That happens all the time, too. Hopefully nothing I wrote implied otherwise. the medical profession largely consists of human beings, a population known to make mistakes now and then...Originally Posted by willie
That happens all the time, too. Hopefully nothing I wrote implied otherwise. the medical profession largely consists of human beings, a population known to make mistakes now and then...
That's right. A surgeon here, while doing a knee replacement, carried out the procedure on the wrong knee. Then he did it again a few weeks later. A thoracic surgeon in Dallas made the news when she had intended to remove the cancerous lung but instead removed the non malignant one. As my wife said, she can't lie out of it in this case.
Iatrogenesis: 3rd leading cause of death in US.
The question is, does the law state that using MJ *NOW* disqualifies you from possessing firearms from *BEFORE* your first (documented?) usage of MJ? I.E. a retroactive disqualification?
Why not. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. For that matter someone should read through the requirements for the job they applied for. If there were requirements that they can’t hold said office if they were drug users then they should pay back their salaries and retirement checks.
Last edited by TAZ; 12-04-2017 at 06:00 PM.
Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), prohibits any person who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 802))" from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition. Marijuana is listed in the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I controlled substance, and there are no exceptions in Federal law for marijuana used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by State law.
Further, Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), makes it unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. As provided by 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, "an inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time."
Any person who uses marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. Such persons should answer "yes" to question 11(e) on ATF Form 4473 (August 2008), Firearms Transaction Record. The penalty for lying on a form 4473 (therefore violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(g)(3)) is to be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined or both.
When State and Federal law conflict, Federal law controls, "The ways in which federal law may pre-empt state law are well established and in the first instance turn on congressional intent. . . . Congress' intent to supplant state authority in a particular field may be express[ed] in the terms of the statute Absent explicit pre-emptive language, Congress' intent to supersede state law in a given area may nonetheless be implicit if a scheme of federal regulation is so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the [ s]tates to supplement it, if the [a]ct of Congress . . . touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject, or if the goals sought to be obtained and the obligations imposed reveal a purpose to preclude state authority. . . . Even when Congress has not chosen to occupy a particular field, pre-emption may occur to the extent that state and federal law actually conflict. Such a conflict arises when compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility . . . or when a state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Wisconsin Public Intervenor Mortier, 501 U.S. 597, 604-605, 111 S. Ct. 2476, 115 L. Ed. 2d 532 (1991)
Because Congress has implemented comprehensive legislation in the field of firearms (18 U.S.C. §922, et seq.) and controlled substances (21 U.S.C. § 802) it is, “…impossible to comply with both…” Hackett v. J.L.G. Properties, LLC, 285 Conn. 498, 940 A.2d 769 (2008), state and federal law on this issue, “…because the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of congressional objectives.” Id.
What is the temporal window for 'use'. Does it apply to the distant past of young and foolish adulthood - before you became a politician? Does 'use' mean 'used at one time'?
I see figures that between 40 to 50% admit to have 'used' it at one time.
HPD walkin' it back: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...188729984.html
Okie John
Last edited by okie john; 12-08-2017 at 11:59 AM.
“The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
"Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's
From the article:
Alcohol - need anymore be said on this? https://www.ncadd.org/about-addictio...rugs-and-crimeThat lines up with a 2016 ruling from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that said it isn’t an infringement of someone’s Second Amendment rights to ban them from buying a gun if they use weed.
“It is beyond dispute that illegal drug users, including marijuana users, are likely as a consequence of that use to experience altered or impaired mental states that affect their judgment and that can lead to irrational or unpredictable behavior,” the court said.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...#storylink=cpy
Reply With Quote