You cannot buy marijuana in New York State and also buy or possess a firearm!

[Acer-m14]

if the top expert lawyer is such a expert .. why do we still have the Safe Act ... why do we still have the Sullivan Act .. ??

 

[spat]

Oh wow you exposed a big secret. Wait. Nope. I posted the link. I’m sure you’re right. The lawyer doesn’t know anything and the exact laws he cited were made up. Let’s rely on the postings of people here instead that heard the way it really is from a friends brother’s cousins uncles sister. Much more reliable. Can’t wait to read about some of you in the paper.

I referenced this yesterday on another thread. The attitudes of some on here truly amazes me. You can post exact laws and official sources and people will disregard it if it doesn’t agree with their narrative. You could be standing before them on the grass and they will swear up and down that it isn’t green. If they have an interest in it being purple they will blindly tell you that’s what it is. They either won’t open their eyes to see it’s green or if they do they will either ignore it they’ve got their mind made up so much that all they can see is purple. That’s why I don’t post much anymore. “I don’t want it to be so, so the lawyer is wrong, oh and he’s mean too”. “I don’t want the grass to be green so I’ll keep my eyes shut and imagine it’s purple”. What you fail to understand is the facts are the facts whether you believe them or not. The world goes on despite you and your feelings. All of the foot stomping and plugging your ears and closing your eyes changes nothing. It is what it is.

In case you hadn't noticed, rule of law is breaking down in this country.

You can do nothing wrong and get crucified for it (the McCloskeys or Kyle Rittenhouse) .

You can also break all sorts of laws and be glorified for it (George Floyd, Michael Brown, and a cast of thousands).

All that matters is your identity group, not actual guilt or innocence.

Now, this isn't universal by any means, but it is happening, and it is getting worse.

So, maybe your "Top notch lawyer" should really just say "you're a white male, that makes you automatically guilty in any self defense situation".

 

[Chevusa]

if the top expert lawyer is such a expert .. why do we still have the Safe Act ... why do we still have the Sullivan Act .. ??

Lawyers don't make laws or rule on cases.

 

[Bob]

Oh wow you exposed a big secret. Wait. Nope. I posted the link. I’m sure you’re right. The lawyer doesn’t know anything and the exact laws he cited were made up. Let’s rely on the postings of people here instead that heard the way it really is from a friends brother’s cousins uncles sister. Much more reliable. Can’t wait to read about some of you in the paper.

I referenced this yesterday on another thread. The attitudes of some on here truly amazes me. You can post exact laws and official sources and people will disregard it if it doesn’t agree with their narrative. You could be standing before them on the grass and they will swear up and down that it isn’t green. If they have an interest in it being purple they will blindly tell you that’s what it is. They either won’t open their eyes to see it’s green or if they do they will either ignore it they’ve got their mind made up so much that all they can see is purple. That’s why I don’t post much anymore. “I don’t want it to be so, so the lawyer is wrong, oh and he’s mean too”. “I don’t want the grass to be green so I’ll keep my eyes shut and imagine it’s purple”. What you fail to understand is the facts are the facts whether you believe them or not. The world goes on despite you and your feelings. All of the foot stomping and plugging your ears and closing your eyes changes nothing. It is what it is.

Speaking of carnival barkers...

 

[Robin]

Lawyers don't make laws or rule on cases.

Really?!?!?! Every judge above your town or village JP is a lawyer. The Senate and House, assembly, both state and federal, are thick with lawyers, who writes the laws for those entities(?), high paid consulting lawyers remunerated
with our tax money.
Robin

 

[spat]

The thought occurred to me.

The biggest flaw in the post title is that it says "cannot".

You absolutely can do that. It's just bad if you get caught.

 

[S&W Fan]

Lawyers don't make laws or rule on cases.

They sure as hell do. Unfortunately this country has seen fit to also make them elected officials.

 

[Chevusa]

Really?!?!?! Every judge above your town or village JP is a lawyer. The Senate and House, assembly, both state and federal, are thick with lawyers, who writes the laws for those entities(?), high paid consulting lawyers remunerated
with our tax money.
Robin

Out of context and disingenuous.

 

[Chevusa]

The thought occurred to me.

The biggest flaw in the post title is that it says "cannot".

You absolutely can do that. It's just bad if you get caught.

You can but you may not.

 

[OwnTheRide]

Sorry to burst some bubbles but here we go.

Per a lawyer live on-air:

1. Even possessing marijuana bars you from possessing or buying a firearm per federal law, not just being a user. So the it’s not mine I got it for a friend doesn’t fly.
2. In NY the state may charge you with this federal crime. It does not have to be charged only by the feds. You can get it either way in either court.
3. You are guilty of a crime if you allow access to another person who is a user or possessor.
4. There needs to be an axis of time - significant time between going from an unlawful user to not an unlawful user. Saying you quit last week doesn’t fly.

All right from the lawyers mouth. WBEN news radio. A little after 2 pm today 5/7. Look up the website and listen to the archived show for yourself. Do not reply with what you think or what your cousin told you. These are the facts right from the expert. There were more things discussed also.

Thank you for providing a link to this broadcast ( in a later post).

You need to re-listen to the broadcast very carefully. I'm quite impressed by how carefully Max Tresmond chose his words. While it may sound differently, particularly when Bauerle injects his own (often incorrect) interpretation of what Tresmond said, Tresmond's words backed up my position, not yours. Here are some direct quotes from that broadcast, with some added emphasis to show where Tresmond was very carefully choosing his words:

The federal government has taken the position that anybody in possession of marijuana and using that marijuana is a prohibited possessor of firearms under the gun control act. It's as simple as that, it's an open-and-shut case. Uh, just to expand on that,18USC922-G3 is the pinpoint citation to the law where any person who is an unlawful user or addicted to any controlled substance as defined in section 102 of the controlled substances act, is a prohibited possessor of firearms under federal law.

See how he very carefully avoided possession alone making someone prohibited?

[...]there was an issue raised that the statue was unconstitutionally vague because it failed to define the actual temporal period during which the drug use and the possession of the firearm must have occurred. So people could have been or may have been drug users 30 years ago, but the statute isn't exactly clear as to what that means or how that operates as a bar on possession

They have to show that there is a range of times during which you both possessed the firearm and you unlawfully used or you were a user of an unlawful controlled substance under the controlled substance act (federal law) and that's a gray area because they would have to show that you were using it at the same time. The problem with that is, it's almost presumptive that if you have a medical marijuana card and you're purchasing marijuana in New York State, and you have a gun at the same time, it's all a prosecutor would need to establish an unlawful possession under the federal law.

See here where he points out the exact hole in the law that I've been talking about?

That last highlight - almost - is probably the most important of them all. You should read that as "not", because "almost" doing something is the same as "not" doing something. So, he is saying that it is NOT presumptive. Tresmond later goes on to talk about how possessing a firearm and a medical marijuana card might result in a person getting charged and plea bargaining out to avoid the serious penalties that could result from conviction... but, again, he's carefully choosing his words. He's cognizant of the fact that medical marijuana cards are not defined in law as presumptive evidence that a person has used marijuana. And unless/until it is, it isn't. (For similar examples, look at the possession of a firearm laws in NY. There are some sections that talk about, say, 4 people in a car with one gun. The law states that unless one of those people claims possession of the firearm, it is presumptive evidence that all four people are in possession. There is no similar presumptive clause for medical marijuana cards, or possession of recreational, in NY or federal law.)

Now, that said, what Tresmond was getting at is that unless you have an appetite for risk and pockets deep enough to finance a legal team, you don't want to mess around here. I agree. Possession is not presumptive evidence of use... but you will have to hope you can convince a jury of this fact. Prosecutors will rely on this, and the very steep penalties if the jury does not agree with you, to convince charged individuals to accept a plea rather than fight to iron out the ambiguities in the law.

 

[soylentBlue]

The obvious answer is to only sell weed at gun shops. Then the shop can ensure you only buy one thing or the other.

 

[Robin]

Out of context and disingenuous.

I'm a little slow on the up take sometimes, so I'll give it a third try. It is in context and it is no fabrication or a statement of naïveté. You should avail yourself of a dictionary.
Robin