Str8Shooter

I was being questioned for a jury trial (voir dire) for a marijuana use trial. I was sworn in to testify under oath, sitting next to an FBI agent. I personally objected to the question being asked of each prospective juror if they had ever used marijuana. (To a man they testified they were all innocent of this crime. Ha Ha) I thought it was inappropriate to be questioned while under oath and on the record if each juror, myself included, had ever committed what I know to be known at that time to be a crime. The last potential juror was empaneled right before I would have had to choose (hypothetically, if I had used marijuana) whether to lie under oath or to testify against myself (if I had hypothetically ever used marijuana). That left an impression on me. "Patrick Daniels is one such “unlawful user”—he admitted to smoking marihuana multiple days per month." (From the appeal) How did his admission of use get into his testimony ? Would his ownership of a gun be relevant without what appears to be an admission of guilt?

Why would anyone advocate someone lose their rights as if anything that they did post-inebriation or post-sobering up can be assumed to be related to a previous inebriation?

"Actively drunk" had more meaning for me than I conveyed. Among friends one of them took out his gun threatening others. He was physically restrained and sustained injuries. No police call and no report was made. As I remember it no one held his gun longer than it took for him to sober up. This really had no relevance to this law or police.

The confiscation of firearms from those who are actively drunk seems a no brainer. The issue seems not the same as for mere possession while not intoxicated, such as if possession without use for months, for example.

Just a thought... During Prohibition, when alcohol was considered too dangerous to posses, as cannabis is now, were firearms of alcohol users confiscated? And... Is it just a coincidence that a decision in this case may be consequential to Hunter Biden's charge of possession of cannabis and a firearm?

Thanks to everyone here who made the lawmakers follow the law.

By her de-funding of the agency responsible for administering the FOID she, if she believes that the Aurora murders would not have happened but for the new funding she now calls for in order to make up for her sweeps, makes her a guilty party to the crime. It's just common sense that Rep. Kathleen Willis is in part responsible (by her own faulty logic) for the Feb. 15, 2019 the murder of five co-workers at the warehouse in Aurora. She needs to make a public admission and apology for her contribution to the tragedy of that day. Raising fees now, or at all, is tantamount to closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.