notch656c

I am continually baffled just how utterly stupid these rich people are.

Who in their right mind enters a flight manifest, let alone an international one, as a high profile wanted person.

It's hilarious that even though I think my comment was misread, it turns out I think we both are right.

You read it as me talking about the military in the UK.

No I was talking about the Canadian military. They are bound to the queen and swear an oath to such, you know the one that lives in the UK.

It really illustrates the absurdity of the situation.

If you use binary genders you use male or female ones and people tend to use the same pronouns once they start with them. If someone uses gendered pronouns you shouldn't take that to mean that's the one the subject prefers but rather that's the gender the person who wrote it perceived.

If they truly don't care to perceive a gender then a 50 / 50 pick. When I look at it's picture I honestly couldn't tell you if I perceive more male or female so I would've done same as op and picked one randomly and then for consistency not change it, even if some unrelated party tried to confuse things by making me change it.

No you just (by constitution) have to swear allegiance to the crown to become a lawmaker, which makes you a perjurer if you don't acknowledge their power.

Also is the monarch not commander in chief their armed forces? I thought being under the command of the queen / monarch was part of their oath. If your soldiers are sworn to do what the queen says that seems like a lot of potential power.

Exactly. I was fired from a tech job a decade ago and I found plenty of food to eat in the dumpsters and it wasn't hard to get enough day labor cleaning up puke that I was able to buy a tarp to sleep under.

Joking, but this also a true story.

Wait until you read the gun free school zone act, which seemingly makes it interstate commerce merely to be on a public property proximal but not on school property, no matter you have no intent to interact with the school or the school property in any way.

When I had my wisdom teeth removed I received a legal prescription for opiates and had the prescription filled and took possession of them. Thankfully I was able to tough it out with just NSAIDS and never took them.

Was I an opiate user? If I just keep the script but never fill it am I more an opiate user than the guy on the street with a little baggy of white powder? People seek out and obtain scripts for stuff they never use, all the time.

Once again, because I am not a lawyer I cannot give you specific legal advice for your situation.

I strongly, strongly believe you are overconfident in your interpretation, particular when I read the provisions regarding possession which may be a seperate crime from say what was written on the 4473 at the FFL.

But I'm not the one you have to convince. I pray you are never in a position you must do the convincing.

I do not believe I am an authoritative enough of a professional to convince you, even were it that I had time to type a more complete explanation. Again I recommend you consult a lawyer, and preferably one that has worked in this area. My opinion as a rando on HN has no legal bearing on the justice system.

Read up on Jeremy Kettler's attempt to avoid interstate commerce and also Wickard v Filburn. You probably know about the latter but not the former.

If growing your own plants with nothing but seed and material from the earth on your property, and then feeding it to your local animals is interstate commerce.... then it's hard to imagine any firearm even if made of iron pulled from the earth underneath you and machined on site and never sold to anyone or hell even fired could be considered to not have interstate nexus.

Even assuming grandma is going to buy it herself, which probably isnt always practical, there's probably some people out there not thrilled about going to jail because grandma put pot in the console of the car or left it on the kitchen table and suddenly they have constructive possession without a card.

I recommend you consult a lawyer. Always understand the difference between "the law can be flouted and probably safely gotten away with so long as I don't piss off anyone powerful" and "this is legal."

Cocaine is schedule II. A doc can write a federally valid script for it. So someone could be using it and hypothetically not be breaking the law regarding illegal user with guns.

There's no such thing as a legal pot user, but it does have a nice ring to it while the state tax man is collecting money to make people believe that.

By your logic women unaffiliated with service are excluded then. The unorganized militia, by US code, is (you can look up the code but this is pretty close) basically able bodied military age male citizens.

Throwing in all these constraint when the constitution clearly say "the people" without qualification which magically means basically everyone one place but not most everyone somewhere else seems kind of arbitrary to me, but then again the courts seem to have held up visitors aren't people so hey. This is why I'm not a lawyer because really such fuckery makes my brain melt. If I were the sole sitting justice of the supreme court I'd say the qualification is a person is one unit of people and thus they have the rights of the people. IMO if you're one of "the people" then when the constitution uses "the people" unqualified elsewhere that's you -- which by symmetry means if you can't own a gun you're not a person and have none of the other rights of the people.

Cocaine is schedule II. You can get a script for it. So the thing you say not only exists, but such a person could hypothetically legally own guns unlike the pot user.

I see you've read my other accounts of experiences with CBP lol.

I got put on CBPs shit list many years before that because I helped some people in a scary country which made some dumb uninformed government worker sad face. They do that stuff no matter how nice I am. Finally I learned they will treat me like shit and break my things even when I am nice so I should at least be assertive about my rights in the process.

Why? I've read a number of accounts of people who got the card just to buy/grow for their cancer stricken grandma or whatever. Sure maybe it's a lie but then again it's pretty believable and reasonable.

I can not give you legal advice but only tell you my personal understanding for entertainment purposes. And my personal understanding is that the same prohibition applies even for possessing it, not just when you acquire it. My non-lawyer mind it's pretty clear under 18 USC 922.

At the end of the day the feds got a warrant to drag me to the hospital and internally search my body for drugs because third party hearsay that an anonymous cop said an anonymous dog supposedly said I had drugs (there were none and their search was fruitless). If third party hearsay is good enough for a warrant why wouldn't video evidence or ID scan of you at the gun store and the pot shop? Sure you can claim "well the test at the hospital shows metabolites and the video shows buying weed and guns but hey you can't prove I actually used weed" but good luck with that.

By my reckoning the majority of clearances are DOD active or reserve/guard [0]. That alone pushing it to 50+% of the people need to be allowed to have guns even if they only shoot a rifle once during basic and then are supposed to be able to figure it out if shit hits the fan. Now consider 3 letter agencies etc.

I feel very confident saying being qualified to use a gun is essential to the majority of those with an active clearance, and thus highly relevant to the drugs question part of the clearance.

[0] https://news.clearancejobs.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Se...

No. A single speck of pot + just being someone that owns guns at all is 10 years in jail. Look up "constructive possession."

AFAIK it's the feds position that even merely having a medical marijuana card (which doesn't mean you actually have ever even bought/consumed weed) and owning a gun makes you a felon.

Note: not a lawyer, not legal advice.

I haven't been in a federal interview, but I would say it gets more focus merely because it is the most popular of the illegal drugs by a landslide.

The government has to remind you it's illegal because well "everybody" does it and it really doesn't seem like it actually is and it sure as hell doesn't feel like you're doing something wrong or harmful. So somebody has to tell you that this drug is really bad because you'll go to jail for it for a long time.

The main reason pot is bad is because it will get you a jail sentence. The main reason you'll get a jail sentence is because it's bad. Hope that clears it up.

Are you sure of that? Rights attributed generally to "the people" in the constitution can be limited from being enjoyed based on immigration.

For instance, "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms but god help you if you're here irregularly or on a tourist visa and do not meet one of the exemptions. Sure non-immigrants are persons but federal law doesn't give a fuck.

I had one tell me, a US citizen presenting with valid passport, he had the authority to prevent me from entering the united states.

I told him he had no such authority, unlike with the room full of Mexicans around me he was used to harrassing, and even if I didn't answer his (non-citizenship related) questions he'd still have to let me in.

By god did that piss him off, and I spent many hours detained, but in I went. After hearing his irate and false claims that my passport would be revoked, not allowed in, etc etc.

A great deal of government positions involve carrying a gun. Having a gun and being a pot user is a felony with 10+ years in jail. It's one of the most serious non-violent offenses for mere personal use possession on the books.

It's also very easy to detect because pot stays in your system longer than about any other drug and the penalty for pot use by non-firearm owners is so weak and unenforced that people often forget it is a very severe crime for the ~40% of US that owns arms. People mistakenly get nonchalant about it.

A rational person would immediately report it whether the blackmail was true or not. The penalty for revealing secrets is worse than about any crime except a few high level drug dealing or crimes involving death. If you get fired because you didn't admit to eating a scary mushroom or whatever so be it, the alternative is much worse.

> somebody who actually has a guilty conscience.

If working for a murderous government that sends drones to bomb kids overseas, invade vietnam and iraq, imprisons innocuous non-violent offenders for decades, funds nun-raping militias in central america, etc doesn't give one a guilty conscious I honestly have no idea what would. It's got to make you feel far more guilty than whether you put on a form you grew a bad plant or not.

>How do they find that person? How do they blackmail them?

Finding someone's ex is not complicated. We're talking about blackmailers so I think a blackmailer knows how to... blackmail. And the example I gave was just one of a million possible scenarios I can imagine an enemy using. The point was using something fake is likely as easy or possibly even easier than using a real crime for the purposes of the enemy, and thus the ratcheting effect you describe is immaterial to whether they start with the bad plant grown that wasn't listed on the form or because they told the compromised person that they'd reveal the false criminal allegations.

If someone can be blackmailed to do ever progressively worse things over something minor, why couldn't you do the same thing and possibly even faster with something major?

I don't see much functional difference between outcomes of committing suicide because you were blackmailed regarding a fake but believable rape accusation vs say blackmailed because someone found out you grew a bad plant. In the end though suicide seems like an honorable pick if the binary option is that or revealing life-or-death secrets to the enemy.

The US has such insane conspiracy laws frankly it isn't much effort for a few motivated individuals let alone a state actor to blackmail someone for the worst of false offenses using some corrupt "witnesses." Maybe before the war on drugs it was easier to blackmail someone with real offenses than fake ones but nowadays it's probably easier to manufacture them TBH.

This is not legal advice but I think they are. See Brandenburg v Ohio.

"Brandenburg was convicted of violating a criminal law that prohibited speech that advocates crime, sabotage, violence, and other similar acts after he spoke at a KKK rally. The Supreme Court found that the law infringed on Brandenburg's First Amendment rights, and created the imminent lawless action test. In order for speech to fall out of First Amendment protection, it must 1) be directed at producing imminent lawless action and 2) it is likely to produce such action."

I think there is an exception for ones made against certain public officials, which IMO are likely unconstitutional, but no one is really excited about challenging those.

https://www.thefire.org/supreme-court/brandenburg-v-ohio

Anyone can be blackmailed.

If the thing you did was less bad than the penalty for treason or revealing secrets (life in prison and/or death) then the blackmail argument falls apart. It's just more irrational hocus pocus by self-important bureaucrats. Hell the thing you're blackmailing doesn't even have to be true, they can just find an ex lover and blackmail that person to say you raped them or whatever, and well even if you beat the charges your kids get tossed into DCS/foster care your life is ruined etc etc.

Yet another reason why I'll never work for the government.