@Phatguysrule (or anyone else) can I please get your opinion on this? There's obviously some discussion on Twitter about Hunter Biden being a felon because he lied on his gun application about being a drug addict when he filled out the application. According to Twitter Maryjane is illegal federally, even if the state you live in has legalized it. They showed a pic of a gun app stating that. The question is: If people repeatedly go into a dispensary (addicted?) and their drivers license is scanned (showing a record) and they then fill out a gun app marking NO to the question concerning Maryjane are they committing the same federal crime as Hunter? Thanks in advance.
That's a great question. I've never partaken with any drugs at all, and I have no legal expertise. That said, I think they are technically breaking the law, or at least they could be charged. I think it's crazy that marijuana could get you in trouble like that... But I wouldn't be surprised. We really need to update our laws. There are far too many. *EDIT* Wouldn't this also apply to liquor stores and alcohol in general? So now your fred meyer rewards card can be used with your gun application to prosecute you.
It seems like the legal precedent has been set... for now. Just in my quick search, Oregon had the warning about federal law even if legal in the state. Washington seems to have left that line out.
It’s a dumb, politically motivated show trial, just like the others. Yes, it sets a horrible precendent and the accusations are loosely jumbled together to make a weak case and temporarily pacify a political base. Just like the others.
Except I actually want more wealthy people to be punished for doing things like Trump did. The gun thing is just stupid all around.
It will be funny if this gets appealed to the supreme court and the court rules firearm related registration or permits is unconstitutional due to the risk of government abuse of power...
I don't understand what the practical purpose of something like that would be. Was going to question the ruling on it, but see it isn't a 2nd amendment issue, and just a classification issue
Whole lotta red blooded 'Murricans are extra sporting special chubbies today. Cuz nothin' says 'Murrica like the machine gun......
The point is that banning these isn't effective (or constitutional) either, because you can use a coat hanger (or even a finger in your belt loop) to get the same effect. The Vegas shooter could have literally just poked a wooden dowel or metal clothes hanger through his belt loops and accomplished the exact same thing. These are pointless laws being made by people who don't know anything about how guns work. And more and more laws trying to limit something that can't really be limited just turns into overreach. There is already a law banning full auto guns. You can't come up with legislation that will effectively prevent people from pulling the trigger faster. That's just not feasible. I'd never purchase one. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's practical. The constitution isn't there to limit citizens. It is intended to limit government overreach.
Sorry, I edited my post to add my answer to that, but it was too late. I don't know of a practical purpose and I can't think of any reason that I would ever buy one. Other than wasting money on ammo for fun. About the same practical reason as owning an Xbox or PlayStation.
I actually don't think so. Most gun owners don't buy these. It wasn't a big deal until government tried to ban them unconstitutionally. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the ban caused a lot more of these to be sold than if they hadn't banned them at all.
There’s no practical use for them, not even in a ‘tactical’ sense. They are basically a toy to make a semi auto shoot fully. You can’t aim with them. If someone was trying to mow me down i’d pray they had a bump stock because you can’t shoot for shit with them.
