Hunter committed a known felony, and no one cares

[struth]

sure joe biden,,, so you dont want people that use drugs to have guns without due process,, do I have that right??

and does that include pharma drugs that cause the same or similar effects?? or is it the unlawfulness of the drugs thats your problem??

Illegal drug use is a crime. We don't want a bunch of addicts out there with guns...nor do I say deny them due process...but they can't even get the due process started when they lie on the form to begin with an commit another crime....like your pal Hunter Xiden

 

[progressive hunter]

Illegal drug use is a crime. We don't want a bunch of addicts out there with guns...nor do I say deny them due process...but they can't even get the due process started when they lie on the form to begin with an commit another crime....like your pal Hunter Xiden

so if the they make it legal youre OK with it,, well it is legal in several states and soon to be at fed level,,, not to mention the feds dont have authority to regulate what we put in our bodys,,

my only problem with hunter is the dbl standards from democrats,, otherwise I support the 2nd A unlike you that wants your personal POV applied to it

 

[Harpy Eagle]

a user is someone that used in the past and plans to use in the future,,

Bull crap. I smoked pot when I was in my 20s, according to your logic I would not be allowed to buy a gun now.

 

[struth]

so if the they make it legal youre OK with it,, well it is legal in several states and soon to be at fed level,,, not to mention the feds dont have authority to regulate what we put in our bodys,,

what's legal in a number of states? No, I am not ok with it even if it's legal...because the issue more then anything is if the person is an addict. If they don't admit it on the form, the application process can't start honestly, and thus the person is not getting due process.

The form is merely an application, they are given due process via filling it out. If it's determind they are a recovery addict, then I have no problem with them getting a firearm...but if they are currently actively using, then it's a problem

 

[progressive hunter]

Bull crap. I smoked pot when I was in my 20s, according to your logic I would not be allowed to buy a gun now.

no that means you used to use it but no longer do use it and as you said dont have plans to use in the future,,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Can you or anyone prove he was using them or addicted to them at the time he signed the form? that is all it ask

He does have a history of it dating back to his military days. If I am a user, I can answer that question as 'No, I'm not using drugs" I used drugs yesterday, I'll use them again tonight, but I currently am not using drugs if you want to get into semantics.

Am I a convicted felon? No. I was a convicted felon five years ago, but I'm out of prison and no longer convicted.

If some guy gets loaded up on dope, takes his gun and goes on a mass shooting, and reporters found that this guy bought the gun legally answering the question he's not a dope user, the left would be having a cow, telling us our gun laws are not strict enough. This guy had a history of using dope and attending rehab. They should have known that. He claims technically, he was off of dope six months ago when he bought the gun. We all know rehab has a terrible long term success rate.

 

[struth]

no that means you used to use it but no longer do use it and as you said dont have plans to use in the future,,

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Regulation Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Section 478.11 specifically defines an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance as "a person who has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of a controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than prescribed by a licensed physician." As defined by 21 U.S.C. § 802 and C.F.R. Part 1308; the term "controlled substance" means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor included in the Controlled Substance Act (CSA)

https://www.justice.gov/file/1385186/download

 

[progressive hunter]

what's legal in a number of states? No, I am not ok with it even if it's legal...because the issue more then anything is if the person is an addict. If they don't admit it on the form, the application process can't start honestly, and thus the person is not getting due process.

The form is merely an application, they are given due process via filling it out. If it's determind they are a recovery addict, then I have no problem with them getting a firearm...but if they are currently actively using, then it's a problem

as per the 2nd A the form is in violation and the feds have no right to even ask the question,,

 

[Slade3200]

what's legal in a number of states? No, I am not ok with it even if it's legal...because the issue more then anything is if the person is an addict. If they don't admit it on the form, the application process can't start honestly, and thus the person is not getting due process.

The form is merely an application, they are given due process via filling it out. If it's determind they are a recovery addict, then I have no problem with them getting a firearm...but if they are currently actively using, then it's a problem

When asked if you’re an addict, is that referring to currently using or addicted or does it mean anytime in that persons past. One could easily interpret the way that question is worded to mean “currently using or addicted to”. If that’s how the question was interpreted then answering NO would not be a lie. I see no way to prove Hunter lied and committed a felony in court. Do you?

 

[Slade3200]

He does have a history of it dating back to his military days. If I am a user, I can answer that question as 'No, I'm not using drugs" I used drugs yesterday, I'll use them again tonight, but I currently am not using drugs if you want to get into semantics.

Am I a convicted felon? No. I was a convicted felon five years ago, but I'm out of prison and no longer convicted.

If some guy gets loaded up on dope, takes his gun and goes on a mass shooting, and reporters found that this guy bought the gun legally answering the question he's not a dope user, the left would be having a cow, telling us our gun laws are not strict enough. This guy had a history of using dope and attending rehab. They should have known that. He claims technically, he was off of dope six months ago when he bought the gun. We all know rehab has a terrible long term success rate.

The question easily could have asked about past history, but it didn’t. No way to prove anybody was lying on that form with the way that question is worded, unless they were high at the time of filling it out or undergoing rehab or medical treatments at the time of filling out the form.


Would you like to change the form to include a persons complete past and history?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The question easily could have asked about past history, but it didn’t. No way to prove anybody was lying on that form with the way that question is worded, unless they were high at the time of filling it out or undergoing rehab or medical treatments at the time of filling out the form.


Would you like to change the form to include a persons complete past and history?

If you want to make claim of ambiguity then why have the question on the form at all? Get rid of it because it's meaningless. Each applicant can define what it's asking. After all, Bill Clinton didn't think oral sex was sex.

 

[struth]

When asked if you’re an addict, is that referring to currently using or addicted or does it mean anytime in that persons past. One could easily interpret the way that question is worded to mean “currently using or addicted to”. If that’s how the question was interpreted then answering NO would not be a lie. I see no way to prove Hunter lied and committed a felony in court. Do you?

https://www.justice.gov/file/1385186/download

 

[struth]

as per the 2nd A the form is in violation and the feds have no right to even ask the question,,

sure they do. Just like they can ask if you have ever been convicted of a felony, because they are typically barred from ownership

 

[progressive hunter]

https://www.justice.gov/file/1385186/download

thankfully the constitution cant be changed by just writing something down,,

 

[progressive hunter]

sure they do. Just like they can ask if you have ever been convicted of a felony, because they are typically barred from ownership

not if you go by the 2nd A,,

face it youre pro gun not pro 2nd A

 

[struth]

thankfully the constitution cant be changed by just writing something down,,

it didn’t have to be.

 

[struth]

not if you go by the 2nd A,,

face it youre pro gun not pro 2nd A

there is nothing in the constitution that forbids asking questions…

 

[progressive hunter]

there is nothing in the constitution that forbids asking questions…

shall not be infringed!!!

they can ask but they cant use the answer to restrict your rights,,

 

[Slade3200]

If you want to make claim of ambiguity then why have the question on the form at all? Get rid of it because it's meaningless. Each applicant can define what it's asking. After all, Bill Clinton didn't think oral sex was sex.

Or just be clear about what you’re asking about and don’t leave wiggle room. You can’t prove that Hinter lied on that form so you can’t prosecute. How many people do you think marked NO on that form that had past problems with substances?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Or just be clear about what you’re asking about and don’t leave wiggle room. You can’t prove that Hinter lied on that form so you can’t prosecute. How many people do you think marked NO on that form that had past problems with substances?

If you had substance abuse problems but only you and your family knew, then you have a point. But Hunter is on record of having problems and answered no. It's on his military record, it's on his laptop, it's on record with a rehab center. The guy has dope problems.