• 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.

firearm/medical marijuana with green card issue

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
I think many are missing the forest here for the trees. LE in general has increasingly become a "for profit" venture. Meaning: if it is to the financial advantage for officers/agencies to charge people for anything (right or wrong), they will. In this particular case they made (guessing) a minimum of $5,000 off charging one person via fines/charges/court costs. So why would they care if any charge is valid or not? Not bashing - just pointing out what I see a a major "defect" in our "Justice" system.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
This got me thinking maybe this could be the case that will make 'shall immediately disclose' unconstitutional and get his charges dropped.
Since it requires us to give up our 5TH amendment rights(Self-Incrimination Clause).


Would be if he refused to disclose .. does not sound like he did.

Also sounds like he gave them the key or code to open up the lock box.

Too many questions that the OP cannot answer -- as always, go see a lawyer OP relative.

Many prescription drugs have side effects ~ does that mean anyone on such drugs loses RKBA? That's next on the anti's agenda.

I would say if you are "on" anything that is legal, your RKBA should be in tact. The FDA knows about our RKBA, correct? They should take side effects and RKBA into account.
 

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
Many prescription drugs have side effects ~ does that mean anyone on such drugs loses RKBA? That's next on the anti's agenda.


If we help the potheads win this one, the antis won't be able to make that next move.


This is what I was talking about in the social lounge a while back. Gun owners and potheads have a great deal in common with one another socially and legally. The gun owners treat the potheads badly and often vote for laws that cause the problems for themselves and the potheads tend to vote for things that cause us problems an again for themselves .

Read between the lines here and you can see that neither of the parties that either sides vote for really are capable of running a free country.
 
Last edited:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
It really is as legal as beer in most ways.

Really? Last time I went shopping at the grocery store, I bought a 6 pack of beer, I guess I failed to see the weed aisle. Funny too, that I didn't think I needed a special card to possess the beer...and the clerk didn't even check my ID. I guess I've been out of the loop for a while, when did the Feds make weed legal?

The problem lies in the mind. LEO still associate weed with problems due to decades of blinders and brainwashing. As a result, LEO pulls over someone abiding by the law, can't come to terms with that fact, and goes old school making trouble for Johnny Citizen.

No, the problem is that, despite "Medical Marijuana" being passed by a majority of Michigan voters, the Republican Party (Governor, Atty General, Supreme Court, etc) has been having apoplectic fits over this law. The Attorney General and the Michigan Supreme Court have so restricted the "legal" use of medical marijuana that it is very difficult for a card-holder to not violate some un-"official opinion". It's the cop's bosses that let this happen. Yes, cops would hate to see weed be legalized; the "War on Drugs" has given officers powers well beyond constitutional limits. I am not saying all, or even a majority, abuse the law, just that the "War on Drugs" has truly decimated most 4th Amendment protections. An officer can claim he or she smelled marijuana and that gives them RAS to do what they want. No-knock warrants were rare until the police argued that the homeowner could be flusing weed down the toilet. But the blame for this lies clearly at the Republican Leadership(sic) in this state. If they would honor the will of Michigan's citizen's, the LEOs would most likely fall in line right behind them.

Whenever too much freedom is in one place, the government will always freak out.

True.

Couple Michigan's law enforcement/ judicial system's disdain for medical marijuana with Michigan's "Shall issue", but really "May Issue", CPL law, I can't see this turning out well for the OP's nephew
 
Last edited:

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
Really? Last time I went shopping at the grocery store, I bought a 6 pack of beer, I guess I failed to see the weed aisle. Funny too, that I didn't think I needed a special card to possess the beer...and the clerk didn't even check my ID. I guess I've been out of the loop for a while, when did the Feds make weed legal?

I said MOST ways. The card annoys me, but it's a bit of a trophy from being a footsoldier in this drug war at the same time. I'm well accustomed to being at war with the US.gov.

No, the problem is that, despite "Medical Marijuana" being passed by a majority of Michigan voters, the Republican Party (Governor, Atty General, Supreme Court, etc) has been having apoplectic fits over this law. The Attorney General and the Michigan Supreme Court have so restricted the "legal" use of medical marijuana that it is very difficult for a card-holder to not violate some un-"official opinion". It's the cop's bosses that let this happen. Yes, cops would hate to see weed be legalized; the "War on Drugs" has given officers powers well beyond constitutional limits. I am not saying all, or even a majority, abuse the law, just that the "War on Drugs" has truly decimated most 4th Amendment protections. An officer can claim he or she smelled marijuana and that gives them RAS to do what they want. No-knock warrants were rare until the police argued that the homeowner could be flusing weed down the toilet. But the blame for this lies clearly at the Republican Leadership(sic) in this state. If they would honor the will of Michigan's citizen's, the LEOs would most likely fall in line right behind them.

I do not disagree but with the last part of your post. No matter what, some LEO won't be able to get past it, just like some of them in their views on OC. It's human nature to some extent.

True.

Couple Michigan's law enforcement/ judicial system's disdain for medical marijuana with Michigan's "Shall issue", but really "May Issue", CPL law, I can't see this turning out well for the OP's nephew

My comments in green.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
My comments in green.

My general experience has been that IF the officer is specifically ordered to do something a certain way, they generally do so, despite their personal opinion. Much like any other job, if you do things contrary to what is demanded of you by your superiors, you will lose your job. Perhaps an officer can do things differently for a while, but eventually the department will find out. If the chief REALLY wants it done a certain way, it will be done that way. Perhaps your experience is different.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
I think many are missing the forest here for the trees. LE in general has increasingly become a "for profit" venture. Meaning: if it is to the financial advantage for officers/agencies to charge people for anything (right or wrong), they will. In this particular case they made (guessing) a minimum of $5,000 off charging one person via fines/charges/court costs. So why would they care if any charge is valid or not? Not bashing - just pointing out what I see a a major "defect" in our "Justice" system.

Free the PD doesn't receive money from court costs. The court costs goes to running the court.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

FreeInAZ

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
2,508
Location
Secret Bunker
Free the PD doesn't receive money from court costs. The court costs goes to running the court.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Not saying your view is short sighted ... if the police profit from charging people unjustly, and the court who handles those cases also profits, where is the incentive to correct injustice? That was my point. :cool:
 

22Luke36

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
472
Location
Above and Beyond.
Why should we offer incentive for a public servant to obey? If you want to keep them inline, you do it through revolution at the barrel of a gun.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Not saying your view is short sighted ... if the police profit from charging people unjustly, and the court who handles those cases also profits, where is the incentive to correct injustice? That was my point. :cool:

Define how the PD profits from charging people? Whether justly or unjustly. I can MAYBE see that allegation with things like oui grants. Maybe. But short of that how do you figure. Cite?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States

I was just perusing the first link and it's talking confiscating money. Correct? It says due to "terrorism charges"? My assumption, from reading this and having seen this before, is that your referring to the confiscation of drugs and/or money from people and using said money for the PD. Also, mnay PDs will confiscate vehicles and other items as part of the investigations. It also appears under the first link there is anot case where some officers were trying to get a bribe essentially from the guys on a traffic stop. Am I correct in understanding your definition of for profit?

IF, since I may be wrong, that is your stance, then I understand our disagreement and misunderstanding. My stance is that I'm unaware of there being a direct profit to charging guys for crimes. For example, I'm unaware of an X amount of money per person a PD gets. Say, you get paid 100.00 per disorderly conduct charge to the PD. That is what I'm saying is false. That is why I was referring to OUI Grants. In an OUI grant, the PD is required to show proof fo them doing stops (not actually charging) in order to get the OT grant money. That is more of a direct X amount of people stopped = grant money. (Kind of).

I do understand what your talking about and agree it is a problem, we were just misunderstanding the details. Thank you for the cites to explain.
 
Top