“Police say a storage shed in Sandy used by Lyman was also searched, and a rifle belonging to him was found. But Lyman also admitted “he uses methamphetamine a couple times per day, nearly every day. (He) said he has used methamphetamine regularly for the past 15 years and is addicted to it,” which would restrict him from owning a gun, according to the affidavit.”
Not in possession of the rifle, Rifle not involved in the crime. He said he used drug, A Lot, so that made the rifle illegal? To me this looks like a bit of an over reach, maybe even a long stretch of the law.
The Law is the Law. Nothing strange. Even the rifle had nothing to do with the investigation, possessing it in his case was unlawful. It will be another charge added to the list…
yup, it sure did make him a “prohibited possessor,” under the federal law. Earlier in the report it said “belonging to him.” Possession can refer to either owning and controlling or holding.
Devils Advocate:
If I have 5 shots of Tequila at my father in laws house, I’m intoxicated and I own a rifle. I’m not near the gun safe, like he wasn’t near the storage shed. So would I be a restricted person in possession at that point?
go to your father-in-law house with Tequila and rifle, get drunk, call feds… and let us know the outcome… that would be really interesting info for all of us.
Don’t forget to tell us the State it took place.
The “addicted to illegal substances” question on the 4473 would seem to prohibit an addict the legal purchase of a firearm. Does it also prohibit the possession of a firearm (ostensibly legally acquired prior to becoming and addict)? I know there are many laws prohibiting the carrying, handling or use of a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating substances (legal or not) but is that a wholesale denial of the right to own firearms for use only when sober?
Or maybe a collection - acquired/inherited legally prior to addict status - which simply sits in a closet or safe until the day the collection is handed down to another generation or is otherwise legally disposed of, but is never handled, carried, or used in any way by the addict?
Use of alcohol is not analogous to use of illegal drugs in this discussion. Further, a key term is possession which refers to both ownership and holding. The latter is why instructors will not allow a known prohibited possessor to take a live-fire class. And yes, this is the very reason for the cited question on the Form 4473.
The relevant law, which does make the dude in the article a “prohibited possessor,” is 18 U.S. Code § 922 (g). (emphasis added)
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person-
. (1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
. (2) who is a fugitive from justice;
… (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
… (4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
… (5) who, being an alien-
… (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
… (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
… (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
… (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
… (8) who is subject to a court order that-
… (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
… (B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
… (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
… (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
… (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
OK, Here goes my take on this convoluted story/Issue
IF you are involved in a Fatal crash you caused
every thing seems to be up for grabs (Including your Freedom)
It doesn’t matter if you are addicted to something, that’s this skell’s excuse
why he drove stupidly and killed someone. "Oh, I’m an addict, I’m not responsible…STFU!
YES, if you LIE on the 4473 about BEING addicted that’s another kettle of fish
(Just ask Hunter)
When you get caught up in ‘The System’ (Judicial) the book gets thrown @ you for ‘Additional’
charges like Prohibited persons/Illegal gun ownership etc etc so on and so forth.
Now Mike getting hammered @ his F.I.L’s house he just gets hammered and busted for DUI (if driving) but he could own (100 guns ) and it wouldn’t matter ?
I think the more heinous the crime then the Law piles on the charges… Am I close?
Yepper Bean, “You play stupid games as they say…”
But thinking a ‘Chemi-head’ would make the right decisions is a real stretch. Meth
(to my knowledge-no personal experience TG) is all Chemicals, Nasty chemicals like Drano
and Eye of Newt) And he was a Frequent flyer on that sh** , I saw on Trooper go
down (Ranger) in (3) months on Synthetic something, I never heard what it actually was, If a
sore didn’t develop on his lips he might have gotten away with more time in service.
I had a toke or two of ‘Kyber Kush’ weed in Afganastain when I was visiting ON HOLIDAY! Made American weed feel like Oregano—uh…so a friend told me.
Leaving the Scene in anything serious is a dumb move because the microscopes come out.
Cops today can still bring the Anal-Inspection to a boil if they suspect this is the tip of the Criminals iceberg.
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapy
Anniversary if I didn’t say it already Bruh!
Didn’t Hunter Biden’s defence argue that he had not used drugs for a couple of months prior to purchasing the gun in his case and he was therefore NOT guilty?
Why would they search the shed for a hit and run possession is 9/10 of the law that would be unlawful search and seizure even though he was an addict he was not in possession of the firearm
Thank you, @Craig_AR . That is good and thorough information. No doubt the law is commonly interpreted as prohibiting any form of possession by an addicted person, but I still read some ambiguity in the law.
I admit to being a bit hair-splitty at times (and maybe this is one of those times).
By my reading (admitting that I am far from fluent in legislative legalese) this passage seems to prohibit possession only while engaged in “commerce” of certain types. Note there is no mention of intrastate commerce, nor of possession for any purpose other than commerce.
In fact, far beyond the question of addiction, ALL of the listed prohibitions appear to apply to the commerce of firearms and ammunition, not simple possession. It would appear that, provided that none of the listed disqualifiers apply to the individual at the time of acquisition, the matter of simple possession does not seem to be addressed outside of commercial activities.
Again, it may be that this law is commonly construed to enforce a total ban on possession by a disqualified individual, but it doesn’t read that way to me. Perhaps there are other supplemental laws which expand on USC 922(g)?
Please understand that I am not questioning you but rather I am questioning the law. In matters of legislation it is of extreme importance to be specific in the wording. Ambiguous wording is how loopholes are born. That, and I find it to be an interesting conversation despite being largely on topic.
The man confesses to illegal drug use. If he was convicted, he might not be a legal owner. If not convicted, if he has been Mirandized, his confessions can be used against him, and he could become convicted. The fact that he was not using or even in possession of said gun, or information appertaining as to whether or not he even had ammunition for said weapon, are all unknowns to me. The gun shouldn’t be associated with a moving motor vehicular crime, whether the crime was intended or not; period.
Made American weed feel like Oregano—uh…so a friend told me.