Medical Marijuana and gun ownership/possession

[ZombieHunter]

Can anyone explain why it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, yet marijuana was prohibited by a simple act of Congress?

No they cannot rationalize that one.

 

[Annie]

Hmmm. I’m just gonna get my wife a card....then there’s no issue. (wink-wink)

Haha!

 

[Free Trapper]

ok....I have no use for MJ, but to each his own.

That said...I see that they're already pushing for a recreational use law.

If that passes, why would anyone have a need for a medical use card, assuming anyone of age could just walk right in and purchase what they want...no card needed?

Maybe I'm missing something here.....

 

[MacFromOK]

"A federal appeals court ruled that a federal ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the Second Amendment. The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court's jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon. (The Associated Press)"
https://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/08/us_court_upholds_ban_on_sellin.html

Just in case anyone in Oregon is interested...

 

[Dave70968]

Well I guess suing whomever I have to for usurpation of fundamental rights afforded to me in the 2nd amendment which have no provision including the usage of a plant that somehow disparage and strip me of said 2nd amendment.

Especially when the Federal Government had no power to regulate this plant to begin with, in any realm of law. These laws were dreamed up by the United Nations. And the war on Drugs is a GLOBALIST agenda enacted by TREATIES I was not party to.

Sue away. I'll take my retainer up front, in small, unmarked, non-sequential bills, thanks. You won't win. Also, see below.

I'm not fully versed on the constitution, maybe Dave can help, but I don't remember anything about a right to alter your mood. If being prescribed opioids was illegal, I'm sure there would also be a statement regarding that on the 4473. If we don't like a law, we have resources available to address that.

There's no enumerated right, but refer to the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In any event, the real question is not "what gives you the right," it's "what gives government the authority." All governmental authority flows from the Constitution; find me the clause in Article I, Section 8 that gives fed.gov that power. Alcohol prohibition at least came from a constitutional amendment. Unfortunately, we long ago conceded that authority, in no small part by means of FDR's court-packing scheme; the Justices blinked at the threat and upheld a bunch of crap they should have shot down, thus setting precedent for a dramatic expansion of federal power.

You just said it, within confines of the constitution.

And they cannot impede on the 2nd amendment over plant matter. Nothing gives them the authority in that document. They cannot give that authority to an International treaty 57 years ago and impede upon me born after 1980. Sorry.

I agree that nothing gives them the authority, save for the fact that we implicitly ceded it decades ago. I disagree with your timeline. The Marihuana Tax Act--the first major federal MJ legislation--passed in 1937. The UN was established in 1945, so the idea that marijuana regulation was a product of a UN treaty requires us to engage in a bit of time-travel.

See:
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/07/14/201981025/the-mysterious-history-of-marijuana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

 

[Raoul Duke]

No they cannot rationalize that one.

Stumps the Chumps

 

[dennishoddy]

A followup: I just read the ATF letter carefully, and the ruling is less nonsensical than I first thought. (g)(3) covers possession, but the letter also cites (d)(3), which applies to the dealer, and includes language about having "reason to believe" the buyer is an unlawful user. That's consistent with the position that having a card gives rise to a reasonable belief that the person uses.

One more reason we need to end the stupid prohibition on a plant.

Your referring to the opium poppy so everyone can grow their own heroin?

 

[inactive]

Can anyone explain why it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, yet marijuana was prohibited by a simple act of Congress?

It didn't take it, necessarily. But that's just how it happened.

Also worth noting that while the amendment itself (notably passed by Congress then ratified by a vast majority of States) had no real teeth to regulate and enforce prohibition; the Volstead Act is what actually put Prohibition into place.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Though Goldstein is best known for representing those charged with dope crimes, one of his most celebrated wins was a 1978 appeal of a gun case. Goldstein appealed a case involving several Texas men who carried out a daring jailbreak from a Mexican prison across the border from the West Texas town of Eagle Pass. The incident, known in the media as the Piedras Negras jailbreak, resulted in the Texans freeing about a dozen American prisoners charged with drug offenses from the Mexican jail. Nobody was hurt in the raid, but the U.S. government subsequently charged the men with violating gun trafficking laws by bringing a sawed-off shotgun across the border for the raid.

Goldstein won the appeal by arguing that the Texans did not knowingly and intentionally commit a crime because the gunrunning statutes were spelled out in a thicket of administrative regulations that the men could not have been expected to know.

“To find out whether taking a shotgun across the border violated the law, you had to go to the code of federal regulations,” Goldstein said.

The same argument of intent could be used to defend someone who runs afoul of the law when it cuts across gun purchases and marijuana use, Goldstein said, adding: “Why should a gun seller be in peril of breaking the law for selling to someone who lies about being a marijuana user?”

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/guns/2018/05/11/nra-want-one-americas-top-drug-lawyers

 

[ZombieHunter]

"A federal appeals court ruled that a federal ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the Second Amendment. The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court's jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon. (The Associated Press)"
https://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/08/us_court_upholds_ban_on_sellin.html

Just in case anyone in Oregon is interested...

I love gestapo citizens who think they are any better than Nazi's.

Anyone who wants my guns, can come attempt to take them.

You know that I can manufacture an AR from an 80% lower and there is no law that can stop me right? Ever.

Let me show you a machine.

https://ghostgunner.net/


Have fun! The feds can't ban it, only states, and even then. LOL.


It is open source. You can make one yourself and download some software, bada bing bada boom.

It's a CNC.

I guarantee you within a decade I will be printing guns with a stainless steel printer.