Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 112

Thread: Spokane pot case has gun rights implications

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Spokane pot case has gun rights implications

    Pay attention to Spokane case if you own guns, smoke pot

    A trial scheduled to begin today in Spokane has some serious implications, especially for residents of Washington and Colorado who may smoke pot recreationally or ingest it for medical reasons, and own or possess firearms for hunting and personal protection, because under federal law, the two do not mix.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/pay-...guns-smoke-pot

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Well, the feds have been consistent -- smoke weed and no guns.

    It does highlight the fact that the ATF may now be going into doctors' offices and demanding records from them.

    Should know that anytime you have to document what you own, what you do, or where you go, it can be used against you in a court of law.

    5th amendment controls these "requirements". You cannot be required to:
    a) register your gun
    b) inform the state of your gun purchase
    c) make a record for the gov of a purchase
    d) sign any "book" to enter a public building
    e) perform any act that would create a record that could be used against you

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    I have been warning people about this for several years. Ironically I am more often than not met with hostility from the pot smokers.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    I have been warning people about this for several years. Ironically I am more often than not met with hostility from the pot smokers.
    The old "screw you" mentality ... you just shrug your shoulders I guess

  5. #5
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    I have been warning people about this for several years. Ironically I am more often than not met with hostility from the pot smokers.
    Do you file taxes every year? Yes? Well here's a warning, you are surely violating the tax codes. Live in America? Yup, you are surely breaking the law almost every day... you've been warned. http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Boo...oniesaDay.aspx

    It took a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw Alcohol. Hmmmm

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index...sends_mes.html
    The Oregon Supreme Court ruled this morning that Oregon sheriffs have no grounds to deny concealed handgun licenses to the state's 39,774 medical marijuana cardholders -- solely because they use pot.
    MMJ patient with a CCW at a gun range. Freedom is cool.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 05-12-2014 at 09:52 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    I have been warning people about this for several years. Ironically I am more often than not met with hostility from the pot smokers.
    But what have you done to fight for their inalienable Right to keep and bear arms?
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 05-12-2014 at 09:49 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Hopefully there will be a fully informed jury.

    Oh wait the feds don't like those either.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Hopefully there will be a fully informed jury.

    Oh wait the feds don't like those either.
    But would that be a jury of their peers?
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    But what have you done to fight for their inalienable Right to keep and bear arms?
    Why do you think I am warning them, are you by chance a pot smoker?
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Why do you think I am warning them, are you by chance a pot smoker?
    Ahhh, so that's why you warn them instead of actually trying to help them. You're afraid of being accused of smoking pot, since it's the easy ad hominem attack.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Do you file taxes every year? Yes? Well here's a warning, you are surely violating the tax codes. Live in America? Yup, you are surely breaking the law almost every day... you've been warned. http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Boo...oniesaDay.aspx

    It took a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw Alcohol. Hmmmm

    http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index...sends_mes.html


    MMJ patient with a CCW at a gun range. Freedom is cool.
    An attorney for Washington County said he appreciates the decisive, unanimous ruling from the Oregon Supreme Court. "We were really looking for clarification from link ^^^

    Needs clarification? He needs to smoke some dope. Seems pretty straight forward.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    But would that be a jury of their peers?
    Somehow peers to government means they get to pick them.

    The jury system originally was a trial by pais (or country) and done by lots. This whole judge and prosecutor and attorneys weeding out ( no pun intended) jurors, is disastrous to justice.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Dave, your article sucks.

    You make zero distinction between recreational consumers of marijuana, and those who GROW it (aka, 'manufacture).

    The people in Spokane were MANUFACTURING medical marijuana. The Feds stepped in. "seizing 44 pot plants." A quick google search reveals that one plant can produce between 1 ounce to 18 pounds of usable marijuana. Safe to assume the Feds will 'assume' the maximum potential when they look at a grow operation, making this a lot bigger bust than some kid walking on Capital Hill holding a few grams. The crime is elevated to 'manufacturing and distributing' rather than simple possession. The two Federal crimes are fundamentally different.

    Citizens who simply possess marijuana (less than 1 ounce) for personal consumption are highly unlikely to draw Federal scrutiny. It would either bankrupt the Federal courts and prisons, or it'd make a bunch of companies that run private prisons really rich. But to heck with facts, you gotta pay the bills with sensational articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

    Mentioning the Oregon ruling might have been nice too, since this whole issue is about State rights versus Federal authority.

    Also, not being able to bring a competent defense in Federal law is a shame on the legal system. Medical necessity is base fact surrounding the events, and no court should bar it if they want to honor justice and human right. Unfortunately the Feds have the power to game the system, and have done so with impunity since the start of states legalizing MMJ -- making this entire Spokane incident surprisingly, not really news.

    And once you make talking about Jury nullification illegal, then outlawing other inherently lawful and legitimate defenses becomes par for the course.

    I really dislike hypocritical, anti-freedom, gun owners. INALIENABLE Right. Every convicted felon who had finished their sentence could own firearms prior to 1968. Marijuana was legal prior to 1970. This country should really be ashamed of how they twisted and abused our Rights -- and maybe gun owners who just fight for the Rights of some should deserve to be disenfranchised themselves. It's those gun owners that keep giving in and adopting anti-gun beliefs over time.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 05-13-2014 at 11:51 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The jury system originally was a trial by pais (or country) and done by lots. This whole judge and prosecutor and attorneys weeding out ( no pun intended) jurors, is disastrous to justice.
    Sadly, it is not shocking that the government has spent a couple hundred years eroding personal liberty and Rights -- and had to turn our legal system into a sham in order to succeed. Power corrupts, and government has always grown its power (thus increasing its level of corruption).
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 05-13-2014 at 11:49 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    But would that be a jury of their peers?
    Washington state is an "impartial jury" state.

    I wish we were a "jury of our peers" state.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Dave, your article sucks.

    You make zero distinction between recreational consumers of marijuana, and those who GROW it (aka, 'manufacture).

    The people in Spokane were MANUFACTURING medical marijuana. The Feds stepped in. "seizing 44 pot plants." A quick google search reveals that one plant can produce between 1 ounce to 18 pounds of usable marijuana. Safe to assume the Feds will 'assume' the maximum potential when they look at a grow operation, making this a lot bigger bust than some kid walking on Capital Hill holding a few grams. The crime is elevated to 'manufacturing and distributing' rather than simple possession. The two Federal crimes are fundamentally different.

    Citizens who simply possess marijuana (less than 1 ounce) for personal consumption are highly unlikely to draw Federal scrutiny. It would either bankrupt the Federal courts and prisons, or it'd make a bunch of companies that run private prisons really rich. But to heck with facts, you gotta pay the bills with sensational articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

    Mentioning the Oregon ruling might have been nice too, since this whole issue is about State rights versus Federal authority.

    Also, not being able to bring a competent defense in Federal law is a shame on the legal system. Medical necessity is base fact surrounding the events, and no court should bar it if they want to honor justice and human right. Unfortunately the Feds have the power to game the system, and have done so with impunity since the start of states legalizing MMJ -- making this entire Spokane incident surprisingly, not really news.

    And once you make talking about Jury nullification illegal, then outlawing other inherently lawful and legitimate defenses becomes par for the course.

    I really dislike hypocritical, anti-freedom, gun owners. INALIENABLE Right. Every convicted felon who had finished their sentence could own firearms prior to 1968. Marijuana was legal prior to 1970. This country should really be ashamed of how they twisted and abused our Rights -- and maybe gun owners who just fight for the Rights of some should deserve to be disenfranchised themselves. It's those gun owners that keep giving in and adopting anti-gun beliefs over time.
    Can you cite a law the defines what, "marijuana," is?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Sadly, it is not shocking that the government has spent a couple hundred years eroding personal liberty and Rights -- and had to turn our legal system into a sham in order to succeed. Power corrupts, and government has always grown its power (thus increasing its level of corruption).
    +1 Much of what the prosecutors and the gov did was modeled after the Gliechshaltung of 30's Germany.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142
    I agree with the jury of your peers thing. How many of you would consider any random person your peer? I think a good start would be the jury be in the same line of work the accused is. Then they'd be his peers. I'm sure there is a better way, but my point remains, when lawyers fight over the jury, they don't end up with peers. It's like your mommy telling you who you can be friends with.

    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    I agree with the jury of your peers thing. How many of you would consider any random person your peer? I think a good start would be the jury be in the same line of work the accused is. Then they'd be his peers. I'm sure there is a better way, but my point remains, when lawyers fight over the jury, they don't end up with peers. It's like your mommy telling you who you can be friends with.

    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2
    Peers isn't necessarily a good thing either. Cops being judged by other cops...........oh wait that already happens.....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Peers isn't necessarily a good thing either. Cops being judged by other cops...........oh wait that already happens.....
    I know what you mean.. But say in a doctors malpractice suit, his peers could be a doctor or two, a couple nurses, maybe a couple administrative people, and toss in a couple guys from the plaintiffs general line of work... No one from his own hospital of course. No one who knew the guy..

    I can think of a couple guys who'd love to be on a cops trial. Haha a few of them have been known to lurk this forum occasionally.

    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    I know what you mean.. But say in a doctors malpractice suit, his peers could be a doctor or two, a couple nurses, maybe a couple administrative people, and toss in a couple guys from the plaintiffs general line of work... No one from his own hospital of course. No one who knew the guy..

    I can think of a couple guys who'd love to be on a cops trial. Haha a few of them have been known to lurk this forum occasionally.

    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2
    I understand what you are saying. Folks like Doctors may get railroaded by an uninformed jury.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I understand what you are saying. Folks like Doctors may get railroaded by an uninformed jury.
    Or protected by professionals who fear similar lawsuits (or lawsuits in general).

    http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/20...is/#more-35084

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Or protected by professionals who fear similar lawsuits (or lawsuits in general).

    http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/20...is/#more-35084
    Yep. Like cops.

    Or real estate agents who are subject to the board of other real estate agents.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    I agree with the jury of your peers thing. How many of you would consider any random person your peer? I think a good start would be the jury be in the same line of work the accused is. Then they'd be his peers. I'm sure there is a better way, but my point remains, when lawyers fight over the jury, they don't end up with peers. It's like your mommy telling you who you can be friends with.

    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2
    So if you're trying a unemployed gang member who would your jury be?

    I think we should just throw 12 random names out and bring them in. And eliminate peremptory challenges to jurors. All eliminations from the jury pool should be for cause... And cause should be narrowly defined as something severe like racism.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  25. #25
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Can you cite a law the defines what, "marijuana," is?
    Marijuana is a name for a specific drug created from the cannabis plant. There is no law that defines marijuana, so plain definition applies.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •