I'll just leave this here.
I do not intend to pull anyone's leg too hard.
Credits and Oscar nominees:
@SkiPatrolDude @Doctor_M @RoadDawg @gungate
Oh man, thank you for that. I just about wet myself laughing at that.
Ban on Marijuana Users Owning Guns is Unconstitutional
- Thread starter kshaw
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Oh man, thank you for that. I just about wet myself laughing at that.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 31,159
Oh, I hear you as to why.
Broken windows theory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Just pointing out, the broken window theory on enforcing minor crimes and community policing is still "controversial", but more because of some of the methods some police departments went to enforcing that. But the results on the other hand, aren't nearly as much in doubt. So change some of the methods, but the principle is the same.
The unspoken part of "controversial" is contained in the supposition that community policing was discouraged because it was successful. It failed to allow the necessary disruption of the social fabric that has been the policy in effect since 2016 at least, and doubtless earlier in select jurisdictions.
Disruption is necessary as it breaks down power blocs among the citizenry, amking them easier to counter or control.
It's getting harder to discount the notion that the citizenry of the First World is being played by the globalists, who have persuaded (by the usual means) the political leadership to sign on to a movement intended to create porous national borders, and eventually eliminate nationalism.
Nation-states are too costly to be countenanced by multi-national corporations; taxes, regulations, and actions taken to limit the scope of their endeavors do not sit well in the C-Suites.
Like why bro.
You preempt any debating replies with a derogatory term.
Any time you see fit to grow up would be cool.
USA v Daniels
This opinion may help Hunter Biden's case.
www.businessinsider.com
The opinion:
This opinion may help Hunter Biden's case.
A conservative appeals court just ruled against the federal gun law used to charge Hunter Biden
The day before Biden was indicted, an appeals court panel found that the law used to indict him was unconstitutional when applied in a previous case.
www.businessinsider.com
The opinion:
This is correct. Seems obvious, but a guy eating a gummy on Friday night to relax shouldn't lose his 2A rights on Sunday. To argue otherwise is arguing against common sense. Intoxication, however, is another matter.
Only if the case is in Mississippi, Texas, or Louisiana (the 5th circuit). And even if it does go up to SCOTUS and applies elsewhere (not going to happen in the timeframe of Hunter Biden's charges/trial/whatever) doesn't change the fact that he knowingly lied on the federal paperwork.
I am okay with it as long as users can’t get ammo.
Lol
Lol
Being anti drugs does NOT make one a FUDD. You have your opinion, I'll have mine.
A guy shooting smack, or guzzling grain alcohol shouldn't lose his 2A rights either.
I don't care if all three are knee-crawling, and commode hugging, or if they are sober as a judge
If they act like savages, they go to jail. When they get out (if ever), back to guns
Freedom can be ugly and dangerous
Muleskinner
Ultimate Member
We know who they are. Here in Maryland the law should be no different that owning a gun and possessing alcohol since both are now legal
Muleskinner
Ultimate Member
Are you anti alcohol?
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that prior episodes of intoxication were a problem. Just public intoxication while carrying.
It's not Maryland's law we're talking about. It's not legal in the federal context. And it's the feds' paperwork that will still get you tripped up. Or not perhaps, now, but only in the three states where this ruling has any meaning. Here in Maryland? Nothing has changed. Dope is federally naughty, so no guns for people who use it, say the feds.
I disagree with that too
Drink, or sober, don't violate anyone else's rights/space, and carry away
Ugly freedom .....
Yeah, but merely being intoxicated in public is an arrestable offense most places, so I don't think you're going to see any changes there.
You are very right about that.
I think it is important to recognize people have many different opinions about drugs and even alcohol.
I was a bit or uptight on the drug portion a few years ago. But I have softened a bit on the subject
I was a bit or uptight on the drug portion a few years ago. But I have softened a bit on the subject
Even if I were a full fledged Temperance person (I'm not) my point is it doesn't make me anti-gun or a Fudd.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,351
Public intoxication (drinking to excess) was illegal at the time of the founding. It is the impairment that is the problem that gets people arrested. When people are not impaired they should be able to have all their inalienable rights.
Back to the original topic;
The 4473 says "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
While cannabis is listed as schedule 1 the true answer for someone that has EVER consumed Cannabis is yes ( let's assume for purposes of discussion that everyone is fully truthful on the form). I'm keying in on the word "unlawful".
Say the DEA follows the current HHS recommendation and changes it from schedule 1 to schedule 3. My understanding is schedule 3 can be lawfully possessed with a prescription.
Say one gets a Maryland weed card and actually consumes Cannabis. Say aside from the federal scheduling change, there are no other changes to the current status quo, including the 4473. Does that mean a MD resident with a valid medical weed card can consume and lawfully answer "no" on the 4473?
I'm asking for a friend.
The 4473 says "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
While cannabis is listed as schedule 1 the true answer for someone that has EVER consumed Cannabis is yes ( let's assume for purposes of discussion that everyone is fully truthful on the form). I'm keying in on the word "unlawful".
Say the DEA follows the current HHS recommendation and changes it from schedule 1 to schedule 3. My understanding is schedule 3 can be lawfully possessed with a prescription.
Say one gets a Maryland weed card and actually consumes Cannabis. Say aside from the federal scheduling change, there are no other changes to the current status quo, including the 4473. Does that mean a MD resident with a valid medical weed card can consume and lawfully answer "no" on the 4473?
I'm asking for a friend.
