Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So should someone with a major mental disability or a convicted felon with a history of using a gun to commit crimes have the right to own a firearm?
If you are walking freely and not incarcerated, you have all your god given rights, including the right to defend ones self from all forms of oppression.
If you are walking freely and not incarcerated, you have all your god given rights, including the right to defend ones self from all forms of oppression.
One can have their rights removed through due process. Filing out a form is not due process and not a way to remove Constitutional rights.
In the end though, I still say ignore the government. Buy the gun off your neighbor or the guy on the street corner.
Haynes v. US 1968
The NFA only applies to those who may legally possess firearms. While a prohibited person may be prosecuted for possession of a firearm, they cannot be prosecuted for attempting to acquire through legal channels or failure to register where needed.
Thank you for the cite.
Um, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. Here's why:
Haynes was charged with not registering a firearm (because he is a felon), which is an act of omission. That means he merely failed to do the right thing.
I equate that to a situation I frequently run into: I have a suspect in the interview room. He tells me he didn't do the crime; I know he's lying. I arrest him - or get him indicted - and he is convicted. He lied to a federal agent. Can I charge him with 1001 - or at least enhance his sentencing for a false statement? No. The suspect merely failed to admit to his wrongdoing. The Supremes have thus held that falsely denying involvement in a crime is not punishable.
However, the 4473 didn't exist in 1968. It takes an affirmative step (not merely a failure) to obtain and complete a 4473.
Intentionally marking a 4473 in a false manner today is therefore an act of commission, and indeed, one intended to secure something of value. In fact, the 2B1.1 table of the US sentencing guidelines attaches to violations of 18 USC 1001. That table establishes a set of increasing penalties based on the asset's value taken or received in the offense.
It's one thing to simply fail to tell the truth, which may be incriminating (Haynes). It is an entirely different thing to go out of your way to tell the government a falsehood (18 USC 1001, as it applies to the 4473).
That's my take on it. I think NotMeOfficer has it exactly right.
Um, I'm going to respectfully disagree with you. Here's why:
Haynes was charged with not registering a firearm (because he is a felon), which is an act of omission. That means he merely failed to do the right thing.
I equate that to a situation I frequently run into: I have a suspect in the interview room. He tells me he didn't do the crime; I know he's lying. I arrest him - or get him indicted - and he is convicted. He lied to a federal agent. Can I charge him with 1001 - or at least enhance his sentencing for a false statement? No. The suspect merely failed to admit to his wrongdoing. The Supremes have thus held that falsely denying involvement in a crime is not punishable.
However, the 4473 didn't exist in 1968. It takes an affirmative step (not merely a failure) to obtain and complete a 4473.
Intentionally marking a 4473 in a false manner today is therefore an act of commission, and indeed, one intended to secure something of value. In fact, the 2B1.1 table of the US sentencing guidelines attaches to violations of 18 USC 1001. That table establishes a set of increasing penalties based on the asset's value taken or received in the offense.
It's one thing to simply fail to tell the truth, which may be incriminating (Haynes). It is an entirely different thing to go out of your way to tell the government a falsehood (18 USC 1001, as it applies to the 4473).
That's my take on it. I think NotMeOfficer has it exactly right.
Thanks for the thoughtful debate.
The 4473 is a product of the 1968 GCA and the ruling applies to the 1968 GCA.
You can respectfully disagree. However there have been many cases heard that have been dismissed using Haynes, on the grounds that self incrimination was necessary to comply with a law that permits the exercise of a fundamental right.
In the instance of using MJ medical or otherwise in a state that permits it's use medical or otherwise in contravention of Federal Law, creates a no win situation for the applicant. They are either forced to self incriminate or violate 18 USC 1001 (assuming your statute is correct). The 2nd is a fundamental and enumerated right.
Further at the time of Haynes it was not incontrovertally accepted by SCOTUS that the 2nd Amendment was a fundamental right. Miller v. Chicago majority stated that the right to self defense with common weapons is indeed a fundamental right.
As I said the court has ruled that federal supremacy applies to MJ prohibition. However no such ruling exists under the 5th Amendment, further no case has been brought regarding the disclosure of patient treatment as medically advised to the US government, leading to the suspension of rights.
I think that given options for arguments it may be a difficult case to uphold.
Location: planet octupulous is nearing earths atmosphere
13,621 posts, read 12,733,455 times
Reputation: 20050
Quote:
Originally Posted by notmeofficer
The law is further clarified
Already vetted by the ninth
An excellent tool to be used on people who should not have firearms...which surprisingly are found at many if not most places where marijuana is grown illegally.
I wonder when people realize that regulation of either or both Marijuana and firearms is completely absurd. The only thing that is accomplished is higher prices and wealthy criminals. Great idea.
MJ should be sold at booze stores and guns hardware stores along with the rest of the tools.
I think it's been covered, but worth noting. The NICS system (National Instant Check System) is rejecting people violating federal drug laws. Purchases are rejected for those possessing "medical MJ" cards. Lets hear it for universal background checks, right?
Stoners would rather spend their money on dope.
However, the stoned crowd just collectively said "DOH"!!!!
What's new is the clarification that all use is considered unlawful for the purpose of the application. And the expansion of reporting of MMJ permits to NICS which does not apply to any other form of treatments Doctors may prescribe.
Possession of a card is NOT possession or use of a substance!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
