Firearms possession and Med Pot

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is a well respected truth in American constituitional law that "it is no crime to disobey an unconstitutional law".
The Supreme Court is not the final arbitor of what is constitutional...We The People are.
I am tired of those who would surrender their rights to the appointed justices of the Supreme Court...that is not how the system was supposed to work.

OK, you've got me curious now. How was it supposed to work in your view? Every individual citizen would just interpret the Constitution themselves and obey only those laws they found constitutional?

Or maybe jury nullification? Instead of just you, you now have to get 7 of 12 people to agree with you and then we ignore the law?

It seems to me that would be chaotic, to put it mildly.

 

[HiBC]

The point of this post was to discuss,verify,and inform of the pickle one could get in over a medpot card and a firearms purchase.

It was not to argue whether or not folks should be able to smoke pot.

It was not to argue whether folks "Should"be able to own guns and smoke .

Those discussions are off topic.TFL is probably not the right forum to argue drugs.

 

[amd6547]

Fiddletown, please read the link to a well respected law book.
http://books.google.com/books?id=9v...e to disobey an unconstitutional law"&f=false
It is obviously the duty of a free citizen to make up their own minds whether a law is to be obeyed. Should the Americans of revolutionary times have meekly submitted to King George, and hoped for court to grant them their rights?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Should the Americans of revolutionary times have meekly submitted to King George, and hoped for court to grant them their rights?

The Americans of revolutionary times did not have elected representatives in Parliament - and despite being denied this access they still attempted to resolve their differences within the established system for almost a decade. It was only when the King attempted to take their arms and their ability to speak out, as well as deny them representation that they were compelled to fight.

I don't think you can make much of an analog between the Revolutionary War and medical marijuana.

Of course, all of this and your link to fiddletown ignore the interesting question - by what process should a law be declared unconstitutional and remove the duty of a citizen to obey it? You stated it isn't supposed to work the way it does; but how do you think it should work?

 

[5whiskey]

Partly off-topic, but didn't the law prevent black people from owning guns at one point in history? I would not consider a gun-owning black person, during that prohibitive time, to be a true criminal. Similarly, if guns became illegal for any non-military or non-LEO citizen to own next week, i wouldn't consider those in violation of that prohibition to be true criminals.

There are quiet a few people that violate various federal, state, and local laws, statutes, and ordinances that I wouldn't consider a criminal. There are thousands of unconstitutional laws out there folks. The supreme court hasn't even scratched the tip of the iceberg in purging unconstitutional laws. Unfortunately, to challange something all the way to the SCOTUS takes a whole lot of money, time, and legal eagles. Most of the petty laws that are unconstitutional will never be tested, because they aren't worth the time, money, and effort. It IS a shame though. Thousands of honest, hard-working Americans are probably jailed and or adjucated daily for some of these unconstitutional laws, or an arbitrary application of otherwise constitutional laws. Since they don't have the money to challenge things, they will likely spend the rest of their lives with a bogus criminal record.

Medical Marijuana is no different. It is a primary example of why I don't agree with the broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause, but that's for another debate. I think there should be no federal law against it. I have never been a user, and I never will be (even if legalized). I still think it should be taxed because I don't like big brother being too restrictive and my personal opinoin is that marijuana is no more harmful than other legal drugs. That is my opinion, worth what you paid for it.

Now if states wanted to ban it... that would suit me either way. That's the beauty of limited federal powers. Let the states determine the laws, after all they are perfectly capable. If you don't agree with your state, vote with your feet. That's a lot easier to do across state lines than it is across international lines.



As for someone who could benefit medically from marijuana, but you still wish to keep your 2nd amendment rights... well they make a product called marinol (FDA approved) that offers the same benefits as smoking to help with conditions that could benefit from marijuana use. There's your answer. Use marinol for the same benefits as smoking and still legally keep your guns. Or continue to argue for medical marijuana smoking even though a viable alternative exists that is still within the confines of what is "legal" federally.

 

[amd6547]

Getting way OT, but marinol has been proven to be not nearly as effective, and to have nasty side effects. It is an attempt by drug companies to cash in on medical pot, when a simple herb you could grow yourself is a better option for the patient.
As for unconstitutional laws, how far are you willing to allow the Supreme Court to determine your rights? The recent Heller decision, for example. What if it had gone the other way? What if follow-up cases narrow the right affirmed to the point of meaninglessness? Will you line up and turn in your firearms?

 

[publius42]

Are you suggesting that the government doesn't have a sufficient interest in the testing of new drugs to provide for a legal means for such drugs, which could not otherwise be lawfully distributed, to be used for investigational purposes?

Of are you suggesting that 18 USC 922(g) is unconstitutional? If so, your opinion doesn't count.

To the second question, no, I don't believe in the notion that possessing something affects interstate commerce and is therefore a federal matter, but I know the opposite view from the left wing of the Supreme Court currently prevails.

The second question gets back to the first, as far as the topic of this thread is concerned. If someone has medical marijuana in compliance w/state and local laws, that is a federal crime. That's the same usurpation of power in my view, calling the possession of something legal in a state "interstate commerce" in order to gain federal regulatory power. By asking that question on the firearms transfer form, it is presumed that the feds have the power to say you can't have something that your state and your doctor say you can. That would not be the case with any other "investigational" drug I can name, since the state laws tend to indicate that the citizens have decided the investigation is over.

 

[5whiskey]

As for unconstitutional laws, how far are you willing to allow the Supreme Court to determine your rights? The recent Heller decision, for example. What if it had gone the other way? What if follow-up cases narrow the right affirmed to the point of meaninglessness? Will you line up and turn in your firearms?

Unfortunately, SCOTUS is what we've got. It's what is defined by the constitution. It's not always had a perfect track record, but I'd say better than letting the executive and legislative branch run rampant without it. What suggestion do you have that would be easier to enact than the judicial branch? Also, bear in mind that the history of the US has usually yielded a pretty close match of democratic vs. republican presidential years (who appoint the members of scotus), and the average member of the scotus tends to serve at least 10 years. This means, through history, the SCOTUS has generally been fairly moderate and balanced. I know it has been in my life time. Someone correct me if it has been horribly out of whack before 1990 rolled around (when I started to become aware of such things at the ripe old age of 10).

Getting way OT, but marinol has been proven to be not nearly as effective, and to have nasty side effects. It is an attempt by drug companies to cash in on medical pot, when a simple herb you could grow yourself is a better option for the patient.

Actually it is kinda off topic, but not substantially. The OP referred to medical marijuana use in states that allow it, but that it is still illegal federally and thus bars you from owning firearms. Discussing the topic of marinol circumvents the federal illegality of it. Do I think that marinol is better or safer than toking? Naw, not really. One is natural and one is synthetic. God usually makes things better than man (let's not debate this and close this topic, this is personal belief/opinion). I simply offered an alternative to toking which will still not be illegal (even if I believe marijuana should NOT be illegal), and give some of the same medical benefits as toking. Could you site references confirming these "nasty side effects" as I just spent a solid half hour looking and couldn't find any? I've seen some forums centered around marijuana use that states the "feeling isn't the same" from marinol. It usually centers on the marinol high "hitting them like a brick" much later after taking the pill, as opposed to marijuana coming much sooner. I was under the impression that the "high" wasn't the purpose of medical marijuana, but the actual alleviation of pain and/or symptoms of a medical condition. I saw no scientific reports of side effects from marinol that varied dramatically from side effects of marijuana.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

As for unconstitutional laws, how far are you willing to allow the Supreme Court to determine your rights? The recent Heller decision, for example. What if it had gone the other way? What if follow-up cases narrow the right affirmed to the point of meaninglessness? Will you line up and turn in your firearms?

I don't see how that answers or even relates to my question. You stated "that is not how the system was supposed to work" and "it is obviously the duty of a free citizen to make up their own minds whether a law is to be obeyed."

Suppose as a free citizen, I decide that the law protecting your property rights is an archaic leftover of our Lockean past and decide to take anything of yours that interests me at gunpoint. Do I get a free pass on that since it was my duty as a free citizen to decide whether or not to obey that law?

If I can't make that decision, then why not? Why is someone else's interpretation of what is constitutional any more valid than mine? How is the system supposed to work in your view?

And as to your question, the Supreme Court ignored the Second Amendment right from the NFA of 1934 until the Heller decision, and it seems to have done so without much of an uprising. Of course, part of that is because the Supreme Court is only PART of the system of checks and balances. Had Heller gone the other way, laws would still have to be passed in Congress by our elected representatives and in the meantime, Justices could be replaced by those same elected representatives or even impeached if necessary. Not to mention, the Executive would have the power to decide how to enforce (or not) any decision the Court made.

The difference is those groups (Congress and the President) are given powers in our Constitution to check the power of the Supreme Court if necessary. Individual citizens are not. Why do you think the Founders delegated the responsibility for checking the Supreme Court like that?

 

[amd6547]

What you are describing, Bartholomew, is the difference between victemless crimes, and crimes of violence.
If an individual, an honorably discharged war veteran, good family man, guy with a very good job of some importance which he performs admirably, and who makes enough to have to pay a good amount of taxes into the public coffers, decides he wants an occaisional puff of weed, how does that hurt society? He does not sell pot, nor does he try to get others to use it. He has made the choice himself, to disobey what he considers an unconstitutional law...
...Just as most of the adult population of this country did during alcohol prohibition. Like my Grandfather who brewed his own beer, or my Father, who worked at soda counter where the local booze pushers sometimes hid out from police raids, or where they met and made deals.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Fiddletown, please read the link to a well respected law book.http://books.google.com/books?id=9v...e to disobey an unconstitutional law"&f=false

First, it's not a well respected law book. It's a series of historical accounts of a number of famous trials.

Second, the statement you contend is "...a well respected truth in American constituitional law..." is merely a line in a lengthy argument by the defense lawyer addressed to the jury to help convince the jury to let his client off. It is not an authoritative statement of what the law is. Furthermore, later on in the account, the trial judge specifically states that determination of the applicable law is the province of the court, not the jury.

...It is obviously the duty of a free citizen to make up their own minds whether a law is to be obeyed....

Obviously since we have free will, we decide what laws we obey. But that's hardly the same as calling it a duty to make such decisions. And having the power of decision doesn't negate the law nor excuse us from the punishment when we are caught.

...Should the Americans of revolutionary times have meekly submitted to King George, and hoped for court to grant them their rights?

So are you now suggesting that we should revolt so that dope heads can have guns?

...how far are you willing to allow the Supreme Court to determine your rights?...

Well insofar as the determination of our rights falls within the scope of the exercise of federal judicial power, the Supreme Court has authority under the Constitution to do so. Or are you also proposing to reject the Constitution?

The point of this post was to discuss,verify,and inform of the pickle one could get in over a medpot card and a firearms purchase....

You're absolutely correct. And you're also correct, as has been explained at length, that a user of medical marijuana is in jeopardy under federal law if he also possesses a gun.

We have gotten far off track, but the answer to your original point is quite clear under current law.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What you are describing, Bartholomew, is the difference between victemless crimes, and crimes of violence.

No, what I am suggesting is that your version of how things are supposed to work isn't the version the Founding Fathers had in mind at all and further that your version simply does not work on any remotely large scale.

You keep bringing up points related to drug use; but I don't care about that subject at all. I don't use drugs and I don't care whether you do or not. The part that got me interested in this debate was you seemed to suggest that the system isn't working as it should be; but when I ask you how it is supposed to work, you keep changing the subject to something else.

There is an entire political system in place to implement massive changes to our way of life if you can get enough people to agree with you. It actually does work pretty well when people get involved; but like a lot of things, it requires a lot of work and effort to get the reward.

 

[MLeake]

Bartholomew Roberts...

... You are suggesting work and effort? This is America. I know my rights.

Next, you'll be telling me that I should lose weight via a reasonable diet and exercise.

Does your blasphemy know no bounds?

Seriously, though, an awful lot of people want to change the system, rebel against the system, etc through dramatic, now now now means, but very few people want to commit time and sweat to doing things the way the system was set up to be worked.

 

[Tom Servo]

Of course, all of this and your link to fiddletown ignore the interesting question - by what process should a law be declared unconstitutional and remove the duty of a citizen to obey it? You stated it isn't supposed to work the way it does; but how do you think it should work?

The first option is lawsuits. The bigger the better. Sooner or later, he'll get his say before the Supreme Court. Perhaps, if the case is built and argued well enough, he'll prevail.

The second would be through legislation. That involves networking the relevant congresspeople, building an organization and doing lots of research.

I know, I know, both approaches require work, which can really harsh the buzz.

I do see an unjust situation, but pitching a fit from the couch doesn't help. Suggest a plan of action around which people can organize and effect change, and we're talking.

 

[blume357]

The whole form 4473 is unconstitutional in my opinion...

so whether you answer the questions honestly or not is a mute point.

how can the government forbid you from buying a gun because you belong to a 'group that might want to over throw it'.

Isn't that exactly how this dern country was formed in the first place?


My personal belief is that it doesn't matter what drugs you do legal or not... you have the right to do them. Now whether you should own or carry a gun while under those drugs is your personal choice and if you use the gun while on those drugs then that is what courts and laws are really for... personal responsibility.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...so whether you answer the questions honestly or not is a mute point....

So go ahead and lie on a 4473 and get caught. Then you'll see how moot it is to falsify a 4473.

You may think that the whole 4473 thing is unconstitutional. But so what? It's the opinion of the courts that matters. The opinions of courts regarding points of law, like constitutionality, affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

My personal belief is that it doesn't matter what drugs you do legal or not... you have the right to do them.....

Perhaps in your alternate universe. But here in the real world, if you use drugs illegally and get caught, you go to jail or otherwise suffer some form of penalty. That doesn't sound like much of a right to me.

If you want to fantasize about how things in your opinion ought to be, fine. Personally, I outgrew late night dorm room bull sessions over 40 years ago.

And if you think things should be different, our system provides several mechanisms whereby you can try to change the way things are. There's no guarantee that you'll succeed. It will depend on who's willing to go along with your notions. But you have the opportunity.

In the meantime, we live in the real world; and our acts have consequences under the laws as they are today.

 

[amd6547]

Alcohol prohibition was ended via the general ignoring of a stupid law by most of the population. The side effects of that law turned out to be worse than the use of alcohol, with the creation of powerful gangs, and violent battles over turf (another side effect being some of the firearms laws we live with now)...the same as today. Today we have the Mexican drug cartels supplying the demand for their product, and fighting violent wars against rivals, with the possibility of new gun laws we will deal with aimed at them.
Are their possible consequences to disobeying a stupid, unconstitutional law? Of course. However, that is sometimes the only way to get laws changed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Alcohol prohibition was ended via the general ignoring of a stupid law by most of the population....
Are their possible consequences to disobeying a stupid, unconstitutional law? Of course. However, that is sometimes the only way to get laws changed.

First, Prohibition may have been stupid, but it wasn't unconstitutional. In fact the Constitution was amended to allow it.

So are you now suggesting that a lot of people should be using illegal drugs to get the drug laws changed? A lot of people have been doing that for quite a while (longer than Prohibition was in place), with relatively little effect. Or are you suggesting that a lot of people should violate the gun laws to stimulate changing them?

Either way, you seem to be advocating illegal conduct. And that's something that really ought not be done here.

And in any case the politics of alcohol use, illegal drug use, and guns, are very different from each other, as are the broad social attitudes about each.

 

[amd6547]

I advocate nothing, fiddletown, besides the notion that free Americans make their own decisions about their own conduct, and what aspects of their lives they are willing to cede to the nanny state.
The correlation between alcohol prohibition and drug laws is valid, and in fact many of the drug laws were instituted as job security for alcohol warriors at the end of prohibition.
As I stated, I am subject to frequent and random drug testing in my job, so for me, this discussion is more theoretical.
Do I advocate the illegal use or cultivation of pot? No.
Does it bother me that grown adults, with good jobs and happy families, who vote and pay taxes, and have served honorably their country in time of war, smoke an occaisional joint? No, not at all. Not my buisiness, and not the government's, either.
This country is falling apart while debates on nonsense like jailing pot user's is distracting people.
And, to get back to the firearms aspect, the drug laws are used again and again to restrict firearms rights.

 

[orangello]

Not to get tooooooo dramatic, but some of you might wish to review the history of Americans using Civil Disobedience. There was a lady named Rosa Parks who used it to great effect some time ago. Whether filling out a form (that i personally consider to be an over-reaching of government powers) in a less-than-completely-truthful manner could be equated with "civil disobedience" is a matter of opinion, in my opinion.

The "some of you" i refer to are those who appear willing to be serfs to the mandates of a government that was designed to act as directed by its citizens. I do not mean to sound mean or condesending.