View Full Version : State marijuana laws v. state gun laws
So there are federal statutes currently in effect that make it a federal crime to consume, possess, grow or sell marijuana. States are creating laws that circumvent those federal statutes. Including the federal District of Columbia.
What would it take to use this dilution of the law to enact favorable gun legislation that also circumvented the federal laws? A few cases where the states beat the feds on MJ laws?
I could see these new MJ laws as providing quite a bit of case law that could challenge gun laws in a similar "states rights" pursuit.
Thoughts? Differences? Compare/contrast? Legitimate things I am missing in the grand scheme?
4DAIVI PAI2K5
02-26-15, 12:47
So there are federal statutes currently in effect that make it a federal crime to consume, possess, grow or sell marijuana. States are creating laws that circumvent those federal statutes. Including the federal District of Columbia.
What would it take to use this dilution of the law to enact favorable gun legislation that also circumvented the federal laws? A few cases where the states beat the feds on MJ laws?
I could see these new MJ laws as providing quite a bit of case law that could challenge gun laws in a similar "states rights" pursuit.
Thoughts? Differences? Compare/contrast? Legitimate things I am missing in the grand scheme?
I have wondered the same thing since CO and WA passed their laws
LowSpeed_HighDrag
02-26-15, 13:40
We arent beating the feds in CO with regard to our MJ laws. We are breaking federal law and the DOJ is declining to prosecute. You can bet your ass they wouldn't decline to prosecute for more lax gun laws.
Even if marijuana is legal in your state, using it prevents you from purchasing a firearm.
Eurodriver
02-26-15, 14:18
We arent beating the feds in CO with regard to our MJ laws. We are breaking federal law and the DOJ is declining to prosecute. You can bet your ass they wouldn't decline to prosecute for more lax gun laws.
This.
There hasn't been any case law set, and unless the DOJ decides to prosecute there never will be.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
02-26-15, 14:27
This.
There hasn't been any case law set, and unless the DOJ decides to prosecute there never will be.
I imagine that if Republicans were in control, MJ would be attacked and lax gun laws would be praised. The pendulum swings back and forth...
Eurodriver
02-26-15, 14:37
I wonder if the refusal to attack drug laws is precisely to avoid this kind of pro-states rights precedent?
As CO LE, can you arrest someone for possessing/smoking MJ? How does that work? Can't you arrest off the federal statute?
LowSpeed_HighDrag
02-26-15, 14:48
I wonder if the refusal to attack drug laws is precisely to avoid this kind of pro-states rights precedent?
As CO LE, can you arrest someone for possessing/smoking MJ? How does that work? Can't you arrest off the federal statute?
CO laws are based of of Colorado Revised Statutes. We do not enforce federal mandates. Most of our statutes coincide with federal law, but we dont enforce it per se. States have to have laws that are at least as strict as Federal law. While we do not have to enforce federal stuff, we can not prevent the feds from enforcing it in our states.
No more than an oz of possession, no public consumption (although Denverites would odorously disagree), no more than 6 plants, no more than 5 ng in a ml of blood when driving, no possession on federal property.
You can be arrested by federal LE on federal property and charged with possession under federal law, and then be booked in to county and held under the federal violation.
If I recall, a few states have thrown down just such a gauntlet over federal gun laws and their enforcement in recent years. Montana was it? Plus a few others...
In each case the feds have chosen to not prosecute and decide the issue. Personally, this makes me a bit nervous. I'm not willing to stick my neck out based on my state laws to see if the feds want a chop at it or not. Anyone else?
If pro-gun federal laws ever do get passed again (Hey, dare to dream...), I'm sure my state would lead the charge to rebel against them and fight them in any way possible. Maybe not. NJ or NY might beat them to it. Sort of a reverse view of the original topic here.
http://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/republicans-push-to-legalize-silencers-sawed-off-shotguns/article_99021ebd-a3ad-56a4-b431-80c275fccf83.html
I just saw this. It will be interesting to see what happens, it probably won't get very far, but still something to keep on the radar. As high of a penalty that unlawful possession of unlicensed NFA items is (losing the right to even possess firearms), it's not something I would attempt to challenge, but perhaps someone in Arizona will.
Eurodriver
02-26-15, 15:09
CO laws are based of of Colorado Revised Statutes. We do not enforce federal mandates. Most of our statutes coincide with federal law, but we dont enforce it per se. States have to have laws that are at least as strict as Federal law.
Thanks for the info.
This is an interesting bit of wording I'd like to expand on.
While ordinarily that is true, it's obviously not anymore at least with respect to MJ. Given that state law is less restrictive than federal law, could a sworn state LEO make an arrest based on a federal statute?
I.E. Colorado nullifies all federal gun laws, and the feds decline to enforce but some dickhead LE (either individual or entire department) in Denver arrests a dude for having an unregistered SBR per the federal statute. Where does it go from there? To the Fed DA who declines prosecution? Is the arrest valid?
How about the inverse. You have a Pro-2A LEO/LEA, no state law restricting SBRs, and the feds are enforcing statutes regarding SBRs. Is the state LEO under a legal obligation to make an arrest if there is an unregistered SBR even though there is no state law?
It seems pointless to discuss case law at the moment because there hasn't been any precedent set as far as I can tell, but the two scenarios above are very plausible under the current situations in CO, AK, WA, as well as pro-gun states like Montana and Wyoming.
I imagine that if Republicans were in control, MJ would be attacked and lax gun laws would be praised. The pendulum swings back and forth...
I think you're giving most Repubs too much credit there. My jaded self sees it down to usual issue: $$$
There's big $$$ for states to sell MJ (and I'm in favor of legalization of it personally even though I have no interest in the stuff personally) and ignore federal law but what financial insensitive does the state have for bucking the federal laws with regards to fire arms and or Repubs defending it? There may be some $$ to be made, but enough to risk being targeted by anti gun groups and politicians and the ilk? Would most Repubs stick their neck out over that topic? Personally, I think not.
skijunkie55
02-26-15, 15:43
The senate in Michigan introduced the "Michigan Firearms Freedom Act" in January of 2013.
http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2013-SB-0063
"Introduced by Sen. Phil Pavlov (R) on January 16, 2013, to establish that firearms which are completely made in Michigan may be possessed and sold in this state, notwithstanding any potential federal gun bans claiming authority based on the U.S. constitution’s interstate commerce clause."
Basically, If it's made in Michigan, Federal gun bans can go pound sand. I don't think it went anywhere tho. I'll have to do some digging.
So for instance, the District residents can have up to six plants and up to three of them can be mature. Ok, so if feds roll up to this house and find MJ plants and some stolen fed.gov property and tag the homeowners with a federal drug trafficking operation.
Then the judge throws out the charges, or the jury finds them not guilty because of the DC law, wouldn't that lend case law backing to the notion that the District (or state) can override the Fed law and give the slippery slope some downward momentum for applying that to gun charges?
Even if marijuana is legal in your state, using it prevents you from purchasing a firearm.
How so? What prevents them? A silly little check mark on a piece of paper ain't doing squat. :laugh:
How so? What prevents them? A silly little check mark on a piece of paper ain't doing squat. :laugh:
I always LOL at those Qs. Who's dumb enough to check "yes" to any of them knowing it will automatically prevent them from getting the license?
They check "no" hope they slip through the system regarding priors, etc, and often do.
They check "no" hope they slip through the system regarding priors, etc, and often do.
I know more than a few people who smoke marijuana and have never had a prior. There's a lot of people who smoke it, don't advertise it, and are professionals in the workplace and lead normal, healthy lives. One of the biggest proponents I know is a lawyer and she loves it cause she can relax, unwind and not deal with a hangover the next day.
I am a huge proponent of personal freedom.
I know more than a few people who smoke marijuana and have never had a prior. There's a lot of people who smoke it, don't advertise it, and are professionals in the workplace and lead normal, healthy lives. One of the biggest proponents I know is a lawyer and she loves it cause she can relax, unwind and not deal with a hangover the next day.
I am a huge proponent of personal freedom.
Obviously, but is any of them going to check "yes" to a Q such as "are you currently using marijuana?" or similar? If anyone is that dumb, they shouldn't be allowed to work a spoon...:big_boss:
Per above, I'm a proponent of legal MJ being Libertarian leaning/minded.
I know more than a few people who smoke marijuana and have never had a priorThere's a lot of people who smoke it, don't advertise it, and are professionals in the workplace and lead normal, healthy lives. One of the biggest proponents I know is a lawyer and she loves it cause she can relax, unwind and not deal with a hangover the next day.
I am a huge proponent of personal freedom.
Would having a MJ possession ticket in ones past ban them from being able to buy a firearm?
I would think not; unless it had occurred rcently/just before filling out the 4437.
How does/would this work? Plenty of people did dumb shit In Their youth, got caught/a ticket but don't do the things from their youth anymore.
I really think it is bullshit that one cannot posses a firearm or have a right for any reason other than a few mental disorders. And even that is a grey area for me a lot of the time- not everyone with mental issues that COULD cause them to snap and go on a shooting spree will 100% definitely snap and do so.
what really needs to happen is dismantling 90% of our federal government and all the BS that goes along with it. Liberty needs to make a huge comeback soon or things are going to get really bad for everyone.
4473 is a federal, not a state form. It asks if you are an unlawful user of MJ. Per the state regs, you are legal. Per the federal regs, you are not a lawful user of MJ, as no such thing exists. There is a problem, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Keep you from the firearm? No, of course not. Could be a federal felony if something goes sideways....
Could also lose your clearance if you lie, or misstate your MJ use, even if completely legal at the state level.
Some people are getting sidetracked on the issue I am asking. This is not about is MJ right or wrong. Simply do not care.
MJ is legal in certain states, deal with it, or don't, but this is not the thread to derail what is being asked.
Some people are getting sidetracked on the issue I am asking. This is not about is MJ right or wrong. Simply do not care.
MJ is legal in certain states, deal with it, or don't, but this is not the thread to derail what is being asked.
So the Q you present is, does the recent decisions by a number of states to essentially ignore federal stats set precedent that could be applied to gun laws? I'm no attorney, but of the state was motivated to do it, why not?
So for instance, the District residents can have up to six plants and up to three of them can be mature. Ok, so if feds roll up to this house and find MJ plants and some stolen fed.gov property and tag the homeowners with a federal drug trafficking operation.
Then the judge throws out the charges, or the jury finds them not guilty because of the DC law, wouldn't that lend case law backing to the notion that the District (or state) can override the Fed law and give the slippery slope some downward momentum for applying that to gun charges?
That isn't quite how it works. I'm fed LE in DC working for an agency that has the somewhat unique full authority to enforce local and federal law anywhere in the city. I'm uniformed, drive a marked patrol car throughout a patrol zone that covers over 1/4 of the city, respond to 911 calls, etc. A week ago, if I found a personal-use quantity of MJ in someone's possession, I'd have cited and released them (obligating them to show up to DC superior court at some point) under DC code.
If I find MJ on someone tonight, technically I could still arrest them for the federal violation. The offender would (in theory) go to US district court here in DC where the DC law allowing MJ has no authority. The reason I wouldn't have arrested someone for personal use MJ amounts under federal law, either before or after the DC law change, is that no assistant US attorney in the entire DOJ is going to agree to prosecute a case that small, regardless of the local pro/anti-drug atmosphere.
Unfortunately, if the same scenario involved an unregistered SBR, machine gun, or other weapon that wasn't banned by state law, but fell under NFA, you can bet your ass that every AUSA in the district would be chomping at the bit to get a fairly significant weapons conviction under his/her belt.
I still find it hard to believe that the majority of people that are enlightened to the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill people subscribe to the idea that drugs somehow do, rather then people being ignorant and unaccountable in regards to such the same as it applies to firearms. While I don't consume narcotics, and may subjectively offend a persons so called higher perceived moral standing, I still believe that if one has no sovereignty over ones body then sovereignty doesn't exist at all. If someone doesn't subscribe to the same concept then they have no business fighting for their sovereign rights in any other area of there life, including as it pertains to firearm. If people want to drink Drano, then that is there prerogative. People being voted into Legislation for the sake of legislating their own religious and moral ideals is wrong. Prohibition of such in any area only creates crime. America is one of the most Legislated and incarcerated Country's on the planet. As such it creates more of a burden on the general public. Repealing prohibition on any alleged immoral act doesn't somehow make public offenses legal. Public Offense will still be enforceable. The focus should be on the enforcement of Malum in se crimes rather then coming up with more BS Malum prohibitum crimes, thus creating more government agencies and larger Government. I don't understand why supposed Conservative people don't understand that. It's like they are cheering for a football team named Republicans and if you don't subscribe to that made up ideal you aren't a fan. Rather then realizing that Republicans or Democrats both subscribe to a larger Governing body, but with that Governing body being a platform to enforce their special interest, morality, religious beliefs and ideals. Does anyone know what a Republic is. Because as it stands America is far from it. Why and what does everyone think spawned the Gadsden flag. What does the term Don't Tread on Me, mean. If I want to poison myself with drugs, cigarettes, cheese burgers or copious amounts of sugar, that's my business. If it infringes on someone else s Liberties then it is a crime. That doesn't change with or without prohibition.
^^^^TL;DR^^^^
Are you even replying to the right topic? Not sure what drugs killing someone has to do with anything, and that's about as far as I got....
MountainRaven
02-26-15, 22:38
So the Q you present is, does the recent decisions by a number of states to essentially ignore federal stats set precedent that could be applied to gun laws? I'm attorney, but of the state was motivated to do it, why not?
Apples and oranges.
Most states made marijuana possession and distribution illegal. All they are doing is repealing the old laws or amending them to allow for medicinal or limited recreational uses.
What states are doing with marijuana is little different than if California decided to allow people (once more) to own SBRs, machine guns, and silencers. IOW, states are not nullifying federal law, they're simply creating less onerous regulations for possession and distribution of marijuana - which are still "overruled" by federal law that makes any such possession or distribution illegal. The feds have simply chosen to not pursue prosecution in such cases very often, just as the feds rarely choose to prosecute people (just) for violating 922r.
As far as the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (and all the local variations on it), those laws have been junked by - IIRC - the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and SCotUS has refused to hear the case. So in essence, such attempts at nullification have failed.
So there are federal statutes currently in effect that make it a federal crime to consume, possess, grow or sell marijuana. States are creating laws that circumvent those federal statutes. Including the federal District of Columbia.
What would it take to use this dilution of the law to enact favorable gun legislation that also circumvented the federal laws? A few cases where the states beat the feds on MJ laws?
I could see these new MJ laws as providing quite a bit of case law that could challenge gun laws in a similar "states rights" pursuit.
Thoughts? Differences? Compare/contrast? Legitimate things I am missing in the grand scheme?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That's it. We just need to reassert ourselves as "we the people" and stop allowing these abuses. Period.
All of the laws prohibiting firearms in any manner are unconstitutional, to try and find loopholes in the current asinine "interpretations"; illegal and unconstitutional interpretations by a SCOTUS that illegally and unconstitutionally usurped constitutional/judicial review is useless, pathetic and unamerican.
We already have the unalienable and undeniable right to keep and bear arms. We just let them circumvent these rights and control us.
A free man asks not to find legal loopholes to attain ones God given rights when they have been legislated away.
We either have these rights or we don't. This middle ground bullshit runs counter to every ideal that formed this great country.
I always see "play stupid games win stupid prizes" posted here. Well, we've played their stupid game and won many stupid prizes. Stop playing the stupid game.
People/governments don't step on people, people allow themselves to be stepped upon. As long as we play these stupid games, we can do nothing but win Stupid prizes.
History is a guide, the longer we wait to assert our rights, the longer we live without them and possibly give them up in our lifetime.
You want to talk about legal precedent? Let's talk about the legal precedent that created this country and the ideals it was founded upon. Until then , liberty dies not with a bang- but with a whimper...
If you can't see why drug laws are being laxed and why firearms are unde attack; you need to look closer.
For every 10 people that are awakened by escaping reality through drug use there are 100 who are put to sleep.
Those who champion rights; especially gun rights- are awake in a way that the powers that be fear- fear to no end. Hard/neRly impossible to control those who control themselves.
Let's be honest, legalizing drugs by governments ( although I agree with this as a libertarian) is as much about liberty as criminalizing "high capacity magazines" or regulating any right.
This is (Should be)America, founded upon ideals that DO allow us all to live our lives as we see fit- as long as we do not directly inhibit or remove others freedom to live their lives as they see fit.
We have all lost the reality of what and who we are; where/who we came from and desperately need to find it and become it again.
If you can't see that 2A rights are non negotiable and just- worth fighting for to the bitter end, not giving up on, not allowing to be whisked away; why would you believe hiding behind drug law precedent would save our most basic and just right from being denied?
If our right to bear arms can be denied in and of itself based upon individual selection of imbibed intoxicant of choice- there is no such thing as a right to begin with...
SHIVAN makes some very valid points and I think it shows just how screw balled the laws in this country have become. Unfortunately we have come to the point where the federal gov't simply overrides everything under the guise of some bullshit act or court decision. Almost always it's under the guise of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
The marijuana issue should be left to the states, gun laws should be left to the states, in fact with a few exceptions the states should be the ones making decisions that affect the lives of their citizens and not the federal gov't. As long as those laws do not take away any rights.
This is a shitty piece of legislation and the comments in that article are exactly why we are doomed. For example-
This moron doesn't even know that the weapons mentioned are legal in AZ as long as they are registered in accordance with the NFA. The sole exception is for nunchucks (which are legal in some cases like martial arts demos, etc..)
Rep. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, said Ward's amendment makes the bill less about helping people and more about legalizing weapons prohibited under Arizona law.
I can almost guarantee that no one in AZ is going to set himself up to become the lamb in some test case. With Obama in charge and the BATFE firmly under control of his anti-gun bootlicker anyone who contemplates such a move is brain dead.
http://tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/republicans-push-to-legalize-silencers-sawed-off-shotguns/article_99021ebd-a3ad-56a4-b431-80c275fccf83.html
I just saw this. It will be interesting to see what happens, it probably won't get very far, but still something to keep on the radar. As high of a penalty that unlawful possession of unlicensed NFA items is (losing the right to even possess firearms), it's not something I would attempt to challenge, but perhaps someone in Arizona will.
Moose-Knuckle
02-27-15, 03:45
If we use MJ as an example then I think there is a good case for states to flip their middle finger at Federal firearm regulations. If a state such as TX came out and said all gun laws on the books violate both the US and Texas Constitutions and made it "legal" on the state and county level to own MGs/DDs/SBRs/etc. just how would the Feds go about rounding up all the new tens of thousands of "Federal felons" not to mention what holding facility (county/state) would accept their arrestees?
I would surmise they would just go after the licenses of manufactures and the like if that ever came to be.
You guys have it all wrong... The FSA (liberty free men arguments aside) smoke pot... We need them to believe they need guns too lol.
The feds easing up on pot has nothing to do with recognizing liberty and everything to do with exploiting stupid people for political gain.
Moose-Knuckle
02-27-15, 04:07
You guys have it all wrong...
The feds easing up on pot has nothing to do with recognizing liberty and everything to do with exploiting stupid people for political gain.
Correct, so why not adopt and use the enemy's tactics against them . . . Saul Alinsky 101.
Averageman
02-27-15, 06:46
You would think if a marriage licence is legal in all 50 States then a C.C. Licence in Texas has to be legal in NY?
You would think if you can grow, sell and smoke weed in Colorado, then you should be able to manufacture M855 in Texas?
The problem begins when you let that magic Genie out of the bottle and start making laws with a pen and a phone. This does not bode well for a Republic.
You would think if a marriage licence is legal in all 50 States then a C.C. Licence in Texas has to be legal in NY?
You would think if you can grow, sell and smoke weed in Colorado, then you should be able to manufacture M855 in Texas?
The problem begins when you let that magic Genie out of the bottle and start making laws with a pen and a phone. This does not bode well for a Republic.
Maybe if we started marketing personal protection devices to the LGBT community? And I don't mean condoms..
The fundamental problem as that government is suppose to VERY limited in scope.. When the politicking starts and special interests take control you get what we have today.. Our founders were brilliant really.
If we use MJ as an example then I think there is a good case for states to flip their middle finger at Federal firearm regulations. If a state such as TX came out and said all gun laws on the books violate both the US and Texas Constitutions and made it "legal" on the state and county level to own MGs/DDs/SBRs/etc. just how would the Feds go about rounding up all the new tens of thousands of "Federal felons" not to mention what holding facility (county/state) would accept their arrestees?
I would surmise they would just go after the licenses of manufactures and the like if that ever came to be.
That's what I'm saying. If a state, or several adjoined states, were to enact simultaneous legislation that basically said that if you make it inside our state, using machines owned in our state, it's legal to buy, sell and transfer. There would be a huge problem for fed.gov. Especially if some of these MJ laws had already been challenged and upheld.
Apples and oranges.
Most states made marijuana possession and distribution illegal. All they are doing is repealing the old laws or amending them to allow for medicinal or limited recreational uses.
No they are not. The District is allowing personal consumption, possession, and cultivation of MJ. Any DC resident can grow plants on their property. Up to six of them. Three mature.
Any MJ possessor can transfer up to 1oz to another person in DC.
Federal law still says you can not possess, grow, sell or use MJ unless prescribed by a physician. It's a controlled substance, just like other schedule drugs. DC, Colorado and other states are allowing recreational usage, outside the guise of any medicinal use.
My point is that if a case comes forward where a state law is allowed to trump federal law, and passes appeals, it could incorporate that interpretation across other laws/concepts. Specifically where the state law was written in direct contradiction to the federal law well after the fed law was passed, it could be a lever for gun rights.
Averageman
02-27-15, 07:55
No they are not. The District is allowing personal consumption, possession, and cultivation of MJ. Any DC resident can grow plants on their property. Up to six of them. Three mature.
Any MJ possessor can transfer up to 1oz to another person in DC.
Federal law still says you can not possess, grow, sell or use MJ unless prescribed by a physician. It's a controlled substance, just like other schedule drugs. DC, Colorado and other states are allowing recreational usage, outside the guise of any medicinal use.
My point is that if a case comes forward where a state law is allowed to trump federal law, and passes appeals, it could incorporate that interpretation across other laws/concepts. Specifically where the state law was written in direct contradiction to the federal law well after the fed law was passed, it could be a lever for gun rights.
THIS !
I could see this becoming our future for exactly the above stated reasons. As soon as "A phone and a Pen" became the way we legislate in the future a pandora's box was opened and the push back is going to be fun to watch.
Maybe if we started marketing personal protection devices to the LGBT community? And I don't mean condoms..
The fundamental problem as that government is suppose to VERY limited in scope.. When the politicking starts and special interests take control you get what we have today.. Our founders were brilliant really.
Pink pistols: The gay movement often portrays homosexuals as helpless victims. Here's an alternative: Arm them.
"Still, the abiding fact is this: Homosexuals have been too vulnerable for too long. We have tried to make a political virtue of our vulnerability, but the gay-bashers aren’t listening. Playing the victim card has won us sympathy, but at the cost of respect. So let’s make gay-bashing dangerous. We should do that for our own protection. But we should also do it because we will win a full measure of esteem from the public, and from ourselves, only when we make clear our determination to look after ourselves."
http://www.salon.com/2000/03/14/pistol/
Averageman
02-27-15, 08:10
Pink pistols: The gay movement often portrays homosexuals as helpless victims. Here's an alternative: Arm them.
"Still, the abiding fact is this: Homosexuals have been too vulnerable for too long. We have tried to make a political virtue of our vulnerability, but the gay-bashers aren’t listening. Playing the victim card has won us sympathy, but at the cost of respect. So let’s make gay-bashing dangerous. We should do that for our own protection. But we should also do it because we will win a full measure of esteem from the public, and from ourselves, only when we make clear our determination to look after ourselves."
http://www.salon.com/2000/03/14/pistol/
That put a whole new "Dirty" in "Dirty Harry".
That put a whole new "Dirty" in "Dirty Harry".
Dude, did you have to go there?! :blink:
Correct, so why not adopt and use the enemy's tactics against them . . . Saul Alinsky 101.
It's what the Open carry F-Tards did so poorly. It only seems to work if you're a gay, illegal alien criminal wanting to cast a ballot for a Kenyan goofball.
It's a matter of resources. The feds don't have enough resources to enforce federal law consistently nationwide without the cooperation of state and local LEOs. There's a reason that outside of the huge cases, most federal operations are done in conjunction with state/local departments.
If the states simply refuse to help enforce federal law, the law is effectively nullified in most cases.
And there is case law that the feds can't force the states to help enforce federal law. Can't remember the case name at the moment but it was from back in the 70s.
Federal law still says you can not possess, grow, sell or use MJ unless prescribed by a physician. It's a controlled substance, just like other schedule drugs. DC, Colorado and other states are allowing recreational usage, outside the guise of any medicinal use.
FWIW MJ is a schedule 1 drug, meaning the DEA and FDA have identified no legitimate medical use for it, and therefore doctors can not prescribe it. So even medicinal MJ prescription, sale and possession runs afoul of federal law. Doctors in medicinal Marijuana states are committing a federal crime every time they prescribe it.
My point is that if a case comes forward where a state law is allowed to trump federal law, and passes appeals, it could incorporate that interpretation across other laws/concepts. Specifically where the state law was written in direct contradiction to the federal law well after the fed law was passed, it could be a lever for gun rights.
The federal law would have to be declared unconstitutional in order for a state law conflicting w/ federal law to be upheld in federal court, due to the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. There have been a ton of cases heard by the Supreme Court regarding federal law preempting state law, and unless the federal law was struck down as unconstitutional, the fed gov has always won.
If the fed MJ law were struck down as unconstitutional, it wouldn't have any bearing on gun laws, unless the Supreme Court based their decision on some radically different view of state's rights than it has held in the past, which is certainly NOT happening with its current make-up. :fie: Using the Heller case as an example, the current court is very careful to narrowly define the justifications behind it's decisions, so as to minimize any change in judicial precedence.
TL; DR:
The NFA would have to be struck down as unconstitutional in order for state law to be upheld over it in federal court, and any MJ litigation has about a .0000001% chance of affecting our gun rights, given the recent history of our Supreme Court.
Thanks for the reasoned response.
No problem. I think the avenue to take against the NFA would be the interstate commerce clause, which would basically take someone getting arrested by the feds while in possession of an unregistered NFA firearm that was manufactured in and never transported out of that person's state of residence. Problem is, who would take that chance? You're talking about actual jail time, plus never being able to own a gun again, if we lose. If we won, NFA would probably still be in effect, just not for firearms built and possessed in one state.
Also, unless literally every part of the rifle is from in state, it may still fall under NFA...I don't know how the courts would rule on that. Obviously sourcing every single part from one specific state is probably impossible. Except maybe Texas :D
No problem. I think the avenue to take against the NFA would be the interstate commerce clause, which would basically take someone getting arrested by the feds while in possession of an unregistered NFA firearm that was manufactured in and never transported out of that person's state of residence. Problem is, who would take that chance? You're talking about actual jail time, plus never being able to own a gun again, if we lose. If we won, NFA would probably still be in effect, just not for firearms built and possessed in one state.
Also, unless literally every part of the rifle is from in state, it may still fall under NFA...I don't know how the courts would rule on that. Obviously sourcing every single part from one specific state is probably impossible. Except maybe Texas :D
I've thought for a while now that the Nfa Avenue of attack should be the tax itself by equating it to a poll tax. Both are taxes to exercise a right after all and poll taxes have long been held to be unconstitutional
Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk
I've thought for a while now that the Nfa Avenue of attack should be the tax itself by equating it to a poll tax. Both are taxes to exercise a right after all and poll taxes have long been held to be unconstitutional
Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk
True...as long as the court holds that NFA weapons are covered under our 2nd Amdt. right. The other thing that might happen is that the government argues that the tax should go UP as an adjustment for inflation. The $200 tax in 1934 was a de facto ban on these guns for all but the uber elite, and I'm sure any democratic admin would love to restore that.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-02-15, 10:50
The part I find most annoying with the potheads is that they make it out to be 'mother's milk'- no danger, no side effects, no downside- that it is actually 'good' for you. Way to many babies being born to pot moms- and they don't see any issue with it. It is a 'drug', don't be a dumb-ass.
With the NFA, I think it would have to be 'framing' issue. The LGBT crowd leads with the lipstick lesbians and Modern Family gays. They leave the rest of the circus in the closet to pop out later. You can't start with auto weapons. Maybe SBRs, but really suppressors would be the way to go. Show how they aren't death machines that turn a gun into a silent laser weapon. Show how they protect hearing. Hell, get someone to publish a study that they should be required for shooting. How they could make gun ranges into good neighbors. A lead-less, suppressed firearm is the environmentally conscience way to shoot.
The part I find most annoying with the potheads is that they make it out to be 'mother's milk'- no danger, no side effects, no downside- that it is actually 'good' for you. Way to many babies being born to pot moms- and they don't see any issue with it. It is a 'drug', don't be a dumb-ass.
With the NFA, I think it would have to be 'framing' issue. The LGBT crowd leads with the lipstick lesbians and Modern Family gays. They leave the rest of the circus in the closet to pop out later. You can't start with auto weapons. Maybe SBRs, but really suppressors would be the way to go. Show how they aren't death machines that turn a gun into a silent laser weapon. Show how they protect hearing. Hell, get someone to publish a study that they should be required for shooting. How they could make gun ranges into good neighbors. A lead-less, suppressed firearm is the environmentally conscience way to shoot.
^This.
My sister in law told me of a work associate who smokes pot and recently had a baby. She smoked pot during the pregnancy and continues to do so whilst breastfeeding because she heard that marijuana isn't bad for the fetus or the child and cannot get into the child's system through the breast milk!
She doesn't smoke around the baby; so thinks it's okay. She'll leave the baby in the car while she tokes outside at a park and leave the baby in the other room of the house with the door closed while smoking in the house.
Absolute moronic and dimwitted behavior; poor kid.
My sister in law thought nothing of it until She told my wife and I and we were shocked and pissed off. I had to drop some knowledge on her about the true dangers of MJ, as she was brainwashed by a bunch of people so eager to get it legalized they lied about MJ being "good for you without any negative consequences".
I'm all for liberty and for the government staying out of the morality business; but idiots like this piss me the F off to no end.
Too many on both sides of the MJ debate that are idiots, using misinformation and outright propaganda to try and control how people feel about MJ.
The antis use BS studies to demonize it & make people think it is terrible for your health and you'll kill or rape people while on it- and the pros use BS studies to misinform people that it is good for you and couldn't be bad in any way.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. It can be very bad for you, just like anything else and in moderation it is not going to be too bad for most, just like most anything.
I've been pushing silencers as safety and healthy devices for a long time and it is absolutely the angle we should use to educate people; same with SBRs being better for CQB/ home defense to help save the lives of family and children when criminals break in.
Getting people on our side is all about image; and in general a lot of gun owners have needed a "makeover" for a long time.
Showing our wives, children, mothers, grandmothers, etc using firearms responsibly and hitting hard on the force equalization aspect of firearms for women and people who are weak is the way to go.
Getting people to see how safe and responsible we are, how we are just trying to have the best chance at protecting our loved ones and ourselves should we need to, and defending our country and our rights- keepin this country good and safe from foreign and domestic threats.
And a big one, we need to stop the infighting and get on the same page within our own ranks. The amount of snobbery, elitism and downright ill will I've seen between gun owners is embarrassing and pathetic.
I've been guilty of being a dick and laughed a few times at morons who were taken to task for asking stupid questions or just acting stupid in general- but I wish I would have acted a bit differently on those occasions and offered knowledge and support in a more educating and caring fashion. I reflected on those occasions a while ago and have since changed things up with fairly good results; some people are too stubborn, prideful and stupid to get through to/learn/change, but a lot aren't.
Quite frankly we control a lot of our future and need to spend more time creating a positive image of firearms, gun rights and our entire culture; we've got a lot of people against us and a lot of us do the absolute minimum until things get rocky and then start doing something.
We need to be proactive not reactive. Get involved in local politics, charities, community outreach, etc- and make sure everyone in our ranks is showing up BEFORE, DURING and AFTER elections to ensure accountability.
It's not going to be an easy battle, but it is one we surely cannot afford to lose.
Freedom is freedom. I just want the logical leaps that were made to get pot legalized to happen for our pet projects.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-02-15, 18:00
Start with 22lr suppressors. Show lots of kids out shooting with their two parent families- that will really piss off the progressives. Hell, even limit it to rifles so there aren't any 'mafia hitman' hysteria. Show some olympic athletes training with them. Shooting competitions where people don't need ear pro.
That's how the left does it. Incrementalism that doesn't give up. Walter Payton football, 3 yards, 3 yards, 3 yards.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.