Hmmm.. a new gate way attack on gun ownership?

Discussion in 'Firearms' started by Witch Doctor 01, Sep 29, 2011.


  1. Witch Doctor 01

    Witch Doctor 01 Mojo Maker

  2. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    personally i think anyone that has to get high to survive shouldnt have a gun
    and dont tell me it heightens your awareness
    thats pure bull, i did my turn at tokin when i was in school
     
  3. irayone

    irayone Monkey+

    I have to disagree.My Dad just died of cancer at 75 years of age. The last 5 years of his life were made easier with medical canabis. He slept with a 1911 under his pillow his entire life. He was a 28th district senatorial commisioner, judge, attorney. All drugs are bad if used out of context.
     
    tulianr likes this.
  4. Opinionated

    Opinionated Monkey+

    I chose to believe it is a lot less about pot and a lot more about heaping onerous regulation on firearms dealers.

    Oh and one more thing . . don't recall seeing "except for stoned folks" in the Second Amendment anywhere . . [dunno]
     
    Falcon15 and jungatheart like this.
  5. Witch Doctor 01

    Witch Doctor 01 Mojo Maker

    My only concern is the term any controlled substance... If you have a tooth ache and get a percocet... you are taking a controlled substance... while California has really loose regulation on medical cannabis and admittedly many use it for recreational purposes with a script... anyone with a long term pain issue can and probably will be limited in their ability to own a firearm...
     
    Falcon15, tulianr and Mountainman like this.
  6. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Whoa, Let's slow down here a bit..... Lets LOOK at the Facts here......

    First. Medical Cannabis is NOT prescribe-able, as an Approved Drug as far a the Federal Government (FDA, DEA) is concerned.

    Second. Just because some States allow it to be sold, within the State, when prescribed by a MD, doesn't invalidate the Federal Statutes. All it does is make the local Federal LEOs responsible for any enforcement in that State, and there just are NOT enough of those, to effectively enforce those Federal Statutes.

    Third. Just because you use a Controlled Substance, does NOT make you a Law Breaker, UNLESS, you do not have a Prescription, signed by an MD with his DEA Number on it. If you have a Prescription, for an FDA Approved Controlled Substance, then you are fine.

    Fourth. If you are stopped by a Federal LEO, for ANY Reason and found in possession of a Controlled Substance, for which you have NO Prescription, from an MD with a DEA Number attached, you CAN be Arrested on the Federal charge, PERIOD. If convicted, you will lose ALL your Federal Gun Rights, PERIOD, even though you were not in violation of any State Statute in the state where you were caught.

    Fifth. If you choose to mess around with Medical Cannabis, and get caught by a Federal LEO, you MAY be prosecuted under the Federal Statute, should the local US Attorney decide doing so is in HIS best interest, PERIOD.

    Just how much do you like your Federal Gun Rights? Is it worth the risk?
    ....... YMMV......
     
    Falcon15 and Tango3 like this.
  7. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    Let's take a hard look at the Constitution.

    One could say that Federal Drug Laws are in violation of States Rights and the US Constitution. Under the Constitution, States are supposed to be the arbitor, enactor, and enforcer of laws within their state borders, not the Federal Government, unless the laws we are talking about are specifically prescribed in the Constitution. .. [beat].. just saying.
     
    Mountainman likes this.
  8. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    That is TRUE, in many cases, EXCEPT for where the FEDs, play their Commerce Clause CARD... then it is their DEAL.... and that is where the DEA/FDA and a whole lot of stuff comes from.....
     
  9. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    so we should make it legal to drive under the influence of weed too
    and then we can remove penalties for driving drunk o being spaced out on other drugs
    if you are on drugs you are not in full control of yourself. period.
     
  10. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn Mosquito Sailor

    You seem to be making a massive leap there. No one said anything about stoned or drunk driving. But, on that subject, how many FEEBs of any ilk have you seen pulling over the run of the mill driver (I am not talking about Commercial Semi-Tractor trailer drivers). They don't !!! That would be the local police, county sheriffs, or highway patrol. No FEEB's there. Let the Locals, County, or State LEOs enforce whatever laws the states approve and enact.
     
  11. beast

    beast backwoodsman

    all the med weed users here drive and smoke
    cops just aint watchin close
     
  12. CaboWabo5150

    CaboWabo5150 Lost in the woods

    Tango3, UGRev and Mountainman like this.
  13. CaboWabo5150

    CaboWabo5150 Lost in the woods

  14. snowbyrd

    snowbyrd Latet anguis in herba

    It is a matter of state rights. The Commerce Clause is for Interstate Commerce not Intrastate Commerce. If it don't cross state lines the feds should and are restricted from poking their noses into it.
    Another reason not to jump on a band wagon and get a pot card. Yeppers here in CO you can get one if you wanna spend the money.
    (you forgot the explosives!)
     
  15. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King Site Supporter

    Both federal drug laws and federal gun laws are serious violations of states' rights.

    The Interstate Commerce Clause was intended to regulate (wait for it)...interstate trade, not to give the feds power over anything which, in part or in whole, might have, at some point...or might in the future, travel(ed) across a state line.

    Between abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment, we might as well do away with the state concept at all...or take control back, via electoral processes or whatever is necessary.

    And, by the way...personally, I think anyone who says something like "i think anyone that has to get high to survive shouldnt have a gun" is obviously a threat to the second amendment (not to mention terminally "sheepish") and should be shot on sight...
     
    Falcon15, Gator 45/70 and BTPost like this.
  16. Alpha Dog

    Alpha Dog survival of the breed

    If they followed most state laws any thing from tylonol with codine, xanax, lowertab, flexeril, just about any form of meds used to control pain. If a person is stopped by LEO the person can be charged with DUI no matter what amount is in their system and even with a doctor's order for the meds. Now most LEO use common Sense when it comes to this. If you stop a man for expired tags and the guy is normal and alert we don't bother them but if we stop them and they look like a ZOMBIE drooling on them self they go to jail. As for the marijuana I would rather deal with a person who has hit the bowl than a drunk on Jack. The one that hit the bowl a small bag of chip's they will follow and do as you ask, the one on jack 95% of the time you have to fight. I don't think anyone who is intoxicated or high should have a gun at that time but they should have the write to possess and shoot or carry one as long as they are sober.
     
    Mountainman likes this.
  17. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Mountainman, Falcon15 and Sapper John like this.
  18. Idahoser

    Idahoser Monkey+++ Founding Member

    there really is no such thing as a state. In the national government they have no representation, so they exist only as far as the national government allows them to exist. The idea that this is a republic evaporated with the states' representation in 1913.
     
    Falcon15 likes this.
  19. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Most states lost their Sovereignty long before 1913. The issues over states rights has been ongoing since the end of the Civil War.



    Mind you, state sovereignty is a legal principle that US states have the right to prevent the application of programs and regulations of the Federal government. The basis is the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution, which reserve to the states respectively, or to the people, all powers and rights not delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution and thereby prohibited to the states (e.g. the interstate commerce clause).

    How this principle is applied depends on whether the US can be shown to be applying laws and rules that would contravene these rights, i.e. exceeding the mandate of the Constitution. Because the control of "interstate commerce" is granted to the Congress by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, courts have ruled that state or local governments may be prevented from enacting laws affecting commerce.

    This principle is the "dormant commerce clause" and has been used to prevent states from discriminatory commercial practices.


    Under the original constitutional system, while federal Representatives were popularly elected, federal Senators were appointed by State legislatures, thus ensuring a balance between Federal and State interests at the Federal level. The Seventeenth Amendment significantly altered the relationship of State and Federal powers, weakening pro-state-autonomy influence at the Federal level.

    As with anything YMMV. Welcome to the police state.
     
    Mountainman and Pax Mentis like this.
  20. irayone

    irayone Monkey+

    Any abuse of drugs is a bad deal. However, there are people who need canabis as my Dad did when he had cancer. Bottom line it helps. Many people have given up hard prescription drugs for pot. Some people need pot to cool there jets or they just might will walk into Big mac's with a machine gun.
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7