Medical or Recreational Marijuana Means No Gun Rights

1. Not something I had considered. Thankfully it’s not an issue for me, but what a horrible position for someone to be in.

   • Are you aware Lakeland may decriminalize weed?

2. They really need to take weed off the schedule 1 list. There’s a snowballs chance in hell that trump would ever do that though.

   • Now that a majority of the states (it’s up to 29, I think) have legalized it, the chances might be higher than you’d think. Certainly something that needs to be addressed, and a cause the NRA should take up.

     • The states can have a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. That’s a way to pass an amendment without the House or Senate. The president isn’t required to sign it and doesn’t have the ability to veto it either. This has never happened with any of our amendments though.

       • I dunno. Trump said early on that he thought marijuana legalization was a good idea and didn’t care much about overturning Roe v. Wade or gay marriage. Those are more like Mike Pence and Ted Cruz’s things. Of course Hitlery would have cracked down on marijuana harder than they have since Nixon and on guns harder than they have since the first two years of hubby’s first term, and this is an end-run effort by the Democrats to screw people over.

     • Now that Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General, it has less chances than a snowball in hell.

       https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-good-people-dont-smoke-marijuana/

       If Trump was serious about all his previous claims on weed, Sessions wouldn’t even be on the list for that position.

       While we’re at it, he also loves civil asset forfeiture:

       https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/5dn1ci/jeff_sessions_as_ag_and_his_views_on_civil/

     • I don’t see how they can label you as an “unlawful user” of marijuana when you “lawfully obtained” a medical card to use medical marijuana. I could understand if someone illegally obtain a medical card.

       • Medical marijuana is still illegal under federal law. Your card is lawfully obtained for the purposes of state law, but it is just a piece of paper for the feds (worse, in fact, because it is prima facie evidence that you are breaking, or intend to break, the federal law in question).

         • I guess its all how you interpret it because the statute say…
           “The federal law governing who can and cannot possess and own firearms (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) prohibits possession or ownership by a person who is “… an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”
           So I am taking it as it reads… “it prohibits possession or ownership by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” So are they saying that there is a lawful user? Why would they even need to say an “unlawful user’ if all users are breaking the law?

           • Because they’re talking about all “controlled substances”. This includes, for example, prescription opioids. If you have a prescription, then you’re a lawful user. If you do not, then you’re an unlawful user.

             Because marijuana is Schedule I, it is deemed to have “no legitimate medical use”, so for it, there’s no such thing as a lawful user, with very narrow exceptions (e.g. lab testing, if and when DEA gives permission to do such a thing).

             • Oh ok, I thought that they were just talking about Schedule I drugs.
               They are talking about all 5 drug Classification Schedules then.
               So if I buy and take Robotussin, which is a schedule V drug, then I am allow to have a weapon but if I am addicted to Robotussin I can not have a weapon.
               Thats pretty messed up because Robotussin has codine in it which is an opioid that comes from opium poppy just like heroin. So Robotussin should be a scheduled I drug because it has scheduled I drug items in it but it has a medical benefit just like marijuana does so it is not a labeled as a schedule I.
               I guess it is kind of like the bible, you can have 10 people read the same bible and get 10 different interpretations of it which gives you 10 different religions.

   • Actually, I think Trump would be open to moving MJ to a schedule 2 drug but I doubt any president would federally decriminalize weed. On the other hand, he’s full of surprises. Regardless, even if it became a schedule 2 drug it would still be a problem for gun owners. I don’t advocate people shooting while high on anything but there are some who have medical conditions who need MJ for treatment that I’m sure could be responsible about it. What constitutes a “user”? Pretty vague.

3. Apparently they’re not gun rights but gun privileges to be granted or denied at the whim of one agency or another. Can we please stop pretending already?

   • Is the 2nd Amendment a right or a privilege?

     What does shall not mean?

4. Yeah I have an old friend(he’s over 60)who owns many firearms and gets high every day. He hunts,he shoots and he plays in an oldguy rock band. Sorry folks-get your weed the old fashion way-keep your guns. Just like people speed and lie to the IRS-deal with it. I certainly don’t think you need to involve the ATF in your freakin’ pain management…

   • Yeah you’re right most people can get away with their day-to-day life. Whatever side of it they’re on.

     But it also means that someone whose paychecks get signed by the DEA is a traitor, just like your buddy is a felon.

     I really really hope – pray even, that one day we’ll get to pick em up one by one like the Jews are doing to the last bean-counters at Auschwitz.

     “Oh, you only managed the payroll for of the guys who kicked in doors and dragged innocent people off to prison huh? Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was your job, I know. BUT, we still have a big problem here.”

     • You are not innocent if you knowingly break the law. Marijuana is against the law, like it or not, and if YOU choose to purchase and smoke the drug then you do so knowing the potential consequences. Don’t blame Law Enforcement for YOUR choices. Many in Law Enforcement may not agree with certain laws, but until said laws are changed they have a job to do. And that is to arrest individuals who make poor choices and break the law.

       • Nobody is disputing that marijuana is illegal. We are all saying that keeping it illegal is stupid. Taking away someone’s rights like they were a child is the problem. Nobody takes away your guns because you get drunk everyday. Alcohol obviously is legal so nobody is taking anything away unless you get caught up. There are a growing number of people who want to see marijuana legal nationwide. It will happen in my lifetime as my generation takes over.

       • They make a conscious choice to arrest citizens for victimless crimes. Fuck them.

         Or are we going to excuse the nazis? They were just following orders and “the law” afterall.

       • Do you know the difference between blaming Law Enforcement (why the caps?) and blaming DC rulemaking bureaucrats?

       • Nullification is not just for states and juries.

       • The idea that LEOs have to enforce every law is a big pathway to tyranny. Any LEO who would enforce an immoral law isn’t fit to be a LEO in the first place.

         There are parts of the military where it is not only allowable but mandatory to reject an immoral order. That ought to be applied to all LEO as well.

         Now there would be a good federal law: state and local LEOs must be required to reject immoral orders and not enforce immoral laws, or no federal funds.

       • “…state and local LEOs must be required to reject immoral orders and not enforce immoral laws, or no federal funds.”

         Good idea! Uh, whose morals? Trumps, or Chelsea’s when SHE gets elected in 2020?

       • The Nazis rounding up and murdering Jews for being born Jewish, and Fed. LEOs arresting Americans for CHOOSING to break the law, are two completely different things. Making that comparison is ridiculous, and a tad infantile. If you don’t like that law, then start pushing politically for a change. Don’t just start calling for the arrest of LEOs for following the law.

         • Have you ever heard of Nuremberg Laws?

     • and if trump gets his wish for internment camps?

       • Internment camps are a bit past smoking some pot don’t you think?

       • Donald Trump is a moderate (sometimes) Republican. Lest we forget, the ONLY president in modern American history to put Americans into internment camps was the died in the wool Progressive Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

       • @ Raynond, if your going to cite how LEO’s SHOULD enforce the laws. By using a Partial truth about the Military’s laws. Then get it straight. The Uniform Code of Military Justice rules in the Military. And it does Not state anything BUT If a soldier thinks its an UNLAWFUL Order. Not the way you said it. And two; All police officer MUST Enforce the law or doh they would be breaking the law. How do I know this, well doh because I was in the military and a Cop. shm.

5. As I said the other day: Don’t sign up for the legal stuff if it comes with a database of users, ID card etc. Just get it illegally the way teenagers have done for decades.

   I don’t partake but if you wanna smoke dope and shoot guns, IMHO, it’s a free country so ignore fedgov and do as you damn well please. If you’re smart about it; (don’t light up a joint on the range, walk in to buy a gun while high/reaking of pot or something else equally stupid) no one will ever know.

   Sure, you gotta lie on that 4473, but who gives a shit? The government has made an industry out of lying to us, and even passed laws making their lies legal but ours criminal, so why should we tell them the truth?

   • I don’t think it’s wise to recreationally use pot, cocaine, heroine, morphine, or even alcohol. But if there’s a legitimate medical reason, and yes, there are still medical reasons to use heroine and cocaine since they are pain killers, then I don’t believe that one should lose their rights over using them responsibly.

     • Statistically speaking it’s unwise to drive a car.

       Drug laws are statist bullshit that comes from the same kind of thinking that leads to gun grabbing. The people who support them are statist idiots and I have no truck with anyone who says “Sure it’s a free country but…”. No motherfucker, it’s a free country and that includes the right to do anything that doesn’t harm anyone else, including put whatever chemicals you want into your body.

       Personally I think coffee drinkers/caffeine users are nuts and I never touch the stuff but that doesn’t mean I think other people can’t swill Starbucks/Mountain Dew to their heart’s content.

       • “Statistically speaking it’s unwise to drive a car. ”

         Nonsense. That’s right up there with “scientifically, bees can’t fly” — it’s just unsubstantiated nonsense.

         Statistically, you have about a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying in a car crash in any given year. Does that make it unwise? Or does that make it so unlikely that it’s practically inconsequential? I’d argue for the latter.

         Now, if you were to have said “statistically speaking, driving a car is one of the most dangerous ways to travel”, then yes, you’d be correct — the mortality rate is higher for cars than it is for trains, buses, and airplanes. But even so, you still have only a .001% chance (on average) of getting killed from driving a car.

       • “Drug laws are statist bullshit”

         Oh, and on that part, we totally agree. Trying to outlaw a naturally-growing plant is insane.

         People found that if you chew the bark of a willow tree, you felt less pain. Hence we got aspirin. People found that if you chew the leaves of a marijuana plant – FLASHBANG – SWAT TEAM – THIRTY YEARS IN JAIL. Really? It’s literally insane.

         The good news is that Trump agrees that federal outlawing is stupid, and it’s something that should be left up to the states. The bad news is that his pick for AG, Sen. Sessions, is virulently and violently opposed to any legalization, so — the insanity is likely to continue.

6. You know how alot of these legal pot use bills got passed? People for decades owned, possessed, and smoked weed illegally. Kind of like guns. In fact, I bet the guy selling you that weed has a gun or 2 to sell and if he doesn’t I would bet even more he knows a guy who knows a guy. Changing the law by breaking it. It is an American tradition dating back to 1776 🙂

   • Threadjack: I have a 60 year old customer for my business. His shop is downstairs from a MMJ place. I’ve seen the courier leave the MMJ place and head straight downstairs to my customer’s shop, who sells it on the “street” tax-free. He also rides Harleys.

     I bought a Taurus revolver from him a couple of years ago, when private sales were still legal in CO.

     Am I supporting an “Outlaw biker international gun runner/drug dealer,” or am I merely associating freely?

7. Civil disobedience through peaceful noncompliance is effective for change, eventually. You simply buy firearms privately. It is unlikely that you would be prosecuted if you have legal weed and otherwise legal firearms. There is a risk ,but as more and more people take it and MJ legalization becomes the norm, the feds will become irrelevant. California and MA are heroic. The supposedly freedom loving states should follow the “slave state” lead when it comes to gun freedom.

   • That’s exactly what came to my mind Mahatma Gandhi and civil disobedience.

   • Civil Disobedience has a public aspect to it. Your act is better described as Irish Democracy. The Brits tell you not to do something, you publicly agree, and privately do whatever you want.

8. How is it that to outlaw alcohol the Feds needed to amend the constitution but to outlaw a plant they need only write a law or allow a single federal middle manager to write a regulation?

   • “The War on Drugs”

   • Technically you can possess hemp plant with the proper TAX STAMP. Only thing is the last time I heard of a stamp being issued was during WWII. It’s use was too grow hemp for rope. Personally I think the growing of hemp (not marijuana) for fabric, oil and paper should be legal. Strains have been developed that a cup of Starbucks will get you higher but the fabric mixed with cotton will last 20+ years. I have a hemp quilt that belonged to my Grandfather that’s close to 90 years old that has been used every winter since 1928.

   • Prohibition was passed as an amendment because that was the only way they could ensure that it applied to all the states, otherwise, “States Rights!”, which is the way it stands right now. Once they had the FDA in place such niceties were no longer necessary and they can ban any drug they want on a federal level.

     Also note that the amendments to the Constitution are The Bill of Rights and all others which make technical changes to the Constitution itself or instruct the federal government what it is NOT allowed to do. The only exception to that is the 18th amendment Prohibition of Alcohol and to date it is the ONLY amendment that has ever been repealed. Obvious reason – it had no business being an amendment in the first place. By that same note, IMO, there are a lot of good reasons to hold an Article V convention of the States – telling the federal government to lay off marijuana does not seem to be important enough to make the list. It would be better to focus your energies on making the government (all levels) recognize and respect the Bill of Rights, then it wouldn’t matter if did drugs because the government would stop infringing on your 2A protected rights.

     Further, the 21st Amendment did not legalize alcohol, it simply corrected the mistake of the 18th Amendment by repealing it in its entirety.

   • The very short story is that Wickard v. Filburn decision of the Supreme Court has vastly expanded the power of the federal government to use the Commerce Clause regulate… well, pretty much anything. And it happened after the Prohibition, and before the War on Drugs.

     The most recent decision on the legality of federal drug laws, and specifically on how they override state laws, has been decided with an explicit reference to the Commerce Clause:

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

     By the way, read this especially if you were a fan of Scalia and believe him to have been a “small government” proponent. Quote:

     ” Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities … where the failure to do so “could… undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce.”

     then think about how it applies to, say, guns.

9. I was at Kittery Trading Post today. At the registers there was a post that said that a medical marijuana card as an ID would result in denial of a firearms purchase. Who would a thunk?

   • One thing that bothers me about that, or (as mentioned in the post) denial due to issuance of a recommendation or med marijuana card is that those are not evidence of usage. They are indicators of state or medical approval to do so, but are only evidence of authority, not consumption. The 4473 bans the use of the drug, not ability to purchase without state repercussion.

     Even a ticket is indicative of consumption, but not proof of it. Until you pay the ticket or otherwise plea or are found guilty, you have not been proven to have used the drug.

10. I don’t know if pot helps people or not, and I’m not willing to accept what so-called “scientists” say about it, whichever side they take.

    But let’s assume for the sale of argument that pot does help some people with debilitating diseases.

    The question, then, is whether the almighty state has the right to make people suffer.

    Do I really need to say what side of that argument I’m on?

    The feds really need to be brought to heel, or we will all be made to suffer.

11. Frankly as for me…enough.

    You have a right but…

    • “You have a right ‘but’ ” means “You have no right, you have a privilege.”

      • Not necessarily. It depends on what follows the “but” — for example, you have a right to fart in an elevator, but you’d be an utter douchebag to do it.

        In this context, doing drugs is stupid, but should the government imprison you for it? I’d argue no. Therefore, the statement could become “you have the right to do drugs if you want, but … you’d be an idiot to do so.”

        The “but” is not taking away your right, it’s merely expressing a subjective opinion about it. (or, well, in the case of the elevator farter, it’s expressing an absolute fact — you WOULD be a douchebag if you farted in an elevator.)

        • And maybe that’s what the OP meant. Fair enough. However, in the last 10 years that phrase has meant, more oftern than not, “You have the privilege to own (not bear) arms for sporting purposes. Until we can change the meaning of the Second Amendment again.”

12. John, thanks for the info and good luck on the president’s commission, but for pity sake, if you are going to represent us POTG on a presidential commission, will you make an effort to get this point Constitutionally correct?

    “So, I’ll make this easy for you. Marijuana use = no Second Amendment rights. Period. End of discussion.”

    There are no Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment only PROTECTS our natural right to keep and bear arms from government infringement. I know it seems a subtle distinction to most people, but it is an important point that none of the Bill of Rights gives any rights, it only lists those important natural rights the government is (in theory) not allowed to interfere with.

    Just sayin’. Otherwise, keep up the good work!

    • Cliff H –
      Don’t be a fudd

      If you can drink booze and own guns, you can smoke weed and own guns.

      Say it with me… “Freedom”

      • Not until the law is changed, you cant. Try using that logic in a Federal Court and see where it gets you.

        • If you’re not an idiot you won’t get caught. A friend of mine has been smoking pot daily since he was 16, owns a ton of guns, nearly all bought from an FFL.

          The risk of getting caught about this is virtually 0.00%.

        • Here’s a realistic scenario.

          You carry daily. You get into an altercation and have to use a firearm to defend yourself. Someone calls the police, but gives them a garbled description of what’s going on, so when they arrive on the scene, they detain you while they’re investigating.

          Said description mentioned that it was a “drunk brawl”. So they take your blood test. It shows evidence of marijuana use.

          They then get a warrant and raid your house. There, they discover a bunch of pot.

          At this point they call up DEA and ATF, and you’re going away for a very long time.

        • The thought of a Colorado LEO raiding the house of a CHP holder over a metabolyte test is laughable. Rapid tests are notorious for false positives (a town WELL tested positive!) The liberal cities hate the Fed restrictions on weed, the rural county sheriffs just flat hate .gov.

          Yes, your scenario is possible. Maybe even plausible, in a state like Texas where Reefer Madness is a documentary. But it’s not likely, not at all.

        • Okay, so the local cops don’t raid your house. They just send the results of the test to the ATF, which uses it as probable cause to get a warrant to raid your house. Same end result.

          And yes, liberal cities do hate the fed restrictions on weed. But most cops in those cities aren’t liberals, to put it mildly; and they often despise the people that they “protect and serve”.

        • f()ck the feds, their court, & laws.

      • My comment to John had absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s use of marijuana. It was an appeal to get the concept of the Second Amendment, and all of the Bill of Rights, correct. They are a Constitutional protection of natural rights from government infringement, they do not give us any rights at all.

        I am no FUDD. I do not hunt for sport and haven’t hunted at all since 1978. I would like very much to hunt feral pigs, but that is vermin eradication, not sport, IMO. And I hear they taste pretty good if you know how to cook ’em.

13. goverment not passed strict scrutiny test !!

14. So I’m starting to think it’s no coincidence that the pro-pot folks seem to have made no effort to update federal gun laws on this issue. It sure is an awfully convenient way to add millions of new people – without objection – to the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm. Was this their motive? Probably not. Are they laughing about it, and pushing it as hard as they can? You better believe it.

15. So, a doctor prescribes a medicine which is legal in your state, been proven by experts in the field of your illness as to work, but illegal on the federal list….

    You get to choose between pain and your 2A rights and pain relief and denial of your 2A RIGHTS. Got it.

    Glad I live in a free society. Now, someone hand me my liver destroying pill bottle.

    • Or as applies to someone I know:

      you’re a veteran who came back with PTSD. Because you suffer from PTSD, they say you’re not competent to have a gun. If you use cannabis, your PTSD can be controlled and then it’s no longer a bar to having a gun — but wait, using cannabis is a bar to having a gun…..

16. “A gay couple should be able to protect their weed farm with machine guns”

    • with an unregistered A10 parked in the garage running a loaded GAU8.

      Stop the war on drugs – no profit for the gangs, and fewer government goons through innocent people’s door.

      • Good luck getting that A-10, registered or not. They are not for sale to civilians or even other governments, except for Britain, I believe.

        Also, you would have to grow a lot of pot to pay for the GAU8 ammo in that cannon!

17. And that’s just one more reason why everyone needs a Ghost Gunner.

18. The way the the federal government has been allowed to get away with regulating the selling of gun at retail stores is that they “claimed” guns are part of Interstate commerce. Therefore, they claim that all guns sales through commercial retail outlets and through FFL’s have to do a background check.
    However, some states have thumbed their noses at the federal government and had guns marked
    MADE IN XXX STATE.
    What I don’t know is if the sellers of those guns still fill out the ATF forms.
    If the State Nullifies the federal government’s requirement for the ATF form, then
    they have not violated the federal law in not disclosing being a marijuana user.

    So as you said,
    “So, I’ll make this easy for you. Marijuana use = no Second Amendment rights. Period. End of discussion. It doesn’t matter what the state says.”
    Not necessarily.
    If State allows the sale of firearms that are manufactured in their respective State and so long as the firearm stays in that State, then it does not involve interstate commerce, then STATE law trumps federal law.

    • Nullification is not legal immunity. If the state nullified the federal law that required you to fill a form, and you didn’t, then the state has no qualms with you, but the feds still do. And if they find out, they will still drag you to a federal court, where you will be charged with violating the federal law, found guilty, and put into a federal prison.

      And the reason why the feds are able to get away with regulating guns and drugs both is because they claim that any commerce is “interstate commerce”, on the basis that it affects prices in the latter – for example, if a state starts manufacturing guns for internal use, and people buy those guns, then the corresponding amount of guns from out of state didn’t get bought, and this affected supply and demand on interstate level… and so the Commerce Clause gives them the authority to regulate that. The worst part is that this has been explicitly blessed by SCOTUS. Read and weep:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

      • I am not weeping, because this issue of the scope of Interstate commerce is not settled.

        I read it and so have several other States which told SCOTUS to stuff it.
        They have recently nullified the federal law relating to the commerce clause.

        Kansas, in 2013 just inacted a law allowing for the manufacture of firearms in the state to be
        labeled as “Made in Kansas” where the governor and the rest of the Kansas legislature are thumbing the noses
        at the federal government.
        One arrest has been made and gone to a federal court.

        https://www.propublica.org/article/kansas-gov.-insists-its-ok-to-ignore-federal-gun-laws

        http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/21/kansas-gun-case-pits-federal-law-against-states-rights/

        Who knows, with Trump as the new president and shortly to pic new SCOTUS nominees we might actually see
        some real positive changes.

19. But if I smoke pot, then I get the munchies so I want to get a pizza, but there is a gun in the pizza box so no pizza for me???????

20. There are organizations trying to get Marijuana off schedule 1. Support them anonymously and if they succeed you’ll get the results you want.
    I’m ok with pot being illegal. I don’t buy the alleged benefits of it , I’ve seen the medical liquid form given to a relative do exactly nothing it was supposed to do. Drugs need to do a job, not be part of a propaganda machine.
    If something goes down with guns and pot is found you are now behind an eight ball.

    • What job does alcohol do? Aside from making acceptable one-night-stands out of otherwise objectionable members of the opposite sex.

    • > I’m ok with pot being illegal. I don’t buy the alleged benefits of it

      One doesn’t follow from the other. If anything that doesn’t have “alleged benefits” is okay to ban, the list would be long indeed.

      The way it’s supposed to work, you should explain why it should be banned. And it has to be a damn convincing explanation, replete with numbers and examples. And then you have to explain why a ban (as opposed to, say, regulation) is necessary to fix it.

      And most certainly this isn’t something that should be done on the federal level.

21. The way I see it. One of the unfortunate parts of a Trump win here. While good for gun rights for the most part. His appointments for the most part will be old school politicians whether we like it or not.
    As an example. Jeff Sessions. While he may be a strict constitutionalist and follow the laws as written. Hes also an old foggie. With ancient thoughts on drugs. So dont expect him to be of any help in the removal or change in Schedule 1 drug classifications. Pot in no way should be Schedule 1 for any reason. Thank Nixon and Rockefeller for that.
    His beliefs are for the most part. Late mid 20th century thinking.
    Hes already stated pot smokers are in for it in his book.

    • I don’t know. Looking at Trump’s transition team, I’m not seeing too much in the way of actual politicians. I’m seeing a long of academicians, ex-military, some lobbyists, and sub-cabinet level officials from W’s administrations.

      Those people themselves may or may not themselves end up in some top positions, but they’re at least helping determine who will. One would have to expect they’d look to people with backgrounds similar to their own, which for the most part excludes politicians.

      Where you have a stronger point to be made would be in Pence’s prominence in the Trump administration. Trump is leaning on him heavily, because as a governor and former six term congressman, Pence knows the ropes of government. Pence is a hardliner on marijuana use.

      • Unfortunately, he’s totally right on Sessions. Sessions is a hardline anti-marijuana old fogey. In fact, one of the “jokes” he told that is currently getting the liberal pearl-clutchers to shriek and howl in agony is when he said (paraphrased) “I thought the KKK were good guys, until I found out they supported marijuana use.”

        The liberals are freaking out and saying that he supported the KKK. But the explanation I heard is that no, instead what he’s saying is that compared to a marijuana user, even the KKK looks good.

        And this guy is the nominee for the new Attorney General. So… yeah, don’t look for legalization any time soon. In fact, I think it’s more likely (not likely, per se, but more likely than legalization) that he may actually sue the states who have legalized marijuana, since it is a blatant flaunting of federal law.

        • Sessions is also a big fan of civil asset forfeiture.

    • Then again, prioritizing the illicit drug issue over the myriad of serious issues affecting this country seems like a “head in the sand” strategy. Sessions is obviously a huge improvement over the overtly political Holder/ Lynch pair. Gary Johnson, Cheech or Chong would not be.

22. Sanctuary Cities for gun owners!

23. Huh? That’s odd. So you’re saying that when playing with our rights, it can sometimes turn out that government gives with one hand, while taking with the other? The law of unintended consequences, so to speak? Imagine that.

    I suppose that’s just a one-off quirk and isn’t likely to repeat elsewhere. So we shouldn’t worry one iota about federally imposed national reciprocity. I’m sure that law will be written as but a simple, single sentence bill reading “All states must recognize each other licenses to carry firearms.” The End. No sneaky last minute amendments. No shady backroom compromises. No immediate, up front restrictions coupled with down the road, eventual freedoms. I’m sure it’ll all work out grandly…..

    When it doesn’t, and it won’t, don’t blame me. I was against federally imposed national reciprocity all along. It’s far more effective to pressure your state governments to enter implement reciprocity unilaterally or bilaterally with other states directly. Any firearm legislation, regulation, or agreement routed through D.C. will come out FUBAR. Add that to death and taxes as the only guarantees in this world.

    • What good does “plain clear language” do us?

      signed,
      All gun owning residents of; California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington DC (Where the constitution is just a suggestion)

    • Jon, you need a line saying that for states which do not require licenses, a driver’s license or state ID card shall serve as a license.

24. Good thing all those stoned people dont have guns.

    I was worried about that for a second.

25. Laws need to change. Once any jurisdiction legalizes marijuana the federal law must change to recognize the same. This is not heavy lifting. End of story.

26. I laugh every time I hear a sports and entertainment reporter explain how Marijuana is now “legal” in some state.

    ProTip: Marijuana possession is currently illegal in every state and territory of the United States, and will continue to be illegal until existing federal law is either changed by Congress or struck down by the Courts, or the Constitution is amended in such a way as to effectively repeal the Supremacy Clause.

    • The Supremacy clause is null and void where the Constitution does not explicitly assign authority to the federal government — that’s covered in the Bill of Rights.

      Trump should issue an executive order specifying that since the use of substances people can grow at home is not an area for which the Constitution assigns authority to the federal government, it is a matter of states’ rights, and order all federal agencies to follow state law. Wording it that way will still let them go after marijuana imported from Mexico, or for that matter crossing state lines, but keep the feds’ hands off intra-state action.

27. Been thinking about this. Trump thinks medical marijuana should be legal, and thinks recreational should be left up to the states. And he’s got a strong 2nd Amendment task force, and clearly the state legalization in 29 states makes a pretty good case for removing the plant from Schedule 1.

    Simultaneously, we have “crying rooms” and panic and fear and protests and, in Oregon at least, some riots from leftists who are terrified of what this country will become under Trump, and they’re worried about internment camps and the black vote went against him and on and on…

    So what would happen if he legalized it?

    Think about it. He could probably do nothing that would more “unify” the country than that. He’d remove a pernicious back-door threat to gun rights. He’d free millions of blacks from prison. He’d blow the minds of the protesters — I mean, they’d be thinking “wait — maybe he’s not so bad… how bad could he be, if he legalized weed?”

    This could be an utterly brilliant strategy, if he’d do it. And, apparently, he can, even without congress, according to this article (about Obama, but still, it’s about the president’s ability to act):
    http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/04/20/how-president-can-end-pot-prohibition

    • He absolutely can do it. All it takes is issuing a EO to direct DEA to remove it from the Schedule. The Congress could then vote it back in – and they might have done that with Obama, but I don’t think a Republican Congress would go against Trump, especially on this.

      Problem is, if he intended to do it – why did he appoint Sessions, who is the absolute worst pick for an AG specifically from the perspective of legalizing weed?

    • Great analysis TT!

28. Let me understand this. A substance that reduces the clarity of thought and judgement is of no consequence to the use or ownership of a firearm? No one wants to be near a drunk with a firearm. No one wishes an alcoholic to own a firearm. But there are those who believe that an abuser of marijuana should be allowed to own firearms?

    Let’s also be clear that 50% of pot smokers do not do so for medical reasons. Not 40%. Not 20%.

    Most pot users are losers. Think back about those friends who used pot daily. Were they the go getter types, the ambitious, the industrious? No theywere the guys looking to get high and looking for something to get higher. They were your friends 20 years ago who never grew up and are still working part time minimum wage jobs raging at the system.

    Its not so much that pot owners shouldn’t be allowed to own guns if it is legal, so much as why make marijuana use legal in the first place.

    I say make all drugs legal. We’d clean out the gene pools in 5 years.

    • > No one wishes an alcoholic to own a firearm.

      And yet it’s not illegal.

      Some states make it illegal to carry while intoxicated, and I believe that those are sensible laws. But there’s no reason why the mere fact of use at some past point should disqualify you permanently from carrying later when you’re sober, and especially from ownership.

    • “Most pot users are losers.”

      So you bought the government propaganda.

      There’s a book called _Saying Yes_ that you should read. It takes the government’s own information about drug use and demolishes all the sound bite BS they’ve tried to palm off on us — including your false assertion.

29. So…I work in mental health, supported the legalization effort due to what I see as a waste of police resources, and didn’t think of a few problems beforehand, or at least not enough. Our mentally ill population has increased because many of them smoke pot. Transient and petty criminals have also increased. Dumbass 18 year olds fresh out of highschool move here to start a lot shop. They fail. I have always cared little what people smoke or drink, but lately, I find myself realizing the problem is not the drug, it’s the kind of idiot who smokes it that’s a problem. It is true that a person who drinks shouldn’t be bared from having firearms, but a drunk with firearms is a problem, as are potheads with firearms. Also I’m tired of potheads driving 45 on the highway at midnight. I don’t know where I’m going with this but honestly, I hate stoners, they permeate my life.

    • “Our mentally ill population has increased because many of them smoke pot.”

      Are you seriously claiming that smoking marijuana causes mental illness?

      Professionals I know here are glad it’s legit now, because it has so many benefits for so many of their patients.

      • No, he said many metally ill people, who smoke pot to self medicate, moved to a city where pot is legal.

        And, by the way, acute marijuana psychosis is a real thing. Thankfully rare to the extreme – but real.

        • Ah — thanks for the clarification.

          And I know about acute reactions; I know someone who was given a small brownie by someone who smokes the stuff regularly and called it a “small dose”. But to the guy suffering extreme anxiety, who’d never touched the stuff (unless secondary smoke counts), it set off a paranoia episode that lasted nearly two hours before the guy just fell asleep from sheer exhaustion.

    • Lol, what form of mental health do you work in? Idiot teenagers are one thing, but it sounds like you’re just calling those mentally ill people stupid. You’re equating smoking with being mentally ill and stupid, even if it wasn’t your intention, because your observation only arose by virtue of said mentally ill population increase. I can imagine being a hotspot for teenagers could be annoying, but saying people who smoke are exclusively stupid is just short sighted. I’ve known teenagers to also be rather annoying when drinking, so your logic has some gaps there. The main difference between the two is that in the latter case their judgement skills become so impaired that they do things they would NEVER do. Meanwhile, I haven’t seen someone yet do something stupid while stoned who simply did not do other stupid things even when sober.

      The vast majority of stoners I’ve ever met don’t even care about guns, while there are numerous alcoholics or alcohol enthusiasts I’ve met that I would never trust a gun to. It’s the dependence, not the drug. Otherwise you would have vastly different rehabilitation regimens for various drugs, when the reality is that they are largely convergent. The drugs have very different effects, but people use them for largely the same reasons, like simple pleasure or relaxation, or just environmental influences. In fact, I’ve never even heard of a legit rehab for mj, while opium and alcohol addiction are virtually industries in themselves, even though they’re solving essentially the same problems by removing people from certain social influences, teaching coping strategies, etc.

30. In RI, the Dept. of Health cannot disclose to anyone including law enforcement, holders of a medical marijuana card. Medical marijuana card holders can exercise their 5th amendment right not to incriminate themselves. This also applies to recreational users.

    • Note that such laws do not block federal warrants.

31. Ok, then recreational users have more protection then card holders.

32. Mislabeled completely it should be just like a beer you can’t hold a gun and be drunk you can’t hold a gun and smoke a joint it’s that simple Mr trump do you agree ?

33. I am regular visitor, how are you everybody?
    This article posted at this web site is truly pleasant.

34. Having read this I thought it was really enlightening.
    I appreciate you finding the time and energy to put this article together.
    I once again find myself personally spending a lot
    of time both reading and leaving comments. But so what, it was still worth
    it!

Comments are closed.