Question E
Medical marijuana activist who used gun in self defense is not allowed to have guns:
A Washington state medical marijuana activist who nearly killed an intruder in his home this month has been barred from buying guns, even though he says he has no criminal record.
Steve Sarich says he tried to buy a shotgun and a pistol a few days after the March 15 shootout to replace ones that were seized by investigators, but he failed the background check.
The King County Sheriff’s Office sent him an e-mail Tuesday explaining the denial. It says Sarich showed investigators his paperwork as a medical marijuana patient, and those papers create a presumption that Sarich is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance.
Smoke weed for medical reasons and lose your right to buy the best means of self-defense.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:01 am
Actually the lesson here is that just because your state says it won’t prosecute you, doesn’t mean what you’re doing isn’t a felony.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:03 am
How dare the Sheriff enforce the law!
How typical, the Libertarians whine about the Rule of Law and not the Rule of Man and when the rule of law is implemented the libertarians whine and cry about how the law should not apply.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:07 am
and some times Libertarians don’t like the law and are critical of it. no one said it shouldn’t apply.
April 1st, 2010 at 10:39 am
12 e on the 4473 asks form if you use controlled substances. If he answered no he’s lucky that he just failed the check and wasn’t charged with false statements. Every “medical marijuana” user knows that even if their state has no problems with it, the Feds consider it unlawful, and the background check is a federal instrument.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:21 am
“How typical, the Libertarians whine about the Rule of Law and not the Rule of Man and when the rule of law is implemented the libertarians whine and cry about how the law should not apply.”
You seem to be implying that there _is_ a law that is applicable here. Perhaps you could let us know the specific phrase or combination of phrases in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the Federal government create such a “law”. Supreme Court rulings made decades (or centuries) after 1789 don’t have any bearing on that either except to the extent they point out “the specific phrase or combination of phrases”.
I won’t hold my breath.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:45 am
Its a misdemeanor here in Massachusetts for possession under an ounce. Might be an interesting alternative to a martini at the end of the day, but I’m not gonna play with fire.
Just because the Mass cops don’t care about the green stuff doesn’t mean the Federales don’t.
Let’s just hope the federales come to their fucking senses. (I won’t hold my breath)
April 1st, 2010 at 11:47 am
It seems to me that you can not be an unlawful user of a controlled substance if you are using it in a lawful way. If you are prescribed Morphine for pain, that does not make you an unlawful user of a controlled substance.
If there is a state check done for firearms purchases, and the substance in question is legal for him to use in his state, then this was an illegal denial. Sheriffs must obey the laws of their state.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Mu: a 4473 cannot be used as evidence of perjury, because you will go to jail if you don’t fill one out.
The SCOTUS has found that this makes a 4473 immune testimony, as it is compelled by law.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Perhaps you could let us know the specific phrase or combination of phrases in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the Federal government create such a “law”.
Surely you’re not that naive.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Actually, a better question is where is the authority for that presumption? The Sheriff can’t just come up with it on his own. There has to be either a statute or an advisory from the DA or Attorney General based on case law that gives him that authority.
April 1st, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Washington state also has some serious HIPAA issues to clear up regarding medical marijuana, too.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/march092010/norml-wc-mm.php
And the forces of darkness have already lost one round on that issue in California.
If it’s medical marijuana, it’s between him, and his doctor. Cops have absolutely no business making medical decisions.
April 1st, 2010 at 2:34 pm
phelps: Cops aren’t making a “medical decision” in this case. They’re making a legal one.
“It involves a doctor” does not somehow mean that they can just ignore the Federal law that says A) it’s not lawful to use marijuana and B) it’s not lawful to do a 4473 transfer to someone who is an unlawful user of marijuana.
The law is stupid, but it is the law, and it’s stood up to a fair number of challenges, as far as I recall.
April 1st, 2010 at 2:48 pm
To all you “law is the law types”:
When Obama passes AWB2, and that law has no grandfather clause, I guess you are all going to turn in your guns, and turn in anyone who doesn’t turn in his guns. After all, the law is the law.
Or are you only a supporter of law and order when it isn’t YOUR oxe being gored?
April 1st, 2010 at 3:58 pm
But if you are prescribed marijuana, it does. Federal law allows for the medical use of morphine, but there is no allowance for the medical use of MJ*. Unlike morphine, the prescription does not make it legal. Even if it is legal under state law, it is still a violation of federal law.
* I am ignoring, for the sake of this argument, the question of the Constitutionality of this law. It is what we have to deal with right now, and what the Sheriff in this instance has to deal with.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Mediweed users are an increasingly favorite target for home invasions, per local news.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:08 pm
soon to be more so, if disarmed.
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:11 am
That the sheriff is involved at all is something of a mystery. As far as I can determine the only time local (as in Washington state) approval is required is for the purchase of a “pistol” from a _licensed_ firearms dealer. Long guns do not require _any_ approval from (or even notification of) local officials.
RCW 9.41.090
Wolfwood: “Surely you’re not that naive.”
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: I do understand the difference between power and authority. Sometimes it just annoys me when people who I am sure know better speak as if something was an exercise of the latter when it is plainly an exercise of the former. And Washington State law doesn’t provide the Sheriff any authority in the matter either as far as I can tell (and I read _all_ of the RCWs covering the subject multiple times).
April 2nd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
What’s the Sheriff doing enforcing federal law?
April 2nd, 2010 at 4:49 pm
I guess I’m suffering a slight reading comprehension problem. From the quoted article: “…buy a shotgun and a pistol…”. The attempt to purchase the _pistol_ is what got the sheriff involved per Washington State law — as I noted in comment #17 above. I just didn’t notice the attempt to buy a pistol.
If he was to go to a _different_ store and only buy a long gun, I’m sure the _Federal_ okay would come through and the _State_ would never even know about it.
April 2nd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Oddly enough – the unconvicted drug *dealer* is fine on a 4473 (not, ya know, being convicted of a felony). There’s some question as to whether this guy actually is a user or just has the card to be abel to (semi-)legally sell the stuff.
April 6th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
I would say having dope in the house, legally or otherwise would certainlly attract the wrong kind of attention. You would certainly want to have some form of protection.