That is not the perfect answer either. I am today a law-abiding citizen, and (occasionally mild exceeding of speed limits aside) haven't intentionally broken any laws in more than 25 years. But, until my mid 30s I was an off-and-on MORE than occasional recreational marijuana user, and I had a period toward the end of that time where I got pretty strung out on cocaine. Praise the Lord, I have been clean and sober since January of 1987.
Question 11 (e) on Form 4473 says:
When I answer that question today, I answer it truthfully. It doesn't say "Have you ever." What is says is "Are you." There was a time (before I became a gun owner) when I could not have truthfully answered that question. That was also a time in my life when I had no more interest in understanding the Constitution than any other leftist. Like I said, PTL for sobriety.Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Question 11 (c) says:
The difference between me and someone who cannot answer that one in the negative is that I was never caught. Back when I started smoking pot in the latter half of the 1960s, possession of a 1 oz bag of weed was a felony charge.....and that was in Commiefornia of all places. My how times have changed. If I had been caught in possession of a 1 oz bag of weed back then, I would have been ineligible today to keep and bear arms. If I were caught with the same amount of weed today, I might not even have a conviction on my record. And if I had been caught back in the 1960s and gotten a felony conviction, that felony conviction would still be on my record today even though it would not be a felony charge today.Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?
And yet, I submit that I am as responsible and trustworthy a citizen today as anyone who never did those things. I agree generally speaking with the sentiment "don't do the crime if you can't do the time," but I also think that when laws change in the direction of decriminalizing something, then all previous convictions for that thing ought to be re-adjudicated accordingly. Otherwise, those convicted have not received equal rights before the law compared to those charged more recently. If we followed this simple principle, we would A) be far less likely to change legal standards willy-nilly, and B) (and more importantly) we would be far less likely to criminalize things in the first place.
The problem is that we substitute law today for lack of character. We think that if we pass laws, people will obey them. But the truth is that if people had character and treated with one another accordingly, we wouldn't need laws in the first place. There are certain foundational moral standards that we all know—it's wrong to lie, steal, murder, etc.—and yet we pass laws about them in the mistaken belief that if it is proscribed by law, a person of low character won't do it. That is how we end up with tens of thousands of laws on the books that never get enforced because nobody even knows they exist. The world is full of people of low character, and so we pass laws to regulate their behavior, ignoring the fact that people of low character don't care about the law in the first place. In the end, the only thing all those laws do is to regulate the lives of people who don't need regulation—because they already know that it is inherently wrong to lie, steal, and murder, and they live their lives accordingly—and who nevertheless have to expend energy, time, and money (and worry) to make sure that they stay within the lines. This is exactly why gun-control laws don't work. Today, politicians pass laws to "send a message" without a single thought of who will be tasked with enforcing them, and so much of what passes for enforcement—at least at the federal level—has more to do with political ideology than with criminality. Eric Holder's Justice Department and BATFE will violate federal gun laws with impunity (Fast & Furious)—leading to the deaths of literally hundreds of foreign nationals—and hide behind executive privilege on the one hand, while with the other hand landing like a ton of bricks on some small FFL who gets sloppy with his books and adding additional reporting requirements on the purchases of law-abiding citizens simply because they live near a border. They release memos talking about sovereign citizen terrorists, while threatening to crush civil rights. They invite foreign election observers to monitor U.S. elections on the one hand, while ignoring New Black Panther voter intimidation on the other hand—even in the face of video proof—because of openly avowed racial solidarity with the intimidators.
When THAT kind of government is passing "laws," the law becomes a fuzzy hard to discern thing—where it should be an easily recognizable bright line. The question of a citizen's duty to obey those laws becomes fuzzier and less brightly defined too—NOT because that citizen is necessarily a person of bad character, but rather because it is either difficult to know what is legal and what isn't; or because the law is recognizably unjust, and justice demands disobedience. What do we call it when a sworn and licensed chief LEO—like several sheriffs around the country have done recently—publicly announces that he or she will NOT be enforcing federal laws which he or she deems to be unconstitutional or unjust? The sheriff may be protecting the rights of the citizens in his jurisdiction, but he IS choosing to selectively enforce the law..........JUST LIKE ERIC HOLDER DOES.
So on one hand we have a principle of being law abiding, and of making good choices; but on the other hand we have bad law and selective enforcement. So I find that things are no longer that simple anymore. They were a lot simpler 50 years ago, but not so much anymore.