecution of this law for single use is unlikely to succeed, though the issue has not yet been settled by the Supreme Court.
Both you and xray seem to think you’ve seized on some effort to mislead because you did some legal research and discovered that courts have narrowed this statute. That’s an absurd standard. Some of those Court of Appeals cases involved federal prosecutors bringing charges for single use, which the district courts upheld. And yet somehow I am misleading by not doing background legal research when I offhandedly mention a statute I just discovered.
But since you’ve proved that this application of the statute would not likely be upheld, I will deduct the percentage that I had added to our total for this crime. Ready? Deducting now…oh, wait…no, this was a side question not even added to the total. Oh well. I learned something new anyway.
Yes, you are.
This is not a standard I would impose on every poster, but I know very well that you have Westlaw/Lexis access. You threw out a hugely sweeping claim in order to bolster your hugely sweeping point – accusations you indignantly denied above.
Now you’re caught and you concede the point.
Sure you were being misleading. I simply don’t know how intentional it was.
I continue to indignantly deny them and your standard is absurd.
I was naive in starting this thread for you.
Does “naive” mean “hoping to use selective quotation and absurdly sweeping generalizations in an effort to bolster a highly speculative claim?”
Because if so, I agree.