Medical Marihuana & CPL?

[mpearce]

Only if you are a drug user.

The federal government still considers marijuana for any purpose an illegal drug. So, yes, if you want to own a firearm you cannot be "an unlawful user of a controlled substance." 18 USC 922(d)(3) and 18 USC 922(g)(3).

The feds take this very seriously and the federal laws do not recognize a legal use of marijuana yet.

 

[mpearce]

Im not totaly for, or against this system. On one hand, its socialism, on the other hand, what kind of country would we be, to turn our backs on our own people? What kind of country would we be, to turn our backs on our poor and disabled?

It does keep my head above water, it is necessary for many, and a few abuse it. If they werent feeding the poor with your money, they would be building some bridge with it, or lining thier pockets with some pork project, its not like the .gov would give it back to you.

The problem with the system, is that its designed to keep you dependent on it. If you make x amount of dollars, they take the benefit, trouble is, they take more than you could replace. That means youre better off staying on it.

Here, I have to disagree with you. I grew up as a welfare child and had my mother promote living on the system to take care of my children. However, I found that one is better off by finding a career that they love, getting the training or education that they need to be in that career, and earning a living that can support their family from that career rather than living on the few meager dollars the government gives them. By the way, there is now a lifetime limit to public assistance.

I worked my way off of government subsidy and have raised children who now live within their means rather than turn to the government for assistance.

However, there are those individuals for whatever reason that do need to collect from Social Security for assistance for their physical or mental disabilities that render them unable to work a job. But these individuals never make it without living on the bare necessities.

 

[mpearce]

The difference is apples to oranges, no, more like popcorn.

One problem is, you can be high for 4 hours, then completely sober, but test positive for over a month. The .gov considers you high the whole time. With alcohol, you are drunk for a couple hours, come down, and can blow zero. Its easy to check for alcohol intoxication.

The intoxicants have a completely different effect in every aspect. I wouldnt drive drunk, because it is unsafe to do. Being high is a different ballgame. Same with firearms, I wouldnt go to the range drunk, COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Inappropriate

There is a difference.

The government does not consider you high when you test postive for THC on a drug test, but rather that within the last 30 days you have violated the law and used a controlled substance. Other drugs have a different rate of metabolism in your system. By the way, some prescription drugs give false results, which is why one should always bring the prescription bottle to the drug testing facility.

 

[stainless1911]

IIRC, the BATFU considers one to be a chronic user at 1 joint per year.

Admin, I respectfully disagree with the removal of my comment, they were appropriate to the discussion at hand.

ETA, thanks for the Christmas card

 

[mpearce]

Its the feds who are breaking the laws here, not us.

Marijuana is legal under certain conditions, and this BATFU scandal, yes I said scandal, is in direct violation of the first, second, fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth and tenth amendments.

Try sitting in a constitutional class sometime. Because I believe you are a bit out in the left field on your statement there.

Marijuana is not legal under federal law. And one can be prosecuted in federal court for lawfully using marijuana in his state under a MML.

 

[stainless1911]

IMO they are violating the first amendment by trashing the rights of MM users without a court, legislation or due process. The petitioning of the .gov for the redress of grievances.

The second Amendment: goes without explanation.

The Fourth amendment,: They are violating the right to privacy as a .gov agency which is getting into the personal lives, and punishing people by removing their inalienable rights. The fourth protects from unreasonable searches and seizures. (unreasonable, warrantless searches are happening here) . There is no probable cause, anything they are getting from medical records shouldn't count, that stuff is supposed to be protected. The BATFE skipped the whole warrant requirement here.

The Fifth Amendment.: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. These people are being deprived of all of these, and again, without due process.

Eighth Amendment.: Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Both denying a legitimate person the medicine they need, and by further denying a person a pre existing basic human right to defend themselves against attack is in fact a cruel and unusual punishment. For breaking thier rules, they throw you to the mercy of the criminal element.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Again, self explanitory.

Tenth Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Gun control is both prohibited by the US constitution and the right is again guaranteed to the people by the states constitutions. The right to keep and bear arms is the right of the people. As is, in certain states, the right to use medical marijuana. This is a states rights issue. The tenth amendment clearly takes medical marijuana out of the reach of the BATFU.

 

[stainless1911]

A MM card would IMO constitute an Oath or Affirmation, thereby giving the state, not the feds, cause for search. Ie, a drug screen. Acceptance of a CPL comes with implied consent (28.425k?), but if the person passes, they should be left alone. They should retain the CPL until AFTER they are proven guilty, under the presumption of innocence. Since the person with a MM card would be legal under state law, and the tenth amendment clearly is supposed to protect them from federal prosecution, then neither the state, nor the feds should be able to deny either right from that individual.

Since they are doing this through a memo, and not due process, they (BATFU)seem to, at least for now, be getting away with, in some cases, murder.

 

[mpearce]

IMO they are violating the first amendment by trashing the rights of MM users without a court, legislation or due process. The petitioning of the .gov for the redress of grievances.

The second Amendment: goes without explanation.

The Fourth amendment,: They are violating the right to privacy as a .gov agency which is getting into the personal lives, and punishing people by removing their inalienable rights. The fourth protects from unreasonable searches and seizures. (unreasonable, warrantless searches are happening here) . There is no probable cause, anything they are getting from medical records shouldn't count, that stuff is supposed to be protected. The BATFE skipped the whole warrant requirement here.

The Fifth Amendment.: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. These people are being deprived of all of these, and again, without due process.

Eighth Amendment.: Nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Both denying a legitimate person the medicine they need, and by further denying a person a pre existing basic human right to defend themselves against attack is in fact a cruel and unusual punishment. For breaking thier rules, they throw you to the mercy of the criminal element.

Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people Again, self explanitory.

Tenth Amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Gun control is both prohibited by the US constitution and the right is again guaranteed to the people by the states constitutions. The right to keep and bear arms is the right of the people. As is, in certain states, the right to use medical marijuana. This is a states rights issue. The tenth amendment clearly takes medical marijuana out of the reach of the BATFU.

There is no right in the First Amendment to Due Process. Yes, you have a right to petition the government for a grievance. But based on your posts, you are not a MML holder, so therefore, you have no standing to petition the government on this particular grievance.

Sometimes to exercise one right or privilege, you give up another. This is a conscience choice by the individual when he chooses one right or privilege above another.

The search is not unreasonable when you consent to it. I don't know how many times I have had to explain this to clients who have willingly allowed the police to search their belongings. When you consent to a search of your medical records in order to purchase a pistol, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in those records. Again an individual is choosing to give up a right to exercise another.

A person who chooses to have a MML card is not being forced to do so by the government. They are making a choice of health and pain-free living over the ability to possess a firearm under the federal law. If he is uneducated or ill-advised, then he should have considered his options more closely. Ignorance of the law is no defense to violating the law.

Stainless, you miss the point. Here the individual chooses to apply for the MML card and thereby forfeits his rights to the bear arms. No one in the government or society forces anyone to obtain a MML card. An individual does so because he feels that the medical use of marijuana is his only solution. There is no invasion of rights by the government in the loss of the right to bear arms. The individual has done that voluntarily. Consent has always been a means of allowing the government to go where they could not freely enter. You cannot cry foul when the person makes a choice of his own free will.

As Heavenly Father gave us free agency to choose, he did not give us free agency to choose the consequences that naturally and logically follow our choices.

 

[mpearce]

A MM card would IMO constitute an Oath or Affirmation, thereby giving the state, not the feds, cause for search. Ie, a drug screen. Acceptance of a CPL comes with implied consent (28.425k?), but if the person passes, they should be left alone. They should retain the CPL until AFTER they are proven guilty, under the presumption of innocence. Since the person with a MM card would be legal under state law, and the tenth amendment clearly is supposed to protect them from federal prosecution, then neither the state, nor the feds should be able to deny either right from that individual.

Since they are doing this through a memo, and not due process, they (BATFU)seem to, at least for now, be getting away with, in some cases, murder.

The memo explains to FFLs that MMLs are illegal users of a controlled substance, even if the state law makes the medical use of marijuana legal in that state. The control of marijuana has been held to the regulation of the federal government under the commerce clause.

Your understanding of the law is concerning.

 

[stainless1911]

Im not a MM card holder, or a user. I just support strongly, the right.

The issue Im having with this discussion, and the .gov in general, is exactly what you have posted here. The fact that you stated that we have to give up one right to exercise another is, well, sick and twisted. The .gov didn't give the RKBA, or marijuana, the Heavenly Father did.

I wasnt talking specifically about the individuals rights in consent to search forfeiting the right to privacy, although I dont believe it is right to hold a persons 4th amendment rights over their head for the sake of implied consent. I was speaking more against the BATFE going against the 4th amendment rights of everyone who wishes to use MM with a CPL.

A person should never, ever have to choose between health or life, (MM) and safety or life, (CPL). The framers were trying to prevent the .gov from putting the citizen in this kind of position.

A person was never supposed to need a CPL to begin with. My arguments are based in this presumption. Shall not be infringed, when it was written, meant what it said. It has been misinterpreted and perverted in courts and classes for so long now, that even educated people have a hard time reading what is written on the paper in front of them when they try to read it. (not directed at you)

 

[stainless1911]

The commerce clause is a liberals wet dream.

 

[xmanhockey7]

The commerce clause is a liberals wet dream.

Until it gets used against them. Then they are very state rights oriented.

 

[stainless1911]

Your understanding of the law is concerning.

True, but I still seem to know more about it than most people that I run into in daily life. Not trying to come off cocky or anything, just trying to state the fact that people dont understand the law. I think that's because for the sake of winning cases, money and simple power, the law has removed itself from our foundations, reality, and common sense.

 

[marshaul]

Stainless, you miss the point. Here the individual chooses to apply for the MML card and thereby forfeits his rights to the bear arms. No one in the government or society forces anyone to obtain a MML card. An individual does so because he feels that the medical use of marijuana is his only solution. There is no invasion of rights by the government in the loss of the right to bear arms. The individual has done that voluntarily. Consent has always been a means of allowing the government to go where they could not freely enter. You cannot cry foul when the person makes a choice of his own free will.

As Heavenly Father gave us free agency to choose, he did not give us free agency to choose the consequences that naturally and logically follow our choices.

What a load of crap. Excuse my French.

I've met people who would literally die if not for the use of marijuana. More than one, in fact. Their use is not by choice, it is by necessity.

And it is reprehensible that government, and you by proxy through this bit of apologia, would deny them their fundamental rights, and attempt to apply such twisted reasoning in justification.

 

[marshaul]

The commerce clause is a statists' wet dream.

Fixed it for you. Because, you know, abuse of the commerce clause is such a partisan endeavor.

 

[stainless1911]

Yes sir, I stand corrected. As has been pointed out, Democrats and Repunlicans are just 2 sides of the same filthy coin.

 

[stainless1911]

I disagree

There is no invasion of rights by the government in the loss of the right to bear arms.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

 

[mpearce]

Im not a MM card holder, or a user. I just support strongly, the right.

The issue Im having with this discussion, and the .gov in general, is exactly what you have posted here. The fact that you stated that we have to give up one right to exercise another is, well, sick and twisted. The .gov didn't give the RKBA, or marijuana, the Heavenly Father did.

I wasnt talking specifically about the individuals rights in consent to search forfeiting the right to privacy, although I dont believe it is right to hold a persons 4th amendment rights over their head for the sake of implied consent. I was speaking more against the BATFE going against the 4th amendment rights of everyone who wishes to use MM with a CPL.

A person should never, ever have to choose between health or life, (MM) and safety or life, (CPL). The framers were trying to prevent the .gov from putting the citizen in this kind of position.

A person was never supposed to need a CPL to begin with. My arguments are based in this presumption. Shall not be infringed, when it was written, meant what it said. It has been misinterpreted and perverted in courts and classes for so long now, that even educated people have a hard time reading what is written on the paper in front of them when they try to read it. (not directed at you)

Do you realize that by merely having a driver's license (by the way, driving is a privilege not a right), you give implied consent to tests to determine if you driving impaired. I am talking about the PBT and blood alcohol tests, not the field sobriety tests. If you fail a field sobriety test, you do not have the right to refuse a chemical test to determine your BAC.

Again, the CPL has an implied consent attached to it as well. The right to bear arms is not the same as the right to a CPL.

I suggest that you read Stephen Halbrook's "The Founders' Second Amendment" as it will give you a better understanding of the Second Amendment as written and the historical significance of the Second Amendment.

You forget that the American people throughout history have willing stood by and allowed certain rights to be tailored down or whittle away in an effort to combat some perceived "evil". These rights mean nothing unless good men and women are willing to join together in a concerted unified and organized method to ensure that the rights written down in the Bill of Rights means the same in 200 years as they did 200 years ago. However, a group that resorts to name-calling within itself, demonstrates an attitude that offends rather than educates other, is perceived by those in the elected position to be radicals rather than activists, and has failed to find a leader that withstand being in the limelight's revealing light will not bring about the continuity it seeks but rather will only end up destroying the very right it advocates for.

 

[mpearce]

The commerce clause is a liberals wet dream.

The commerce clause was written into the Constitution (1788) by the founding fathers (glad you think that they are liberals) in Article I, Section 8, clause 3 "to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. . ."

SCOTUS throughout the history of the USA has said that the power of Congress to regulate commerce does have limits. To regulate commerce and to be within the commerce clause, the federal law must either regulate the channels of interstate commerce, regulate the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons and things in interstate commerce, or regulate economic activities which (in the aggregate) substantially affects interstate commerce.

Interesting enough in United States v Lopez, SCOTUS held that a federal statute barring possession of a gun in a school zone is invalid.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-There is no invasion of rights by the government in the loss of the right to bear arms. The individual has done that voluntarily. Consent has always been a means of allowing the government to go where they could not freely enter. You cannot cry foul when the person makes a choice of his own free will.

-snip-

The basic premise that the government does not invade rights when a person voluntarily seeks a government issued "permit" in that paragraph is ..... deeply flawed simply because there should not be a "permit" in the first place.

When the only choice is to submit to one form of governmental control over a different form of governmental control then that "voluntary choice" is an intentionally set up by the government "false choice".... since the only choice is which form of governmental control the person will submit to. So the government has basically offered the illusion of "free will"......... since in the end, no matter what choice the person makes, the government is still in control.

To begin:

First of all... and most importantly of all... no person ever "loses" the right to keep and bear arms. That right has been illegally infringed upon with laws and "permits" that impose penalties for exercising that right...but the true right remains. Also... no person can voluntarily "lose" their right to keep and bear arms. An individual may decide to not exercise the right to keep and bear arms but whether that individual actually engages in keeping and bearing arms is immaterial... they still possess the true "right".

A "permit" required means some level of government gets to control what it takes to qualify for that permit, who is eligible to qualify for the permit, what the permit allows the permit holder to do, and (think about this one for a bit) what the permit allows the government to do to the permit holder.

But "shall not be infringed" means the government does not get to control the exercising of that right in any way, shape, or form.

Hence a "permit", by it's very nature, IS an infringement.

Now.....

Since a "permit" is a means of government control I would submit that "shall not be infringed" means there shall NOT be any form of control... there shall NOT be any "permit" of any kind that could "infringe".. whether directly or indirectly... on the right to keep and bear arms.

Hence... just like a CC "permit" directly infringes on the right to bear arms... the government using a MM card (a "permit") to backhandedly control the right to keep and bear arms..... IS also violating "shall not be infringed" and is an infringement.

And to add to the heinousness of the whole concept of government control via "permits"..... Please consider that, in the case of a MM card, the MM governmental "permit" not only controls who can/cannot legally use marijuana... but it also controls who can/cannot own a firearm. Kind of makes a MM card a "twofer permit" where the one permit controls one thing directly but also controls another indirectly.

And I would also submit that when a permit is required the government has put the person into a position where they must choose to relinquish the ability to exercise one right over another to the government's control. However, the Bill of Rights was put in place in order to prevent the government from controlling the rights of the people. Hence there should not even be such things as "permits" of any kind in regards to any "rights". And the only one in control of which rights are exercised and which are not on any given day under any given circumstances should only be the individual involved... not some kind of "permit" system controlled by the government.

I would remind folks that just because a law requires folks to get a permit doesn't mean that it is a good law.. or that it was instituted for any reason other than control and revenue generation... or that the law actually does what it was sold to the people as... and that laws can be repealed.