>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:18 2024
X-Received: by 10.42.202.10 with SMTP id fc10mr9653357icb.29.1368129709180;
Thu, 09 May 2013 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.50.108.104 with SMTP id hj8ls845544igb.8.gmail; Thu, 09 May
2013 13:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.50.111.162 with SMTP id ij2mr10867558igb.5.1368129699601;
Thu, 09 May 2013 13:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Received: from smtpauth05.mfg.siteprotect.com (smtpauth05h.mfg.siteprotect.com. [64.26.60.146])
by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id f19si791762igt.0.2013.05.09.13.01.39
for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>;
Thu, 09 May 2013 13:01:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 64.26.60.146 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jm..._at_tscm.com) client-ip=64.26.60.146;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;
spf=neutral (google.com: 64.26.60.146 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jm..._at_tscm.com) smtp.mail=jm..._at_tscm.com
Received: from Waiting-For-A-Blue-Bird.local (unknown [71.174.16.79])
(Authenticated sender: jm..._at_tscm.com)
by smtpauth05.mfg.siteprotect.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CE37315B28221
for <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>; Thu, 9 May 2013 15:01:38 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <518C00A2.6050802_at_tscm.com>
Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 16:01:38 -0400
From: "James M. Atkinson" <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Reply-To: jm..._at_tscm.com
Organization: Granite Island Group
User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a1pre (Macintosh/2008022015)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] {6406} Very Interesting White Paper
References: <518A8CC2.1000005_at_tscm.com> <CADCX+3WWHyjmar8CuqMBO=1wofJkfzCGH8apfQRS53BMHF6Fwg_at_mail.gmail.com> <518AB28B.2050602_at_tscm.com> <CADCX+3UVSaKQnXT7huzrgSCXbbiKM=68dRvORDkaHTEKLaxd-g_at_mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADCX+3UVSaKQnXT7huzrgSCXbbiKM=68dRvORDkaHTEKLaxd-g_at_mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------030308090904020300050604"
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A020209.518C00A3.00B2,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0
--------------030308090904020300050604
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Actually no, the Federal statute kicks in if your have ever used it, not
merely been convicted of it.
Since Federal statute does not respect the States permitting medical use
of it, any cannabis usage forfeits your ability permanently to possess,
or own firearms, by virtue of 21 U.S.C. 802 and 18 U.S.C. �922 (g)(3),
which is why you need to talk to an attorney on this matter.
There is the issue or usage over time (active, current use over
historical usage), and I believe that there is some amount of leniency
in the law if you are no longer a user and have not been for some time,
but not in regards to a conviction, or admission on your part. It is all
very complicated, and you need to talk to an attorney about it.
Call Steve as mentioned, and he can explain the matter.
-jma
Justin Ferguson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Yeah, I know how to fix it, I just need to file two motions to have
> the pot charge designated as a misdemeanor ('undesignated offense')
> and another motion to have it set aside, and of course pay the court,
> yadda yadda.
>
> More or less the same with the DV stuff. I wasn't seeking legal
> advice, the pot charge has sat undesignated for close to 13 years and
> I'm probably not going to fix it anytime soon because .. well, that
> feels like bribery and I'm stubborn.
>
> I was more curious about thoughts on the removal of rights with
> basically little to no due process or overall a severely mooted due
> process that would at best require a conspiracy of two (not that I'm
> saying that is the case at all, but that it would be within the realm
> of possibilities).
>
> anyways, feeling a bit sheepish for sending that to the list and didnt
> intend to enter into a dialogue about my more or less ancient legal
> history. TY for the response.
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James M. Atkinson <jm..._at_tscm.com> wrote:
>
>> Justin,
>>
>> The pot issue is the biggest issue, and currently federal la forbids the
>> ownership, possession, or carrying of ANY arms by any person who uses, has
>> used, or who has been convicted, or documented as a user or possessor (even
>> if it is prescribed) and it puts into place a lifetime ban.
>>
>> Ditto for the domestic violence conviction, POOF, you lost some of your
>> civil rights.
>>
>> I hate to tell you this, but the only ay to fix it is to fork out money to a
>> good attorney like Steve Spring (202) 596-2354 as he is one of the foremost
>> 2nd Amendment layers in the entire country (cough, bring you check book...
>> he is really good).
>>
>> Talk to an attorney about this.
>>
>> -jma
>>
>>
>>
>> Justin Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> Sort of a random question that I wanted to see what your thoughts were
>>> on. I was raised around firearms, a card carrying member of the NRA
>>> most of my life, yadda yadda. However, in my early twenties/college I
>>> was caught with pot in a state where all possession charges are a
>>> felony, and so there I go, already disqualified. A few years later, I
>>> managed to catch a domestic violence charge for an incident where I
>>> was defending a woman from her abusive boyfriend and I sort of got
>>> screwed-- thereby double disqualifying myself. On a personal level, I
>>> am okay with this, but I wonder just how many people there are like me
>>> out there-- those disqualified from what is supposed to be fairly
>>> fundamental rights on what basically amounts of legal technicalities
>>> and most certainly do not entirely fall under the spirit of the law.
>>>
>>> More over, the domestic violence charge is interesting, I was charged
>>> with a misdemeanor 'threatening and intimidation' charge, which at
>>> first glance sans some pretty specific situations like threatening the
>>> president, it seems like that is somewhat fundamentally a violation of
>>> at least the concept of the 1st amendment, but far more importantly to
>>> me, because I was charged with a misdemeanor that had a maximum
>>> sentence under 6 months, I was not automatically granted a trial by
>>> jury (SCOTUS has ruled that imprisonment under 6 months is
>>> 'non-serious' and therefore not subject to the right of a jury trial),
>>> but the prosecutor is free to add on a domestic violence penalty
>>> enhancer, which itself disqualifies a person from firearm ownership,
>>> however this fundamental right was taken from me without even so much
>>> as a jury trial.
>>>
>>> My base point isn't so much about aspects of my life, or even that I
>>> want a firearm, but more that there are so many corner cases that a
>>> person can end up disqualified without actually being the sort of
>>> person we envision when we talk about the disqualifiers that it seems
>>> reasonable to believe that the percentage of people in this exact
>>> scenario is probably fairly substantial, which in a time of crisis
>>> would absolutely impact the citizens ability to defend the homeland.
>>>
>>> I was mostly curious about your thoughts here, as you talk about the
>>> 2nd amendment fairly frequently and in an educated manner and always
>>> point out the caveats pertaining to restrictions of firearm ownership,
>>> so I was curious to hear what thoughts you had, if any, on the
>>> subject.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Justin N. Ferguson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> James M. Atkinson. President and Sr. Engineer
>> "Leonardo da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting"
>> http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662
>>
>> Granite Island Group http://www.tscm.com/
>> (978) 546-3803 jm..._at_tscm.com
>> (978) 381-9111
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "TSCM-L Professionals List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
James M. Atkinson. President and Sr. Engineer
"Leonardo da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting"
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662
Granite Island Group
http://www.tscm.com/
(978) 546-3803 jm..._at_tscm.com
(978) 381-9111
--------------030308090904020300050604
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Actually no, the Federal statute kicks in if your have ever used it,
not merely been convicted of it.<br>
<br>
Since Federal statute does not respect the States permitting medical
use of it, any cannabis usage forfeits your ability permanently to
possess, or own firearms, by virtue of 21 U.S.C. 802 and 18 U.S.C. §922
(g)(3), which is why you need to talk to an attorney on this matter. <br>
<br>
There is the issue or usage over time (active, current use over
historical usage), and I believe that there is some amount of leniency
in the law if you are no longer a user and have not been for some time,
but not in regards to a conviction, or admission on your part. It is
all very complicated, and you need to talk to an attorney about it.<br>
<br>
Call Steve as mentioned, and he can explain the matter.<br>
<br>
-jma<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Justin Ferguson wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CADCX+3UVSaKQnXT7huzrgSCXbbiKM=68dRvORDka..._at_mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
Yeah, I know how to fix it, I just need to file two motions to have
the pot charge designated as a misdemeanor ('undesignated offense')
and another motion to have it set aside, and of course pay the court,
yadda yadda.
More or less the same with the DV stuff. I wasn't seeking legal
advice, the pot charge has sat undesignated for close to 13 years and
I'm probably not going to fix it anytime soon because .. well, that
feels like bribery and I'm stubborn.
I was more curious about thoughts on the removal of rights with
basically little to no due process or overall a severely mooted due
process that would at best require a conspiracy of two (not that I'm
saying that is the case at all, but that it would be within the realm
of possibilities).
anyways, feeling a bit sheepish for sending that to the list and didnt
intend to enter into a dialogue about my more or less ancient legal
history. TY for the response.
Justin
On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, James M. Atkinson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com"><j..._at_tscm.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Justin,
The pot issue is the biggest issue, and currently federal la forbids the
ownership, possession, or carrying of ANY arms by any person who uses, has
used, or who has been convicted, or documented as a user or possessor (even
if it is prescribed) and it puts into place a lifetime ban.
Ditto for the domestic violence conviction, POOF, you lost some of your
civil rights.
I hate to tell you this, but the only ay to fix it is to fork out money to a
good attorney like Steve Spring (202) 596-2354 as he is one of the foremost
2nd Amendment layers in the entire country (cough, bring you check book...
he is really good).
Talk to an attorney about this.
-jma
Justin Ferguson wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi James,
Sort of a random question that I wanted to see what your thoughts were
on. I was raised around firearms, a card carrying member of the NRA
most of my life, yadda yadda. However, in my early twenties/college I
was caught with pot in a state where all possession charges are a
felony, and so there I go, already disqualified. A few years later, I
managed to catch a domestic violence charge for an incident where I
was defending a woman from her abusive boyfriend and I sort of got
screwed-- thereby double disqualifying myself. On a personal level, I
am okay with this, but I wonder just how many people there are like me
out there-- those disqualified from what is supposed to be fairly
fundamental rights on what basically amounts of legal technicalities
and most certainly do not entirely fall under the spirit of the law.
More over, the domestic violence charge is interesting, I was charged
with a misdemeanor 'threatening and intimidation' charge, which at
first glance sans some pretty specific situations like threatening the
president, it seems like that is somewhat fundamentally a violation of
at least the concept of the 1st amendment, but far more importantly to
me, because I was charged with a misdemeanor that had a maximum
sentence under 6 months, I was not automatically granted a trial by
jury (SCOTUS has ruled that imprisonment under 6 months is
'non-serious' and therefore not subject to the right of a jury trial),
but the prosecutor is free to add on a domestic violence penalty
enhancer, which itself disqualifies a person from firearm ownership,
however this fundamental right was taken from me without even so much
as a jury trial.
My base point isn't so much about aspects of my life, or even that I
want a firearm, but more that there are so many corner cases that a
person can end up disqualified without actually being the sort of
person we envision when we talk about the disqualifiers that it seems
reasonable to believe that the percentage of people in this exact
scenario is probably fairly substantial, which in a time of crisis
would absolutely impact the citizens ability to defend the homeland.
I was mostly curious about your thoughts here, as you talk about the
2nd amendment fairly frequently and in an educated manner and always
point out the caveats pertaining to restrictions of firearm ownership,
so I was curious to hear what thoughts you had, if any, on the
subject.
Best Regards,
Justin N. Ferguson
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
James M. Atkinson. President and Sr. Engineer
"Leonardo da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662GraniteIslandGrouphttp://www.tscm.com/(978)546-3803jmatk_at_tscm.com(978)381-9111--YoureceivedthismessagebecauseyouaresubscribedtotheGoogleGroups">"
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662
Granite Island Group
http://www.tscm.com/
(978) 546-3803 jm..._at_tscm.com
(978) 381-9111
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"</a>TSCM-L Professionals List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com">tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com</a>.
For more options, visit <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out">
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="80">--
James M. Atkinson. President and Sr. Engineer
"Leonardo da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting"
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662">
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=15178662</a>
Granite Island Group <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="
http://www.tscm.com/">
http://www.tscm.com/</a>
(978) 546-3803 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com">jm..._at_tscm.com</a>
(978) 381-9111
</pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------030308090904020300050604--
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:18 CST