CCW and Weed Card?

[Heyjoe]

I won't disagree. Just saying I'm sure he'd have been reamed much harder had he been stuck with public counsel.
He deserves every bit of it.

 

[wired]

Thanks, had not really followed this as I don't do pot. Just remembered reading something about them coming up with some way to test drivers. Might have been that they were looking for some way to do it. There was a whole lot of hoopla when they were trying to get the law passed here. I did not pay much attention as I did not care. I did have to chuckle at the damn lines when the shops first opened. The mass shortages where it would sell out in an hour or something. All I could think at the time was I wonder is some dealers were not standing there waiting for the shop to run out so they could say "hey over here, I got some"
Then the first time I actually walked in one of the shops with one of my kids. Counter guy was showing her all the "kinds". I was shocked at the damn price. When he asked me I said when I was using this stuff it was $10 and ounce. The kid looked at me like I was trying to sell him a bridge.

Decent, and I mean over the top stuff rivaling what is available today, Humbolt Counties finest went for $400 an ounce when I was in high school 32 years ago. The latest and greatest is a few percentage points higher but costs less than that. My understanding is that when the shops first opened up it was in the $20+ a gram range or $700 ish an ounce and then the market took over. I just looked at the website for one of the local stores ( theres 10 within 5 miles ) and its about $200 an ounce for 25% THC. Thats crazy.

 

[wired]

All associated stories just harped on the positive THC test for nothing. Ok.

The possession in a state where it was not legal was more of a factor. Yes, he tested positive and was in possession. It was a state case though. Note to self...dont shoot girlfriend and then leave stash sitting around in Utah..

Heres a better explanation of sentencing....

Riverdale man sentenced on gun charges after killing girlfriend in self-defense

 

[No_Regerts]

Regardless of where it happens, the state can choose to prosecute. The feds can proceed with their own charges. At least in WA, WA gun laws do not preempt federal law.

 

[No_Regerts]

The possession in a state where it was not legal was more of a factor. Yes, he tested positive and was in possession. It was a state case though. Note to self...dont shoot girlfriend and then leave stash sitting around in Utah..

Heres a better explanation of sentencing....

Riverdale man sentenced on gun charges after killing girlfriend in self-defense

All that explains is a good lawyer got the constructive possession stuff thrown out and had his client fall on the sword by pleaing guilty to the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm because he tested positive. If it were a possession issue, the other crimes would not have went away and he wouldn't have plead guilty to the highest charge. That makes no sense.

 

[wired]

Regardless of where it happens, the state can choose to prosecute. The feds can proceed with their own charges. At least in WA, WA gun laws do not preempt federal law.

The feds dont file charges unless its civil rights related and the state drops the ball or its interstate trafficking related. Get popped with 30 lbs in the trunk and kill a mugger you are probably going to have federal issues. Washington drug laws don't preempt federal law either yet the feds dont interfere in the state sanctioned marijuana trade...yet. Same goes for prostitution in some Nevada counties

 

[wired]

All that explains is a good lawyer got the constructive possession stuff thrown out and had his client fall on the sword by pleaing guilty to the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm because he tested positive. If it were a possession issue, the other crimes would not have went away and he wouldn't have plead guilty to the highest charge. That makes no sense.

Unlawful possession of a firearm was far from what that guy could have been convicted of had he gone to trial. The easiest charge and probably lowest was unlawful possession of a firearm. He could have been convicted of murder by a sympathetic jury. This was a domestic case not a home invasion.

 

[No_Regerts]

The feds dont file charges unless its civil rights related and the state drops the ball or its interstate trafficking related. Get popped with 30 lbs in the trunk and kill a mugger you are probably going to have federal issues. Washington drug laws don't preempt federal law either yet the feds dont interfere in the state sanctioned marijuana trade...yet. Same goes for prostitution in some Nevada counties

Thats not totally accurate. I have seen the feds charge people in various cases where they have an interest. An example I've seen is when members of two different tribes get into a decent fight and someone gets hurt. If there were more than two combatants, conspiracy to commit assault will be what the feds charge them with.

 

[No_Regerts]

Unlawful possession of a firearm was far from what that guy could have been convicted of had he gone to trial. The easiest charge and probably lowest was unlawful possession of a firearm. He could have been convicted of murder by a sympathetic jury. This was a domestic case not a home invasion.

He was cleared of the shooting and the court was instructed of that and told that it was to not take any of that into account for his unlawful possession charge, which was his only felony charge.

 

[wired]

Thats because the feds control the reservations , not the state. I work on one because of that fact.

 

[wired]

He was cleared of the shooting and the court was instructed of that and told that it was to not take any of that into account for his unlawful possession charge, which was his only felony charge.

He wouldnt have been there unless there was a shooting so that doesnt really apply. They were going to convict him of SOMETHING. The plea deal likely cleared him of the shooting for a conviction on the lesser charge.

 

[No_Regerts]

He wouldnt have been there unless there was a shooting so that doesnt really apply. They were going to convict him of SOMETHING. The plea deal likely cleared him of the shooting for a conviction on the lesser charge.

Wrong.

 

[wired]

Wrong.

I dont think so. Thats part of the "deal" in plea deal. People plea to stuff they didnt do to avoid a trial all the time and they plea down to lesser charges to get less jail time on stuff they were totally guilty of. The state didnt feel they had enough evidence for a murder or even a manslaughter conviction had it gone to trial so they dropped the higher charges in exchange for a guaranteed conviction on a lesser charge in the plea deal.

 

[Greenbug]

If you use marijuana you can not legally purchase a firearm.

End of story. If you do not understand one or more of the eleven words above then seek legal advise, and waste your money with a lawyer. The answer will still not change due to any circumstance you are currently experiencing. Save your money and go buy some more weed to smoke since you can't buy a gun because you choose to use marijuana.

Sorry, I don't have any sympathy.

 

[No_Regerts]

I dont think so. Thats part of the "deal" in plea deal. People plea to stuff they didnt do to avoid a trial all the time and they plea down to lesser charges to get less jail time on stuff they were totally guilty of. The state didnt feel they had enough evidence for a murder or even a manslaughter conviction had it gone to trial so they dropped the higher charges in exchange for a guaranteed conviction on a lesser charge in the plea deal.

Its like its not what I do for a living or anything. THE HOMICIDE WAS NOT AN EQUATION OF THE SITUATION. You dont inform a court that the homicide can't be considered, only charge a class 3 felony, and get re-elected as a prosecutor. The only felony was the UPoF. Thats why he served 45 in jail and was put on probation.

 

[Heyjoe]

Wonder if the OP's been scared straight yet?

 

[Theme57]

Wonder if the OP's been scared straight yet?

Haha not quite, more interested really. So bottom line it would be unwise/unlawfully for my Dad to get a firearm or apply for a CCW due to the possibly lying on the form regarding marijuana use. His only option no longer using it for say a month until it's out of his system and no longer wishes to use it again.

This brings up another question, my Dad only has about... 2 buds at a time in his possession. Say he were to smoke it in the house, and I was in the room for about 30 minutes thus inhaling it secondhand. Later that night I had to use my firearm in defense, would I be positive even though I didn't smoke it myself? Or if I was tested as positive would I be convicted of using a firearm while under the effects of an illegal drug according to the feds?

Another scenario would be say he smoked it before bed and I was not in the room to inhale any of it. Say later that night someone broke in and I had to use a firearm in lawful defense. Would this create a difficult situation in court if it was brought up that I, a legal owner who did not smoke, was in possession of a firearm only accessible to me while in the residence of someone who did although to a very small degree?

 

[Alexx1401]

Haha not quite, more interested really. So bottom line it would be unwise/unlawfully for my Dad to get a firearm or apply for a CCW due to the possibly lying on the form regarding marijuana use. His only option no longer using it for say a month until it's out of his system and no longer wishes to use it again.

This brings up another question, my Dad only has about... 2 buds at a time in his possession. Say he were to smoke it in the house, and I was in the room for about 30 minutes thus inhaling it secondhand. Later that night I had to use my firearm in defense, would I be positive even though I didn't smoke it myself? Or if I was tested as positive would I be convicted of using a firearm while under the effects of an illegal drug according to the feds?

Another scenario would be say he smoked it before bed and I was not in the room to inhale any of it. Say later that night someone broke in and I had to use a firearm in lawful defense. Would this create a difficult situation in court if it was brought up that I, a legal owner who did not smoke, was in possession of a firearm only accessible to me while in the residence of someone who did although to a very small degree?

Easy way around that. Tell Dad to buy it in some edible form. They sell it several ways now for this.

 

[wired]

You will never test positive for THC from second hand unless you happen to be directly inhaling your fathers exit breaths.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

First off this is my experience and what happens to you , where you live and who you deal with may make a huge difference...
So , I will be happy to pass a salt shaker....

Twice having to had occasion to use a firearm to defend myself ( luckily no shots were fired) as a civilian...
( My combat tours do not count here )
I can say that I was very glad I was totally in the right and completely justified in doing what I did at the time.
Both times there were what seemed to me to be acres of law enforcement asking questions of all kinds and at times some of the questions and comments could be construed as hostile to me and my actions.
Folks will second guess you seven ways to Sunday if this happens...why give 'em something else to hassle you for?

I am very glad that I did not have to worry about anyone suspecting or finding any "Herb" , chemical enhancements or influences ... And using that against me
Its was just one less thing to answer for or fret about...granted this was before marijuana was made legal here in Washington.
Andy