Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do medical marijuana users have right to bear arms? No, says ATF
MSNBC ^ | 09/29/2011 | Matt Volz

Posted on 09/29/2011 9:35:55 AM PDT by LonelyCon

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: LonelyCon
-- If medical marijuana is grown, sold, and used in one state, it has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and the Feds. don't have the Constitutional authority to regulate it. --

Justice Scalia said otherwise, in the Raich decision.

And a fellow by the name of Stewart was jailed for possession of an unregistered machine gun that he made himself (I think from scratch), that never left his house. Funny case, that one, as the 9th Circuit said the weapon was not involved in interstate commerce, so he (Stewart) was not afoul of federal law. The US Supreme Court told the 9th Circuit to apply Raich in order to find him guilty.

41 posted on 09/29/2011 10:37:40 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

BS, try that argument with the jailer, not me, but he does not care either.


42 posted on 09/29/2011 10:38:42 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Sounds like she could be denied guns if a court adjudicated her unqualified,

And in the heirarchy of government powers within the republic, which court is authorized to make that determination?

43 posted on 09/29/2011 10:40:23 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
If medical marijuana is grown, sold, and used in one state, it has nothing to do with interstate commerce

The SCOTUS, including Scalia, disagree. And since their opinion is law, that's that.

Raich v Gonzalez

44 posted on 09/29/2011 10:44:00 AM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Your “screw original intent” arguments are going to win lots of converts, I’m sure.


45 posted on 09/29/2011 10:44:42 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
A friend of mine went into a gun store several years ago. He was given a list of questions. He asked...

“Can you sell me a gun if I answer “Yes” to any of these questions?”

The guy answered. “No.”

Without reading any more of the questions he marked them all “No”.

I recommend the same course of action.

46 posted on 09/29/2011 10:45:37 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: digger48; Yo-Yo
See too 18 USC 922(g)
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person - ...

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); ...

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The cite Y-Yo provided was a prohibition on transfer, this one is a prohibition on possession.

-- It takes a felony conviction to lose your right to possess a handgun here. --

That or a misdemeanor Domestic Violence convction (18 USC 922(g)(9)), or under a restraining order pertaining to a family member (18 USC 922(g)(8)).

47 posted on 09/29/2011 10:48:22 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: momtothree
If a person is allowed to have medical marijuana then it isn’t illegal correct?

It's still illegal. State law is trumped by Federal law:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The SCOTUS upheld Federal control of drugs, even if it is not interstate commerce, just a few years ago:

Raich v Gonzalez

That is why some goverors, such as Brewer and Christie, have been hesitant to implement their states' med. marijuana laws. All participants, including doctors, state officials, and end-users, and violating federal law and subject to prosecution.

48 posted on 09/29/2011 10:48:22 AM PDT by Huck (Oy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Isn’t this up to the individual states? I believe that here in California, if you have been drinking and are carrying a weapon, you can lose your permit. Not sure of this, but if you are on drugs, wouldn’t the same rule apply?


49 posted on 09/29/2011 10:50:32 AM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
LOL, has nothing to do with original intent, has nothing to do with the Constitution. Has something to do with the will of the people. Honest hard working people do not want to pay for some druggie to lay home with some fat slut.
50 posted on 09/29/2011 10:51:06 AM PDT by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by Perry and his fellow democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

“If I had a brother who was a violent ex-con, and also took medical marijuana, it would be the same.”

You believe his 2nd Amendment rights are more important than public safety.

That, Beelzy, is why Libertarians will never be a majority political party.


51 posted on 09/29/2011 10:53:02 AM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Not true. Question #12a requires a ‘Yes’ answer.

Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form?


52 posted on 09/29/2011 10:53:18 AM PDT by 11Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
LOL, has nothing to do with original intent, has nothing to do with the Constitution.

You can believe that if you want to.

53 posted on 09/29/2011 10:54:46 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: 11Bush
Maybe the forms are different state to state or was different way back when I heard the story.

In California, from what I heard (haven't yet purchased a firearm from a dealer here in CA) they made the form “idiot proof” in formulating the questions such that “No” was the correct answer to all of the questions.

Or maybe it just made a better story that way! That is the trouble with recounting hearsay. ;)

54 posted on 09/29/2011 10:58:02 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
Stupid, lazy and cowardly American illegal drug users are so stupid, lazy and chicken that they won’t change their reality, so they use illegal drugs to try and hide from their reality for a few minutes and thereby fund some of the most vile and vicious criminals this world has ever know.

Your anger appears to be misplaced. The only reason American drug users are funding criminals is because the American government has chosen to criminalize the drugs in question. American drug users could be funding entrepreneurial types who could then employ people who could then pay taxes. But you are correct, they are funding vile and vicious criminals.

As for the drug users' motivation, I suggest you worry about your own troubles. Some guy getting high on his own time should be his business, in my opinion.

And for the record, I do not use any illegal drugs. I just think we have very poor policy regarding drug use.

55 posted on 09/29/2011 10:59:08 AM PDT by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

>Druggies will beg borrow and steal to try and put their drug usage in a debate. Sorry Illegal is illegal.

Yes, and the prohibition on marijuana is illegal; there is even the precedent of the 18th and 21st amendments to back this up, but the federal government is not authorized by the Constitution the authority to regulate marijuana, tobacco, firearms, or alcohol.

IOW the ATF is proof that the federal government is felonious: see US Code Title 18, Sec 241 & 242.


56 posted on 09/29/2011 11:15:11 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

>Technically, even prescription drugs are “controlled substances”. It sounds like they could adminstratively declare it also applies to anyone taking any kind of prescription medication if they want to.

Well, if you want to be technical water is controlled (via EPA) therefore it is a controlled substance... and aren’t you addicted (as in deprived of it you’ll claim that you’re dying) to it?
{Yes, I see the Beurarchy as that messed-up.}


57 posted on 09/29/2011 11:17:48 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

I think it is good policy to not give people with a drug brain guns.


58 posted on 09/29/2011 11:22:01 AM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

Stupidity is our most expensive commodity.


59 posted on 09/29/2011 11:24:28 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

You are, unfortunately, mistaken. The USSC ruled that marijuana grown in one state for personal use DOES have an impact on interstate commerce. Absurd, but they did. The case involved 2 woman in the bay area of CA I believe, who grew a couple of plants for their own use. No evidence they ever sold any or gave any away. Still, USSC ruled against them on IC clause.


60 posted on 09/29/2011 11:24:53 AM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson