Seattle Hempfest 2014: Part I. No guns allowed

[Maverick9]

Guys you're overlooking one very important thing here.

Guns and pot don't mix, legally, under federal law. Period. End of story.

Cite?

(The underlined: Doesn't that mean inside an individual?)

 

[marshaul]

Cite?

(The underlined: Doesn't that mean inside an individual?)

What about inside a cocktail glass?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I'm with ya, make no mistake. No big deal, just be honest (not directed towards you) about the real purpose of Hempfest (should be called Weedfest) and continue to work to restore/expand the liberty.

I applaud the efforts of the Hempfest organizers and patrons, you support their efforts without a "backatcha." No biggie.

In this specific circumstance I would not help if I were in WA and I would not hinder either. Let me lawfully pack my gat for all to see and I'd be more inclined to lend a helping hand.

Of course it could be a guns and weed in the same place is a legal no no in WA. I'd need your help on that one.

Understood. I was packing. And even OC'd a bit. No one said a word to me.

 

[Difdi]

I believe that the 21st amendment is using the common usage definition for "United States"

The term found in most USC is a legal definition that is used per the definitions found in the codes.

Do you need an example of what it would look like if congress had meant the 50 states of the union?

Prior to the 18th amendment, the authority to prohibit intoxicants rested solely with the states. The feds had to ratify the 18th amendment to make national prohibition constitutional. When the 18th amendment was repealed, the authority returned to where it had been prior to the 18th and any statutes the 18th made constitutional became unconstitutional. The 21st amendment was not written by Congress, but by the states themselves.

The thing is, the federal government only has the authority the US constitution grants it. Outside of the 18th and 21st amendments, the only place you will find even an extremely vague mention of the authority to prohibit marijuana, cocaine, or any other intoxicant is in the 10th amendment, which specifies that any authority not granted to the federal government or denied to the states is reserved to the states or the people. Since nowhere in the constitution will you find a grant of authority to the feds to outlaw any plant, that authority lies with the states or the people not the feds.

If the feds pass a statute that grants them authority over something the US constitution says they have no authority over, the statute is unconstitutional.

 

[OC for ME]

The governments only have the power that the people do not refuse them.

Simply put, if the people start marching to demand the repeal of all gun laws those gun laws will be repealed. I'm not talking about 30 some odd OCers walking around with signs. I'm talking massive protests.

Imagine, on the Capital Mall in DC, a half million citizens peacefully gathered, exercising their 1A and 2A at the same time.

Several thousands of citizens exercising their 1A and 2A in Jeff City, demanding entry into the state house while the critters are in session.

Several hundred's of citizens exercising their 1A and 2A demanding entry into a town council meeting.

The only problem is that there are not enough folks who would do such a thing cuz we are a law abiding lot...and have jobs.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Imagine, on the Capital Mall in DC, a half million citizens peacefully gathered, exercising their 1A and 2A at the same time.

Yeah that produces mixed results. It can end in the death of protesters, like when the US Military killed some of the Bonus Army at the foot of our nations Capital.

Eisenhower later wrote the Army's official incident report which endorsed MacArthur's conduct.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Prior to the 18th amendment, the authority to prohibit intoxicants rested solely with the states. The feds had to ratify the 18th amendment to make national prohibition constitutional. When the 18th amendment was repealed, the authority returned to where it had been prior to the 18th and any statutes the 18th made constitutional became unconstitutional. The 21st amendment was not written by Congress, but by the states themselves.

The thing is, the federal government only has the authority the US constitution grants it. Outside of the 18th and 21st amendments, the only place you will find even an extremely vague mention of the authority to prohibit marijuana, cocaine, or any other intoxicant is in the 10th amendment, which specifies that any authority not granted to the federal government or denied to the states is reserved to the states or the people. Since nowhere in the constitution will you find a grant of authority to the feds to outlaw any plant, that authority lies with the states or the people not the feds.

If the feds pass a statute that grants them authority over something the US constitution says they have no authority over, the statute is unconstitutional.

That is what was being said. But you have to read the laws first to understand the claim that it is illegal because the fed gov says it is.

That is why I was pointing out that the law in question has no legal effect in the states of the union.

You're simply proving that the law IS constitutional, while I was not making a claim one way or the other.