Legal definition of unlawful user or addicted to

N

Nathan

New member
I’m so confused. I’m listening some to the Hunter Biden trial. They act like question 21e has no legal definition.

The press keeps saying that he wasn’t high on drugs(crack) when he filled the form out so maybe it was filled out legally? I think this is Biden’s defense. They also say because he didn’t consider himself addicted that it may have been legal. ….also Biden’s defense.

When did the opinion of the accused supersede written law and commonly held definitions of words?

Are these terms in 21e not defined? Can’t we use a dictionary from the time a law is written to determine what a law means….plus subsequent case law?
 
I understand that past performance is no guarantee of future results however, my expectation for things going forward is that they will continue to follow the pattern..I expect that the law will be manipulated so as to be of the greatest benefit for the president's son in the same way that the law was manipulated to be of the greatest detriment to the former president.

Sent from my SM-S546VL using Tapatalk
 
The defense can make up any argument it wants to in order to try to get the defendant declared not guilty.

It's up to the jury to decide (there will also be instructions from the judge to help them) if the defense's story creates a reasonable doubt or not.
 
The defense is laying the groundwork for appealing a conviction up to the Supreme Court, to challenge the constitutionality of the law he was convicted under.
 
Back when Biden was VP, he was asked, point blank, why so few people were prosecuted for lying on the 4473 form, and his answer (which I saw) was a dismissive hand wave and "we don't have time for that."

Now that it is his son facing charges for lying on the form, apparently he does, as there is a push to get the form changed and the entire drug usage matter removed from it.

The issue should not be about whether or not he was high when he filled out the form, but whether or not he lied when he did so.

The popular press, as usual, is creating a distorted picture of the issue.
 
If only someone in the government created something like a website that had such a definition........oh, wait.....lookee what I found!:D

§ 478.11 Meaning of terms.

Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.
Click to expand...
 
seems like that covers it pretty well. Wasn't Hunter discharged from the service for drug use?? Seems like I heard that, somewhere,.....:rolleyes:
 
or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.
Click to expand...

Which means if you have failed a drug test within the past year, you meet the standard of being "a user of or addicted to " and its documented via the drug test.

I also assume I COULD be on camera anyplace at any time.

The thought process " I haven't been high for twelve whole days so right now as I buy this gun and fill out this 4473 I'm not an addict or a user"

Would be the typical "Stinking Thinking" of an addict .

If "No one is above the law" this line of defense should fail.
 
Of course ... thier goal is to get the jury confused ...
Confused equals doubt ... can't convict unless guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt ...
I would bet money the jury finds him not guilty .
would you like to face a leftist Payback ... they can do what they want to anyone .
Gary
 
"An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year..."

A year is a long time, during which I'm sure some drug users stop their drug habit. Hopefully this inference is rebuttable, but then the burden of proof falls to the accused. Seems to me the time period should be much shorter to draw a inference of "current use".
 
A year?? why not 5, or 20? or ONE DAY?? There must be a standard, so that a law or regulation may be applied impartially. We can argue what the standard should be, and why, but there has to be a defined standard.

Are you an illegal user of, or addicted to X?? NO SIR! (I quit before I walked into your shop,..and I'm going to stay clean,...until I walk out that door! :rolleyes:) That answer might even pass a polygraph test.

Also, in this case, we're talking about a standard for evidence of use, within a certain time period, relative to the purchase of a gun.

For a user who has never been caught, never failed a drug test, never been charged, (and so never been convicted,) never went to rehab, such evidence will not exist.

Doesn't change the fact that they are still a user, or that they may not be, having quit entirely voluntarily, only that there is no evidence, either way.
 
"What should be" only exists within the confines of my subjective skull.

What we must deal with is the reality of what IS.

The text of the law or the guideline provided by Dogtown that says "one year" is probably what to plan on.

I'm sorry, but except for those who are above the law.....good luck telling the judge or prosecutor "What should be"

Knowing "What is" ........Whether we like it or not, is a better plan.

I could argue "It shouldn't make any difference" if I saw a shotgun barrel at 17 inches if thats where you want it cut.

Ask Randy Weaver how that works out.
 
Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I thought I was nuts for a while since I didn’t agree with the defense’s crazy definitions of basic words and the idea that the defendant, a crackhead, gets to define the law.
 
hibc; you could (argue "It shouldn't make any difference" if I saw a shotgun barrel at 17 inches)

and i would totally agree with you.

it probably wouldn't change the law any, even if 95% of all people agreed with you/us. but i would agree anyway.
 
I think the Weaver case is a really poor choice as an example of anything but the govt's abuse of their system resulting in what I consider the murder of a woman and a child.

Reopening this old wound to discussion belongs in its own, separate thread.

I do agree with the point that what matters are not what you or I think things are, or ought to be, but what meets, or does not meet the definitions written in law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top