PDA

View Full Version : State Supreme Court - No limits on pot, but ammo and guns are??


Toddzilla
01-22-2010, 8:56 AM
Just finished reading the newspaper front page today.

State Supreme Court rules that state cannot limit the amount of medical marijuana users grow or possess.

Then why are Guns or ammo limited?
Does anyone else see a double standard here!

If the marijuana blend is not on the approved "roster", the buyer is fingerprinted, has a background check, pays a fee, waitz 10 days, carries it in a locked box, only buys once per month, etc. then we should get the same ruling for guns and ammo.

I guess Liberal judge though process just doesn't make sense to me.

PEBKAC
01-22-2010, 9:03 AM
That would be an interesting idea actually. Probably would get shot down, but I wonder if one could get support for a "safe marijuana roster", and maybe a set of dangerous bong characteristics similar to PC12276?

I mean, after all we do have a voter initiative process in this state. :rolleyes:

Could make one hell of a statement with that, the danger of course would be that it actually got passed if people bought the hookey logic one would have to use to do so...

tube_ee
01-22-2010, 9:10 AM
Totally different issues.

The case under discussion wasn't about rights, it was about whether the Legislature has the power to modify citizen initiatives in significant ways. California law is pretty clear on that one....

They don't.

--Shannon

dantodd
01-22-2010, 9:27 AM
The Rasta Roster?

Window_Seat
01-22-2010, 9:33 AM
Totally different issues.

The case under discussion wasn't about rights, it was about whether the Legislature has the power to modify citizen initiatives in significant ways. California law is pretty clear on that one....

They don't.

--Shannon

+1. We are going after 962 in different ways than the litigants against the pot legislation, and I believe that we will prevail in the same way with not only 962, but also the HGR, and the others we are going after, no?

Erik.

bohoki
01-22-2010, 10:20 AM
i didnt know there was a limit on how many guns or ammo you could own?

darkshier
01-22-2010, 10:48 AM
The only thing I can think of is maybe the 1 handgun a month law? Other than that, there is no limit to the amount of guns and ammo I can buy....Sure there might be restrictions on how and when I can buy them though...

GrizzlyGuy
01-22-2010, 11:00 AM
I think the lesson from this case is that initiatives passed by the voters are truly free from interference from the legislature. The legislature has to accept them as-is and not attempt to change or constrain them.

This means that if we really want our gun rights protected in CA, the ideal approach would be to pass an initiative that changes our gun laws to what we want them to be (LOC and shall-issue CCW, no more "assault weapon" ban, etc.). The Brady Bunch could own 100% of our legislature and they wouldn't be able to touch these new pro-gun laws.

That's the ideal approach, but is it feasible? Probably not, it would take a ton of money to promote if you wanted to win. For example, tens of millions were spent overall on Prop 8.

P.S. - Info on the case and a link to the case itself is here (http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2010/01/california-supreme-court-stricks-down-limits-medical-marijuana-quantities-.html).

kcbrown
01-22-2010, 11:14 AM
This means that if we really want our gun rights protected in CA, the ideal approach would be to pass an initiative that changes our gun laws to what we want them to be (LOC and shall-issue CCW, no more "assault weapon" ban, etc.). The Brady Bunch could own 100% of our legislature and they wouldn't be able to touch these new pro-gun laws.

That's the ideal approach, but is it feasible? Probably not, it would take a ton of money to promote if you wanted to win. For example, tens of millions were spent overall on Prop 8.


Then again, how many millions have been spent fighting the idiotic gun laws in the courts? If spending that money could have gotten us a "clean sweep" (e.g., by explicitly putting the right to keep and bear arms into the California Constitution) then it surely would have been a better bang for the buck, no?

Ah, well. At this point we're likely to see a fundamental shift in the landscape, so all of this is probably water under the bridge.

kf6tac
01-22-2010, 11:17 AM
Then again, how many millions have been spent fighting the idiotic gun laws in the courts? If spending that money could have gotten us a "clean sweep" (e.g., by explicitly putting the right to keep and bear arms into the California Constitution) then it surely would have been a better bang for the buck, no?

Ah, well. At this point we're likely to see a fundamental shift in the landscape, so all of this is probably water under the bridge.

Spending that money is necessary but not sufficient to win via the initiative process. Admittedly, the same can be said about going through the courts, but I think we have a better shot in the courts than with the voters, the majority of whom crap their pants at the mere mention of the word "gun."

MasterYong
01-22-2010, 12:26 PM
You're comparing apples to oranges.

Plus, there are WAY more people in this state that are afraid of guns than there are that are afraid of pot. While there are many against marijuana use and legalization, there aren't a whole lot that literally think somone's gonna kill them with pot. In fact, I'd venture that there isn't one person that legitimately fears being pumped full of holes by a bag of weed. Guns, on the other hand, when misused can cause severe trauma both emotionally and physically- and that trauma often spreads to family members and friends. So, when just one a-hole decides to shoot someone, it scares a LOT of people. If someone else smokes a joint, most aren't going to hit the deck...

...just sayin...

Gio
01-22-2010, 1:34 PM
Blah this state blows :ack2: Take away AB 962, the Roster and give the use of Standard (not high) capacity mags and I will be a happy camper :D

-Gio

hollabillz
01-22-2010, 11:52 PM
You're comparing apples to oranges.

Plus, there are WAY more people in this state that are afraid of guns than there are that are afraid of pot. While there are many against marijuana use and legalization, there aren't a whole lot that literally think somone's gonna kill them with pot. In fact, I'd venture that there isn't one person that legitimately fears being pumped full of holes by a bag of weed. Guns, on the other hand, when misused can cause severe trauma both emotionally and physically- and that trauma often spreads to family members and friends. So, when just one a-hole decides to shoot someone, it scares a LOT of people. If someone else smokes a joint, most aren't going to hit the deck...

...just sayin...

Is it safe to assume you're emulating the psyche of a gun control zealot in your post? Or did you actually forget more gun laws would do jack in reducing the number of "a-holes" doing horrible things with the more than 200 million guns already in circulation?

As far as the rest of your post, yes, this is typical liberal bias. I sure do hate cops, but they're the only ones who should have the most practical and modern tools of defense. On the other hand, smoking a joint isn't going to make me or anyone else hysterical...unless it has the slightest trace of tobacco, in which case AAAAAAHHHHH GET AWAY FROM ME PUT THAT THING OUT BEFORE YOU HURT SOMEONE DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN ;)

B Strong
01-23-2010, 7:31 AM
Although I support drug decriminalization across the board, I also strongly suspect that there is a certain mindset that holds that a civilian populace more concerned with getting high than keeping an eye on politics would be a good thing...for the elite elected.

Ford8N
01-23-2010, 8:57 AM
Spending that money is necessary but not sufficient to win via the initiative process. Admittedly, the same can be said about going through the courts, but I think we have a better shot in the courts than with the voters, the majority of whom crap their pants at the mere mention of the word "gun."


^ This. The vast majority of this states voters are ignorant about guns and what they do know they learned from the news media, cops and Hollywood. End of story.

dustoff31
01-23-2010, 9:19 AM
Totally different issues.

The case under discussion wasn't about rights, it was about whether the Legislature has the power to modify citizen initiatives in significant ways. California law is pretty clear on that one....

They don't.

--Shannon

If it were not for the fact the 2d Amendment was a citizen's initiative, I might agree with you.

The fact that CA doesn't even recognize it disproves your point.

This was purely a political decision.

timdps
01-23-2010, 10:42 AM
Interesting take on this from Sonoma county. There was a guideline for unincorporated Sonoma county that set up specified limits on the amount the license holders could grow and possess. That guideline is now moot, but the deputy county counsel says:
"In Sonoma county, without the three pound, 30-plant limit threshold, deputies can still arrest a person for possession, but the defendant will have to prove the amount of pot held is reasonable for the applicable medical condition."

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100121/ARTICLES/100129835

tim

Choptop
01-23-2010, 11:50 AM
Just finished reading the newspaper front page today.

State Supreme Court rules that state cannot limit the amount of medical marijuana users grow or possess.

Then why are Guns or ammo limited?
Does anyone else see a double standard here!



there is no limit to the amount of ammo you can buy.

MasterYong
01-23-2010, 12:04 PM
Is it safe to assume you're emulating the psyche of a gun control zealot in your post? Or did you actually forget more gun laws would do jack in reducing the number of "a-holes" doing horrible things with the more than 200 million guns already in circulation?

As far as the rest of your post, yes, this is typical liberal bias. I sure do hate cops, but they're the only ones who should have the most practical and modern tools of defense. On the other hand, smoking a joint isn't going to make me or anyone else hysterical...unless it has the slightest trace of tobacco, in which case AAAAAAHHHHH GET AWAY FROM ME PUT THAT THING OUT BEFORE YOU HURT SOMEONE DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN ;)

Ummmm... I wasn't emulating anyone- I was simply pointing out the general mindset in this state.

Do you really think that the dangers of pot are on par with the dangers of guns? Obviously guns in and of themselves aren't dangerous, it's what the owners do with them. But with pot, it isn't the same, so the citizens of CA obviously don't compare the two. If a psychopath has a gun and you're in the room, wouldn't you be a little concerned? Now tell me, would you be equally as concerned if a psychopath had a joint, and you were in the room?

If you answer yes to that previous question than I just don't know what to say.

dantodd
01-23-2010, 1:52 PM
Do you really think that the dangers of pot are on par with the dangers of guns? Obviously guns in and of themselves aren't dangerous, it's what the owners do with them. But with pot, it isn't the same, so the citizens of CA obviously don't compare the two.

So, unlike guns, the pot might just come to life and kill you?

spddrcr
01-23-2010, 3:18 PM
Ummmm... I wasn't emulating anyone- I was simply pointing out the general mindset in this state.

Do you really think that the dangers of pot are on par with the dangers of guns? Obviously guns in and of themselves aren't dangerous, it's what the owners do with them. But with pot, it isn't the same, so the citizens of CA obviously don't compare the two. If a psychopath has a gun and you're in the room, wouldn't you be a little concerned? Now tell me, would you be equally as concerned if a psychopath had a joint, and you were in the room?

If you answer yes to that previous question than I just don't know what to say.

So, unlike guns, the pot might just come to life and kill you?

dont bring logic and reason into an argument:rolleyes:

If a bag of pot is left out in the open on a table in a room full of toddlers it is safe to say there will be zero deaths from the bag of pot, now tell me the same is true about a loaded gun.

before you guys start spouting off about how im a liberal and thats what the liberals say ill have you know that i dont support the "so called" liberal agenda nor do i vote along their party lines. I believe resposible law abiding citizens should be allowed to own ANY gun they want to and be allowed to carry it anyway and anywhere they want to, I just think comparing a bag of weed to a handgun is silly IMO.

this whole mindset of "well it works for them so it has to work for us" is getting real old real quick and is the reason a lot of people refuse to post on this site as well as the us VS them mentality.

MasterYong
01-23-2010, 3:23 PM
Spddrcr:


Im on an iPhone & you just saved me a LOT of typing... Thanks!

What he said.

scc1909
01-23-2010, 5:53 PM
I can feel the arthritis coming on from shooting those heavy-kicking WW2 bolt guns. Maybe I can get me one of those medical marijuana prescriptions. :p