What if he had a RX for meth?  Did the prosecution ever prove this without a reasonable doubt?  Like did they call every single doctor in the USA?  Did they call every doctor in the world, as even international travelers can bring in drugs into the US with a prescription.

If Hunter had a prescription for meth it wouldn't apply because the question is about unlawful use of drugs. If Hunter had alleged that his crack use (not meth) was somehow prescription then the prosecution would have to take reasonable steps to address this. There is prescription meth but I am not familiar with prescription crack cocaine.

This isn't a common sense question it is a legal question and potentially a medical question.

Different drugs linger in their effects and different people can experience them differently too so it can be a difficult thing to prove in court. It was easier to prove in court here because Hunter wrote a book and there were witnesses but generally speaking its not always going to be so obvious someone is an occasional user or an addict.

Where does the questionnaire ask about the type of drug or length of "lingering effects?" 

Use of any illegal drug is included.  So is addictive use of prescription drugs or alcohol.  People know if the drugs are illegal and if they are addicted.  Since when does the FFL or FBI have to prove you answered falsely to deny you? 

They rely on honest answers and information reported to NICS.  In states like Hawaii, they also rely on the stricter background checks which included medical care provider records.

As I said, common sense.  If you're a frequent consumer of certain mind altering drugs, you're a user.  If you have been unable to stop using, you're an addict.

In before you use the most used lie by addicts: "I'm not addicted.  I can quit anything I choose."

You're really arguing that there's no way to stop someone from lying on the form.  Your stance is no different than when I stated many times that laws don't stop crime. 

Welcome to reality.

Where does the questionnaire ask about the type of drug or length of "lingering effects?" 

Use of any illegal drug is included.  So is addictive use of prescription drugs or alcohol.  People know if the drugs are illegal and if they are addicted.  Since when does the FFL or FBI have to prove you answered falsely to deny you? 

They rely on honest answers and information reported to NICS.  In states like Hawaii, they also rely on the stricter background checks which included medical care provider records.

As I said, common sense.  If you're a frequent consumer of certain mind altering drugs, you're a user.  If you have been unable to stop using, you're an addict.

In before you use the most used lie by addicts: "I'm not addicted.  I can quit anything I choose."

You're really arguing that there's no way to stop someone from lying on the form.  Your stance is no different than when I stated many times that laws don't stop crime. 

Welcome to reality.

If a form asks a technical question but is too vague in its defining of the terms you don't just go applying the test of whether Flapp thinks it is common sense.

In the case of Hunter there was little doubt that he was an addict when he got the gun. I was pointing out the general problem with the question that leaves the door open for a defendant to cast doubt.

If a form asks a technical question but is too vague in its defining of the terms you don't just go applying the test of whether Flapp thinks it is common sense.

In the case of Hunter there was little doubt that he was an addict when he got the gun. I was pointing out the general problem with the question that leaves the door open for a defendant to cast doubt.

Since when is defining if someone uses drugs "technical?" 

I guess it is if you just want to argue.

it depends on what your definition of "is" is...

Lol!  That f*cker Clinton has forever changed the landscape of integrity with that bullcrap.

Yeah.  Hunter is no longer an addict.  He "quit" recently before all the hoopla.    He's a good boy.   

I would have respected him more if he replied on the form, "Yes, and I love it."  Clinton must have impressed him a lot with the clinton dodge and weave.  I went to re-hab a few weeks ago therefore I am no longer an addict.  Gimmie that damn gun.

Hunter should appeal.  The charges are against his constitutional rights.   Self incrimination.  And the use of drugs shouldn't take away your constitutional rights.  Imagine if you smoked pot and no longer have freedom of speech.

Hunter should appeal.  The charges are against his constitutional rights.   Self incrimination.  And the use of drugs shouldn't take away your constitutional rights.  Imagine if you smoked pot and no longer have freedom of speech.

Where was his right to not be forced to incriminate himself violated?

Where was his right to not be forced to incriminate himself violated?

It wasn't.

Unless the gun was in his possession before answering the 4473 questions, he wasn't a felon or drug user/addict in possession of a firearm.  There was no crime at the point he made the check mark on the paper, so nothing to incriminate himself over.

The law he broke was perjury -- lying on a government form which he attested to. 

He did become a drug addict in possession of a firearm after lying on the form and passing the NICS check.  Any "forced admission" occurred well before that situation existed.

Do we now have pre-crime for unconstitutional government laws?

Where was his right to not be forced to incriminate himself violated?

To not lie he would have to admit to doing illegal drugs, thus self incriminating. 

It wasn't.

Unless the gun was in his possession before answering the 4473 questions, he wasn't a felon or drug user/addict in possession of a firearm.  There was no crime at the point he made the check mark on the paper, so nothing to incriminate himself over.

The law he broke was perjury -- lying on a government form which he attested to. 

He did become a drug addict in possession of a firearm after lying on the form and passing the NICS check.  Any "forced admission" occurred well before that situation existed.

Do we now have pre-crime for unconstitutional government laws?

Last time I checked doing meth was illegal.

To not lie he would have to admit to doing illegal drugs, thus self incriminating.

Are you talking about when he filled out the 4473?  I don’t think that counts as “being compelled… to be a witness against himself.”

Last time I checked doing meth was illegal.

Last time I checked, the 4473 doesn't ask for specifics on your drug use.  It merely asks IF you are are user or addict. 

The only consequence is being denied your purchase.  The FFL isn't going to call the Cops on you for saying you are "doing meth".

If you think they will, you're delusional.

This is no different than answering if you're a legal US citizen or resident.  If not, you can be denied your firearm purchase.

Nobody is going to call INS, just like they are not going to call the Cops.  If you aren't arrested based on your answers to the 4473 questions, where is the "incrimination" you were forced to commit?

Are you talking about when he filled out the 4473?  I don’t think that counts as “being compelled… to be a witness against himself.”

Exactly.  The stated purpose of the form: "will be used to determine whether you are prohibited by federal or state law from receiving a firearm."

That's not confessing to a crime.  It's giving the FFL and FBI information to be used in making that determination.  Generally, answering "Yes" to any question/s except for 21.a. "Are you the actual transferee/buyer" will likely get your purchase request denied.

To cite another example, if you make $50,000 through some unlawful enterprise or activities, like gambling in Hawaii or selling drugs, you must still report that income when you file your income tax returns.  Filing a false return is a felony.  What you did to obtain that income may only be a misdemeanor.  However, the IRS is not going to initiate an investigation into your illegal activities based solely on the information on your return.

Having said that, if law enforcement is investigating you, they may obtain your returns, which may be used as evidence of your unlawful activities.  But, that just means the agency already had evidence you were breaking the law -- hence the investigation.

There's a legal reason government forms are required to inform you of the purposes, uses and consequences of not providing the information requested.  They aren't allowed to use the information you provide for any other purpose, including filing charges for acts you included on the form.

It boils down to one thing:  answering truthfully that you use drugs is stupid.  If you already know in advance you will be denied by answering "Yes", why are you even submitting the form? 

Lying on the form by saying "No" might get you that gun, but you just committed a felony.

I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any
false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime
punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.

He's the president's son.  He's special.  Or so he thought.

firearms policy coalition offering to help hunter's legal team...

If Hunter had a prescription for meth it wouldn't apply because the question is about unlawful use of drugs. If Hunter had alleged that his crack use (not meth) was somehow prescription then the prosecution would have to take reasonable steps to address this. There is prescription meth but I am not familiar with prescription crack cocaine.

If he didn't take his RX of meth (crack) every 8 hours as prescribed, then he is an unlawful user of it.  So if he waited instead 7 hours and 59 minutes, he just broke the law.  C'mon man, think about all the factors that this could be possible.

firearms policy coalition offering to help hunter's legal team...

I'm still waiting for them to do something in HI.

Last time I checked, the 4473 doesn't ask for specifics on your drug use.  It merely asks IF you are are user or addict. 

The only consequence is being denied your purchase.  The FFL isn't going to call the Cops on you for saying you are "doing meth".

If you think they will, you're delusional.

This is no different than answering if you're a legal US citizen or resident.  If not, you can be denied your firearm purchase.

Nobody is going to call INS, just like they are not going to call the Cops.  If you aren't arrested based on your answers to the 4473 questions, where is the "incrimination" you were forced to commit?

Soooo. . . to "some people's" logic, the trap was being forced to complete the 4473? :hmm:

cool story, bro...

I'm still waiting for them to do something in HI.

Soooo. . . to "some people's" logic, the trap was being forced to complete the 4473? :hmm:

Exactly.

Imagine if you have to answer questions about your status as a felon in order to register to vote.

Unconstitutional!!