• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Get and Rx for marijuana lose your guns/rights.

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
While this ruling does raise some interesting points, it applies specifically to a "regulatory program" as opposed to a law. I have not been able to find anything to indicate that local law enforcement agencies are allowed to just decide not to enforce federal laws.

...Congress’s ability to compel the states to enact similar criminal prohibitions, to repeal medical marijuana exemptions, or to direct state police officers to enforce the federal law remains limited by the Tenth Amendment.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42398.pdf

I'm having a difficult time finding more than articles referencing this, but there have been a few court decisions to the effect that California, for instance, may prohibit local LEOs from enforcing Federal marijuana laws. I clearly remember reading about at least one locality in CA which actively prohibited its officers from doing so.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
While this ruling does raise some interesting points, it applies specifically to a "regulatory program" as opposed to a law. I have not been able to find anything to indicate that local law enforcement agencies are allowed to just decide not to enforce federal laws.

What are "regulations"?

Now the burden is on you to show a cite where state officials are required to enforce federal law.

Also take into consideration a state and the people have the right to nullify laws, what does that mean?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42398.pdf

I'm having a difficult time finding more than articles referencing this, but there have been a few court decisions to the effect that California, for instance, may prohibit local LEOs from enforcing Federal marijuana laws. I clearly remember reading about at least one locality in CA which actively prohibited its officers from doing so.


+1 I remember reading some of those rulings too. My states constitution specifically says all political power and authority is granted by the governed, if the people in our state don't want our officials to enforce federal law there is no requirement for them to do so.
 

MarkS

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2014
Messages
27
Location
Colorado
Colorado Campaign for Equal Gun Rights

In Colorado, a group is working to add this language to Colorado laws via a ballot initiative:

"18-12-203. Criteria for obtaining a permit. (1) Beginning May 17, 2003, except as otherwise provided in this section, a sheriff shall issue a permit to carry a concealed handgun to an applicant who:

(c) Is not ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to section 18-12-108; or federal law;

(f) Is not an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance as defined in section 18-18-102 (5), EXCEPT THAT A SHERIFF SHALL NOT USE A PERMIT APPLICANT’S LAWFUL USE OF MARIJUANA PURSUANT TO SECTION 14 OR 16 OF ARTICLE XVIII OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION AS A BASIS FOR DENYING THE APPLICANT A PERMIT. Whether an applicant is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance shall be determined as provided in federal STATE law and regulations
"

http://coequalgunrights.org/

There are two types of legal marijuana use in Colorado -- medical marijuana which is issued pursuant to a doctor's prescription and recreational marijuana which merely requires the purchaser to prove they are resident of Colorado.

In theory, the database containing the medical marijuana cards are medical records and cannot be obtained by anyone (but that's not been tested with a subpoena). The business records of recreational outlets are just non-confidential business records, so if the Department of Revenue or the CBI or local law enforcement demanded them, they would likely be turned over. There are hundreds of thousands of marijuana Rx's in Colorado, so the overlap with gun ownership must be significant.

If you've not seen it, Wayne LaPierre's column this month cites to an interesting case -- Haynes v United States -- where the defendant did not register a short barreled shotgun because registration would violate his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. If you believe that case is binding, then one could argue that any declaration by a marijuana user on a CHP application could be deemed to violate the 5th Amendment's right against self incrimination and the applicant could refuse to answer. Whether a refusal to answer would result in a denial is an open question. Here's the link to LaPierre's column. It's worth reading.

http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/19328/standing-guard-59/

If you want to keep your firearms, I suggest that you do not get a marijuana Rx or visit a recreational outlet. Eventually, the anti-gun administration will weigh the political consequences of fighting legalized marijuana against criminalizing gun ownership and, unfortunately, gun owners will draw the short straw.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
If you want to keep your firearms, I suggest that you do not get a marijuana Rx or visit a recreational outlet. Eventually, the anti-gun administration will weigh the political consequences of fighting legalized marijuana against criminalizing gun ownership and, unfortunately, gun owners will draw the short straw.

False dilemma?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Not just opinion, there is no obligation for Sheriffs to uphold federal law.

You can take it a little further, too.

Tsk, tsk, tsk on all the pro-gunners who forgot US v Lopez--the SCOTUS case that shot down the so-called gun-free school zones act the first time. The court's larger rationale was that GFSZ was unconstitutional because it was out of step with the commerce clause. Congress came right back and made it illegal to possess a firearm in a school zone if that firearm had moved in interstate commerce or some such weasel change to the language.

But, within the opinion, the court separately addressed the issue of states and localities being compelled to enforce federal criminal law.

Under our federal system, the" 'States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.''' Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U. S. 619,635 (1993) (quoting Engle v. Isaac, 456 U. S. 107, 128 (1982)); see also Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 109 (1945) (plurality opinion) ("Our national government is one of delegated powers alone. Under our federal system the administration of criminal justice rests with the States except as Congress, acting within the scope of those delegated powers, has created offenses against the United States"). When Congress criminalizes conduct already denounced as criminal by the States, it effects a "'change in the sensitive relation between federal and state criminal jurisdiction.''' United States v. Enmons, 410 U. S. 396, 411-412 (1973) (quoting United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336, 349 (1971)). The Government acknowledges that § 922(q) "displace state policy choices in ... that its prohibitions apply even in States that have chosen not to outlaw the conduct in question." Brief for United States 29, n. 18; see also Statement of President George Bush on Signing the Crime Control Act of 1990, 26 Weekly Compo of Pres. Doc. 1944, 1945 (Nov. 29, 1990) ("Most egregiously, section [922(q)] inappropriately overrides legitimate State firearms laws with a new and unnecessary Federal law. The policies reflected in these provisions could legitimately be adopted by the States, but they should not be imposed upon the States by the Congress").



Also, a little reverse logic in another area helps. If states and localities could be compelled to enforce federal law, then why have a Fourteenth Amendment (the one that incorporated the federal bill of rights against the states)? If the federal government could compel states and localities to enforce federal law, then no Fourteenth Amendment is required. Heck, you wouldn't even have to ask the feds to investigate the local cop who criminally violated your civil rights under Title 42 USC by beating you silly. The local grand jury and circuit court would handle the case as a violation of federal law. (Heh, heh, heh. But, wouldn't that bring up a whole host of double-jeopardy issues? Alternatively, we've all heard of situations where the government tries an accused twice--once in state court, a second time in federal court, the government claiming it is not double-jeopardy because of the dual system. They can't have their cake and eat it, too. I'm guessing some federal judges saw that problem coming and decided to adroitly leave that can of worms unopened.)
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
... their powers have to be authorized by the people they govern.

All the people they govern?

On the one hand, if government is going to lie that it can somehow legitimately rule everybody because some people vote them power, then its kinda naïve to think government would actually stop at only exercising delegated powers.

On the other hand, if government is going to lie that it can somehow legitimately rule...then I see no problem using their own lies against them rhetorically. :)
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
All the people they govern?

On the one hand, if government is going to lie that it can somehow legitimately rule everybody because some people vote them power, then its kinda naïve to think government would actually stop at only exercising delegated powers.

On the other hand, if government is going to lie that it can somehow legitimately rule...then I see no problem using their own lies against them rhetorically. :)


I am of the Spooner line of of thought on that and yes all people....;)

+1 to the post.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
OF COURSE THE POLICE HAVE ACCESS TO A STATE'S MEDICAL MARIJUANA DATABASE. Otherwise how else could they verify if a person in possession was, in fact, a real card holder. A medical marijuana card could be a fake, but the database would be the preferred way for police to check.

This is beyond absurd. A database? Why isn't a prescription enough? Is there a vicodin database?
Control. Power. num num num num. Yummy.
 

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
This is beyond absurd. A database? Why isn't a prescription enough? Is there a vicodin database?
Control. Power. num num num num. Yummy.

As a matter of FACT, there is such a database - for both medical marijuana and also for opioid medications like Vicodin.

Colorado is one of many states with a state-wide prescription drug monitoring program designed to allow prescribers to access information and identify an individual that they may have concerns about. Retail dispensers (not individual prescribers) of medications are required to upload information to a state database on a monthly basis. The information is cross referenced by Name, Address, Phone Number, Date of Birth, Social Security Number, etc. to allow identification of individuals who may be “Doc shopping” in order to obtain multiple prescriptions for drugs.

However, the systems are still in their infancy as many doctors don't check the registry before prescribing narcotics, and there is little coordination between states, yet.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_21788638/drug-registry-often-ignored-despite-growing-painkiller-abuse
 
Top