Odd FTF transaction, and ethical question.
- Thread starter Grassman
- Start date
- Status
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Degrees of Connection
I have a family member (someone in my extended family) who has 1) never been in trouble with the law, 2) never used drugs, 3) has occasionally abused alcohol, but only drinks on occasion, 4) has no history of violence or depression, BUT 5) has really poor judgment in selecting friends.
Because of this single last factor, I have withheld giving this person a gun. I have taken that person shooting, and I don't worry in the least about carelessness. This person actually shoots one of my guns better than I do, and exhibits very acceptable careful handling. When I see a significant improvement in associations, I may reconsider.
I've given guns to three members of my family (including extended family), but I've just not been able to bring myself to give this person a gun because I do not trust this person's friends.
I might suggest that you consider this factor in selling this firearm to your cousin.
He may be an okay guy, but it sounds like one of his problems with judgment will be his selection of friends.
You must assume his friends will have access to this gun.
Just something for you to contemplate as you go forward with this.
I have a family member (someone in my extended family) who has 1) never been in trouble with the law, 2) never used drugs, 3) has occasionally abused alcohol, but only drinks on occasion, 4) has no history of violence or depression, BUT 5) has really poor judgment in selecting friends.
Because of this single last factor, I have withheld giving this person a gun. I have taken that person shooting, and I don't worry in the least about carelessness. This person actually shoots one of my guns better than I do, and exhibits very acceptable careful handling. When I see a significant improvement in associations, I may reconsider.
I've given guns to three members of my family (including extended family), but I've just not been able to bring myself to give this person a gun because I do not trust this person's friends.
I might suggest that you consider this factor in selling this firearm to your cousin.
He may be an okay guy, but it sounds like one of his problems with judgment will be his selection of friends.
You must assume his friends will have access to this gun.
Just something for you to contemplate as you go forward with this.
Ryder
Member
What's a second cousin? Some kind of Southern thing? A cousin's cousin? Never met one.
Yes I'd sell as long as I believed him to be a non-violent/honest person. Guns aren't dangerous the person using them is.
Yes I'd sell as long as I believed him to be a non-violent/honest person. Guns aren't dangerous the person using them is.
Erik M
Member
family doesn't matter form a legal standpoint. If they are not in trouble with the law ans have no felonious criminal record Ill take their money. what they do in their free time is none of my business.
dogtown tom
Member
Wanna show us where cigarette smoking is prohibited in Federal law?
Exactly.
Are you his only source for getting a gun?
If he needs a gun that bad, is there anything that is preventing him from buying a firearm from a licensed dealer & passing a NICS check?
Yankees.
Here....this may help:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin.
shotgunjoel
Member
No, not a southern thing. Your second cousin would be the child of your parent's cousin. So If your mom has a cousin named Kim, who has a son named Aaron, then Aaron would be your second cousin. (btw, Kim would be your first cousin once removed, since she would be a generation off.)
ma deuce
member
selling it is fine
We can try to stop people we know from doing things that we are against, but regardless of where he gets a gun, you can never control what he'll do with it.
We can try to stop people we know from doing things that we are against, but regardless of where he gets a gun, you can never control what he'll do with it.
General Geoff
Member
Did I ever say it was? The question specifies unlawful user of, OR addicted to, among other things, narcotic drugs. Last I checked, nicotine was a (legal) narcotic, and the question does not say "illegal narcotic drugs."
edit; Those who depend on a cup of coffee in the morning to wake up may also qualify, since caffeine is indeed a stimulant.
Last edited:
dogtown tom
Member
Uh...yeah it does. Thats what UNLAWFUL means.
.
Last edited:
General Geoff
Member
I didn't miss the point, and I'm not being silly. I merely pointed out a technicality on the wording of the question, and as we all know, legal forms all depend on technicalities.
Last I checked, those were ALL controlled substances, as they are all regulated (controlled) by the FDA.
edit;
Last I checked, those were ALL controlled substances, as they are all regulated (controlled) by the FDA.
edit;
Unlawful user is contained in a separate qualifying descriptor from "addicted to." Thus, one need not be an unlawful user of a drug, but merely be addicted to a listed drug, in order to have to answer YES to the question.
Last edited:
dogtown tom
Member
sorry, tried to correct spelling and erased part of my post!
Go here to see what are "controlled substances":[URL="http://]www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html[/URL]
I know that, as does every other FFL. What you don't get is tobacco and caffeine ARE NOT controlled substances under Federal law. Feel free to turn me in to ATF tomorrow morning because I'm truly addicted to the caffeine in CocaCola, my stimulant of choice.
It's no technicality.
Uh......no, they aren't controlled substances. Ask your local pharmacist.
Go here to see what are "controlled substances":[URL="http://]www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html[/URL]
I know that, as does every other FFL. What you don't get is tobacco and caffeine ARE NOT controlled substances under Federal law. Feel free to turn me in to ATF tomorrow morning because I'm truly addicted to the caffeine in CocaCola, my stimulant of choice.
General Geoff
Member
Perhaps the problem here is that I'm using the literal definitions of controlled substance, narcotic, and stimulant, instead of the legal definitions (I was unaware that the legal definitions for such were so far removed from their medically accepted/literal definitions).
Balog
Member
Nothing helps a man with an ethical question quite like bickering over semantics.
General Geoff
Member
The ethical issue was decided long ago; the legal issue is all that remains, and legality often depends ENTIRELY on semantics.
dogtown tom
Member
+1 General Geoff
I don't think anyone does time for beng unethical. (even if they should)
kingpin008
Member
I wouldn't call an "industry" that motivates it's employees and consumers to commit robberies, assaults, murders, vandalism, property theft, intimidation, and many, many other criminal acts "victimless".
General Geoff
Member
An industry has no will of its own, thus it is not responsible for any victims involved in the illicit drug trade. It is the constituent members of said industry, who have a will of their own, that victimize others by their own volition.
Good Common Sense?
"...I've been clean for a long time now mostly alcohol but also pain pills from a back injury years ago,went to treatment and still go to meetings and talk to my sponsor. How many people on this board went to Woodstock and grew up in the 60's smoking weed and using hallucinogenics. If all of the people who did that answered truthfully on the 4473 this board would be empty as no one would own a gun . I'm proud to be clean and sober and believe anyone with a drug and alcohol problem can turn their life around if they really want to. Now if you said he just got out of rehab for the 3rd or 4th time I wouldn't sell to him since he clearly isn't ready. JMHO
__________________
Certified Ruger Nut
When all the others
are in the boneyard
the rugers are still
going strong!!! "
My thoughts drift towards what happened at Virginia Tech. Just because this guy hasn't broken or been caught breaking the law it's okay to sell him a gun? Just because one hasn't been caught burglerizing a home, stealing, getting into a violent fight then he is not a criminal??? How does a non-clinician/psychologist QUANTIFY how sober or harmless a drug addict is??? Can one believe everything an addict says when they themselves cannot be honest to themselves about their addiction? If in his moment of weakness through his disease he unwillingly kills someone as a big mistake, how can you the FFL/a relative justify selling him a gun when you know the letter of the law? I think there exists a reason that those who enforce the law are held to the highest standard(lie detector tests, drug screening, etc...) in order to serve and protect the public at large. When one signs legal documents relevant to drug usage, anger management, and misleads about prior use makes one deceitful, complicit even though your prior use will more than likely have no further influence on your current state of mind or sanity. 99 times out of 100 you will obey the law. A drug addict cannot control how many times he or she will break the law and thus becomes a danger to the public at large. If they could control their addiction then they are no longer addicted but until that time they are a danger to themselves, their family and everyone else around them. The problem is how to determine if they have shaken the addiction and that is not something most common joes are capable of deciding... I personally could not sell my addicted relative a gun with a clear conscience and know I'm protecting the public around me... BTW, I'm not perfect, didn't go to Woodstock but have had my share of lapses in judgement in just about everything. Consequenses I've had to pay made me realize things like driving, a drivers license, good health,etc...are privileges I have to protect much like the legal right to own, carry or bear arms, own a home... It is so easy to drift towards the dark side which is why many of us work hard at doing the right thing to have and enjoy a good and productive life.
"...I've been clean for a long time now mostly alcohol but also pain pills from a back injury years ago,went to treatment and still go to meetings and talk to my sponsor. How many people on this board went to Woodstock and grew up in the 60's smoking weed and using hallucinogenics. If all of the people who did that answered truthfully on the 4473 this board would be empty as no one would own a gun . I'm proud to be clean and sober and believe anyone with a drug and alcohol problem can turn their life around if they really want to. Now if you said he just got out of rehab for the 3rd or 4th time I wouldn't sell to him since he clearly isn't ready. JMHO
__________________
Certified Ruger Nut
When all the others
are in the boneyard
the rugers are still
going strong!!! "
My thoughts drift towards what happened at Virginia Tech. Just because this guy hasn't broken or been caught breaking the law it's okay to sell him a gun? Just because one hasn't been caught burglerizing a home, stealing, getting into a violent fight then he is not a criminal??? How does a non-clinician/psychologist QUANTIFY how sober or harmless a drug addict is??? Can one believe everything an addict says when they themselves cannot be honest to themselves about their addiction? If in his moment of weakness through his disease he unwillingly kills someone as a big mistake, how can you the FFL/a relative justify selling him a gun when you know the letter of the law? I think there exists a reason that those who enforce the law are held to the highest standard(lie detector tests, drug screening, etc...) in order to serve and protect the public at large. When one signs legal documents relevant to drug usage, anger management, and misleads about prior use makes one deceitful, complicit even though your prior use will more than likely have no further influence on your current state of mind or sanity. 99 times out of 100 you will obey the law. A drug addict cannot control how many times he or she will break the law and thus becomes a danger to the public at large. If they could control their addiction then they are no longer addicted but until that time they are a danger to themselves, their family and everyone else around them. The problem is how to determine if they have shaken the addiction and that is not something most common joes are capable of deciding... I personally could not sell my addicted relative a gun with a clear conscience and know I'm protecting the public around me... BTW, I'm not perfect, didn't go to Woodstock but have had my share of lapses in judgement in just about everything. Consequenses I've had to pay made me realize things like driving, a drivers license, good health,etc...are privileges I have to protect much like the legal right to own, carry or bear arms, own a home... It is so easy to drift towards the dark side which is why many of us work hard at doing the right thing to have and enjoy a good and productive life.
General Geoff
Member
So you're saying that a drug addict does not have free will? If this is correct, then perhaps an addict should not be considered a legal person. I'm of the opinion that the most dire addict still has a choice, thus he is responsible for his own actions, however bad they may be.
NMGonzo
Member
Sell him a coach gun.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
dogtown tom
Member
I would still like to know if the OP's buyer could pass the NICS. That would explain why he hasn't replaced the stolen gun with one purchased at a gun store.
Last edited:
Tim the student
Member
Maybe, but it also may be a money issue. For me, you will very seldom find a used gun at my local stores at a decent price, including pawn shops. The classifieds or GB are a much better bargain.
- Status
