Seattle Area Legal Medical Marijuana Provider Banned From Buying Guns Under Federal Law

Due to a Federal Administrative legal opinion, It can now be assumed that medical marijuana providers in states where that is legal are now federally banned from owning and possessing firearms. 

The Seattle area man who shot and killed a man who broke into his house where he was growing the medical pot has been prevented from buying guns to replace the ones seized by police after the shooting.

Steve Sarich has a Washington State medical marijuana card and legally grows and uses marijuana. He has no criminal record, but failed his National Instant Criminal Background Check when he tried to legally buy a pistol and shotgun to replace the ones taken by police after the buglary. This was the second home invasion attempt at his home since he has been growing marijuana.

A gang of five people have been charged with this break in. Other criminals now know where to go to find an unprotected  house with legal marijuana being grown in it.

When police investigated the home invasion, Sarich showed them his medical marijuana card. The Sheriff then sent the burglary report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Legal Staff.

The Feds legal staff responded to the Sheriff by informing him that possession of a state medical marijuana card was sufficient to infer current marijuana use, and was enough to prevent gun ownership. Although this legal opinion was regarding the Sarich case, it can be applied nationwide. 

 Even though medical marijuana use is legalized by some state laws, its possession and use is against federal law, regardless of the current administration's taking a hands off approach to legalized medical state use.  Sarich is now banned from owning and possessing firearms during the one year period from the date of the police report.

Sarich was wounded by shots from one of the home invaders and is recovering. One of the men shot by him has had surgeries resulting from the shots and has had a leg amputated. 


Visit our other blog:
armedselfdefense.blogspot.com

Obama Thanked Himself For Giving St. Patrick's Day Party At Whitehouse

Just one year ago at a St. Patrick's day party at the White House on 03/17/09, Irish Prime minister Cowen was just a few lines into his speech when he stopped reading from the teleprompter and told Obama that he was reading the same speech that Obama had just read.

Obama took to the stage again to try to save the day, and when he reached the stage, the teleprompter switched to the correct speech for the prime minister. Barack Obama started reading the Irish Prime Minister's speech, and thanked himself for giving the St. Patrick's Day party at the White House, when he realized the mistake.

Perhaps it was the green beer that made the Irishman for the day, Barack O'bama, unconscious to what he was reading.

Obama is not a great speaker, as his flunkies would have those who are gullible in America to believe. He is just a talking head like those who give the 6 o'clock news.
If its not preprogrammed onto his teleprompters, he is at a loss for words.

Incredibly, Obama is so smooth at reading from a teleprompter and that he doesn't even know or comprehend what he is reading to the world. Hopefully, some prankster won't let Obama read from the teleprompter that the 101st Airborne landed just south of the Moscow city limits for maneuvers. Obviously, what's next is an embarrassing open mike moment, where Obama spontaneously says what he is really thinking.

The video was not released by the MSM to keep the embarrassment confined to the ballroom.

Canadian Jeweler Who Shot Robber 5 Times Wants Country To Have Greater Gun Rights

A Canadian jewelry store owner who believes that police and the Canadian government can’t control crime anymore shot an armed robber five times last year. He is pressing for greater personal firearms rights in Canada. He saw the two men as they were getting ready to enter his store. They were wearing gloves, sunglasses and hats. They drew their guns as they came inside. He was fortunate enough to be able to get the gun out of storage that Canadian laws require. He and his wife were alone when the armed robbers came in.

The jeweler was lucky enough to be able to get into his vault to get his heavily regulated handgun as the thugs held a gun at his wife’s head.

As one of the men came at him and began lifting his firearm, he began firing his 9mm. There’s usually not enough time to get a gun out of lockup when a robbery is happening. The store owner emptied the magazine at the robbers. He went back to the vault and reloaded. One of the robbers  was shot five times in the torso and shoulder and is permanently paralyzed from the chest down. He is being prosecuted on robbery charges.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police wanted to charge the jeweler too. They wanted him to be charged with unsafe storage and careless use of a firearm, but prosecutors declined to proceed against him. The robber had turned and began to leave the building when he was shot. Canadian guns have to be registered and “properly” stored. They can be used in self defense, but people can only use as much force as necessary. Galloway believed the entire event was unfortunate.

But, the recently formed Canadian Association for Self Defense gave him a bravery award. They are working for the right to carry concealed handguns as long as the owner has proper firearms training.  They believe that current Canadian law leaves its citizens defenseless, which of course it does. Many Canadians believe that law enforcement services there are incompetent.

The jeweler had been robbed two years ago, and the culprits were never caught.

Visit out other blog: armedselfdefense.blogspot.com

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Says Man May Have 2nd Amendment Defense To Losing Firearms Rights To Lautenberg Law Sanctions

The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Lautenberg Law forbidding firearms ownership by a person convicted of domestic violence could be invalid, at least in one case. This is in the light of the groundbreaking Heller decision. The ruling will not set precedent in the 4^th Circuit because the case ruling is unpublished. However, a good attorney can use the case as a persuasive ruling in other U.S. Federal courts. It is another loss to the anti gunners and is significant.  

The case is US v. Chester, No. 09-4084 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2010). Here is part of it.

“A grand jury sitting in the Southern District of West Virginia indicted William Samuel Chester, Jr., for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).  Chester moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that application of the federal statute to him violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as explained in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).  The district court denied the motion.  Thereafter, Chester pled guilty but reserved his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. He now reiterates his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(9).

In the proceedings below, the district court did not address whether Heller required the Government to justify individual laws that restrict Second Amendment rights.  Instead, it dismissed Chester's claim in reliance on Heller’s much-noted language as to “presumptively lawful” gun regulations—notably, the felon-dispossession laws.  JA 60-61.  Following the pattern of other lower federal courts, it drew an analogy between felons and domestic violence misdemeanants, concluding that the Heller language should be read to include both because the potential violent acts of those found guilty of domestic violence is often far greater than that of those who commit non-violent felonies. JA 61.

We find that the district court erred when it failed to scrutinize § 922(g)(9) apart from the language in Heller.  We agree with the Seventh Circuit decision in United States v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803, 808 (7th Cir. 2009), insofar as it held that challenges to firearms regulations under the Second Amendment must be individually analyzed because such regulations restrict the exercise of a constitutional entitlement.  In this case, the district court neither determined the most appropriate level of scrutiny of § 922(g)(9), nor did it substantively apply that level of scrutiny to an analysis of § 922(g)(9), and therefore, we vacate and remand this case for further proceedings.”


visit our other blog: armedselfdefense.blogspot.com