Some did argue that they could buy and possess for others. They said it was like buying bread or milk for someone else.
I'm not disagreeing they theoretically *could* charge you with the federal offense but again, would they?
Why would they enforce SAFE? Same thing. Just gives them another way of taking guns.
Was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt- but you're just too obsessed with being right, and not actually having a productive exchange. SAFE act is a state law, the statute you are referring to is federal. I think you'd have to be pretty stupid to get nailed with a safe act violation too, but I digress. SAFE is enforceable in and of itself. You can be charged with a safe act violation by simply possessing a non-compliant item. The problem with the marijuana and firearms I see is that both are perfectly legal here- just not together. So there would have to be probable cause that you are both an unlawful user AND a possessor of firearms, which as I previously stated, the odor of marijuana during a traffic stop is no longer probable cause to search a vehicle. Not to mention, I am unaware of any state law that makes the possession of the two together a crime, so the state would essentially be admitting to preemption of federal law when it comes to guns. I feel like in essence this would be the state admitting the federal gun laws supersede the state's. I don't think they are willing to open that can of worms.
You aren't paying attention. The state can prosecute this federal law. Talk less about what you *think* and listen to the expert.
Thats what I thought. Ignore the expert lawyer because you dont want it to be so. Hahahahaha.
The only thing I really wanted was to have a productive and respectful dialogue about the topic at hand. You have proven (yet again) that you are incapable of such a conversation.
Why are you even commenting without listening to the expert lawyer from a top firearm law firm? Listen then come back and we can discuss.
What about all the "top expert lawyers" that say the 2A isn't absolute, and doesn't apply to private citizens?
Ok. You know more than the lawyer at the firearms law firm. Sounds good. Everyone do what this guy says and DO NOT listen to the lawyer. Some guy online is wayyyy more reliable. Let the judge know that @drowhawk gave you permission!
Can you point me to the post# where I said you should smoke weed and own firearms?
Stop dancing.
Exactly. This is NY. Lets not forget. Just because they are liberal about weed does not mean their position on guns has changed. If anything I can see them actively trying to take guns from drug users. You mention something I didn't even think of. What an easy and obvious way to do it. And remember according to the lawyer, even if its someone else in the house, they can charge constrictive possession and take the guns and charge you. Run a plate, cross reference permits in the house. Bam. Easy as can be. Once this gets rolling they will just have lists of transactions and won't even need to run plates.
As is the case with most liars,er, I mean lawyers.
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.
