• 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.

Spokane pot case has gun rights implications

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
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-attention-to-spokane-case-if-you-own-guns-smoke-pot
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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
 

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
I have been warning people about this for several years. Ironically I am more often than not met with hostility from the pot smokers.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.aspx

It took a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw Alcohol. Hmmmm

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/oregon_supreme_court_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.
9593315-large.jpg
 
Last edited:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.aspx

It took a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw Alcohol. Hmmmm

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/oregon_supreme_court_sends_mes.html


MMJ patient with a CCW at a gun range. Freedom is cool.
9593315-large.jpg

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.
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

hhofent

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
130
Location
Iowa
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
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.....:(
 

hhofent

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
130
Location
Iowa
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
 
Top