A number of those States issue "Medical Use" ID cards for users to go to the Dispensaries for their legal doses. Some of those are photo IDs.
Yeah it's why there is justice for some and not for others it's pretty corrupt.And at least one I know of lied on his 4473 form about drug use when buying a gun… then allegedly tossed it in a dumpster somewhere later on.
After decades of working with many alphabet agencies and supervising task force investigators assigned to joint operations, I will opine that the Fed LEO’S love sexy cases, their AUSA’S love sexy, gift-wrapped cases. Anything else is almost always a no-go with them.
If it’s a political hot potato, it better be a case that won’t piss off the current leadership. If it will, those often get drug out until the statute of limitations expires and they fade away.
Stay safe.
That is good.
‘ He who snaps like twig’ is the one to stay far away from. 
. So so guess technically I brought an A-bolt .338 WM and a Win 1894 .30-30 to school… if that counts.
This.
Proving gun control is bogus when they want it to be.This.
Several years ago I had a young man get denied on his NICS check. I gave him the appeal info. Many months later I contacted him too see if he had heard anything. He claimed the FBI would not tell him the reason. I knew that wasn't true and told him storage fees would begin that day.
Two months later he calls and says his appeal was approved. He brought in a FBI document that said he could now purchase a firearm as his period of deferred adjudication had expired for a drug offense. Yet when he filled out his 4473, he stated he was not under indictment or information that could result in a felony or imprisonment for more than a year. He lied.
I called my IOI and asked if I could transfer being that its damn clear he was prohibited when he filled out the 4473. Her response? "The Dallas US Attorneys Office will not accept charges on 4473's".
You must have missed the "generally" part of that post. No one is completely law abiding.
Are you saying you think she bears no responsibility for what her six-year-old did?
Hear! Hear!
"The Dallas US Attorneys Office will not accept charges on 4473's".
BINGO! We have a winner. No more calls, please. I can't believe the federal govenrment hasn't invoked the Supremacy clause on this.
Yep, you missed the "generally" part. I specifically said it. It is widely regarded as legal in most states by most people, even non users. I'm aware it's not legal on the federal level, most people don't seem to care about that until they bring the hammer down. Don't get me confused with somebody who is pro pot, but I think if we are at a point in our society where the president is mailing everybody papers stating that at his direction he is having all marijuana convictions past and present "expunged" from record why don't they legalize it already and get done with the federal/state ambiguity.....
This.
Several years ago I had a young man get denied on his NICS check. I gave him the appeal info. Many months later I contacted him too see if he had heard anything. He claimed the FBI would not tell him the reason. I knew that wasn't true and told him storage fees would begin that day.
Two months later he calls and says his appeal was approved. He brought in a FBI document that said he could now purchase a firearm as his period of deferred adjudication had expired for a drug offense. Yet when he filled out his 4473, he stated he was not under indictment or information that could result in a felony or imprisonment for more than a year. He lied.
I called my IOI and asked if I could transfer being that its damn clear he was prohibited when he filled out the 4473. Her response? "The Dallas US Attorneys Office will not accept charges on 4473's".
Most people break laws that are well known. Speed limits, for example. Point is, a person who smokes pot but is otherwise law abiding could still, IMO, be considered to be generally law abiding, much like someone who breaks speed limits but is otherwise law abiding. All that said, this is all a matter of opinion. I appreciate you defining the terms that you're using. That's a critical step that is too often missing in these sorts of discussions.
To be fair, it's not ambiguous as far as buying a firearm at a dealer goes. The 4473 is quite clear and concise about it. If someone checks no on that question, they either know very well that they're lying or they flat just didn't read what they were signing.
This has to be sarcasm, yes? Sometimes it's hard to tell in writing.
