PDA

View Full Version : Gun rights and the legalization of cannabis?


Mendo223
08-10-2010, 5:35 PM
Hey i was wondering....under current laws...if i am found with marijuana and a gun. i could possibly face jailtime because i am in possession of a firearm while in possession of an illegal drug.


If 19 passes this november and marijuana is legalizaed statewide, what does this mean for gun owners who are in possession of cannabis?

will state law protect our gun rights from being taken away due to cannabis possession.

When we sign the NO on the DROS form that says..."are you an unlawful user of cannabis"....wouldnt writing NO be true because technically we are lawfully using it under state law.

Vox
08-10-2010, 5:45 PM
Hey i was wondering....under current laws...if i am found with marijuana and a gun. i could possibly face jailtime because i am in possession of a firearm while in possession of an illegal drug.


If 19 passes this november and marijuana is legalizaed statewide, what does this mean for gun owners who are in possession of cannabis?

will state law protect our gun rights from being taken away due to cannabis possession.

When we sign the NO on the DROS form that says..."are you an unlawful user of cannabis"....wouldnt writing NO be true because technically we are lawfully using it under state law.

If Prop 19 passes then STATE police officers and STATE law cannot prevent you from being concurrently in possession of two legal items. We're going to have one hell of an interesting 10th Amendment legal battle when it comes to cannabis though.

And, correct, you wouldn't have to sign anything that says you're an "unlawful" user. Although that will again become part of the 10 battle with regards to the War on Drugs. DROS, IIRC is only a CA thing so you would be able to say that "yes" under CA law you are not an unlawful user. You'll still be committing a federal crime.

dantodd
08-10-2010, 5:47 PM
So glad you asked this as it hasn't been asked before.

Ballistic043
08-10-2010, 5:56 PM
the 4473 is a federal form and not a state one right?.

so why would only state laws apply to a federal form...



marijuana is still listed class 3.

. correct me if im looking at this wrong

Vox
08-10-2010, 6:03 PM
the 4473 is a federal form and not a state one right?.
so why would only state laws apply to a federal form...
marijuana is still listed class 3.
. correct me if im looking at this wrong

Indeed you are correct. Form 4473 is a US DOJ form and therefore any violation of FEDERAL marijuana laws would be relevant. Still I would think that this is something that would be challenged when Prop 19 goes to the courts. This could even be a vehicle for it though I would be surprised. I don't think any federal prosecutor would really want to step into that pile unless they had no other choice.

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 6:06 PM
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:-1MHWqA3xZiYpM:http://www.time-is-fun.com/huge-joint-101.jpg&t=1 What an awesome party joint !

And

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRNGqAJpSuVgGtboyMs9lNTjapz_Ep5d u3Yv589366zXwNnVXA&t=1&usg=__PUQSL4HdjLQO8TWUdImvFK3JEWY=

http://www.railbirds.com/gallery/2008/11/11614homer_woohoo.jpg

kermit315
08-10-2010, 6:54 PM
So glad you asked this as it hasn't been asked before.

Actually, it has been brought up in some of the other pot threads we have had (I know because I have posted a scanned copy of a 4473 regarding the unlawful user question).

People usually just dismiss it because they believe they are right no matter what.

Vox
08-10-2010, 7:00 PM
What kind of support for the legalization of pot is there here, I wonder.

bigmike82
08-10-2010, 7:04 PM
"What kind of support for the legalization of pot is there here, I wonder. "
A lot more than you might think. ;)

otteray
08-10-2010, 7:10 PM
I have a Calif. Commercial Class A drivers license.
I will never be able to use pot; because the drug restriction is Federal (DOT) Dept of Transportation.
You are in the same boat, so forget about it.
Learn to like beer and Bourbon; then memorize the mantra, "12 hours from bottle to throttle."

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 7:12 PM
What kind of support for the legalization of pot is there here, I wonder.

Trust me the support is not new and probably goes way back to the late 60's. The old hippies will be celebrating like crazy. It will be one of the few moments that will bring liberals of all ages out of the wood work. My only hope is that there isn't enough.

bruceflinch
08-10-2010, 8:04 PM
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:-1MHWqA3xZiYpM:http://www.time-is-fun.com/huge-joint-101.jpg&t=1 What an awesome party joint !

And

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRNGqAJpSuVgGtboyMs9lNTjapz_Ep5d u3Yv589366zXwNnVXA&t=1&usg=__PUQSL4HdjLQO8TWUdImvFK3JEWY=

http://www.railbirds.com/gallery/2008/11/11614homer_woohoo.jpg

I just lot my respect for you Roadrunner. Very Inappropriate IMO.

My advice for all you Potheads is to go back in the closet, if you're going to keep owning guns if/after Prop 19 passes.

383green
08-10-2010, 8:04 PM
Actually, it has been brought up in some of the other pot threads we have had (I know because I have posted a scanned copy of a 4473 regarding the unlawful user question).

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. This topic has come up many times here already. It's not the deadest horse around here, but it's on the list. ;)

Personally, I'm in favor of the legalization of pot for various reasons, despite having never tried the stuff and having no particular plans to try it in the future. However, I also recognize that even if CA legalizes it this November, it'll still be illegal under federal law. I don't see much point to the debate over whether pot use after CA legalizes it would have particular implications for people interested in purchasing/possessing firearms. Since pot use after CA legalization would automatically involve violating federal drug laws, it seems irrelevant to me to debate whether it also happens to violate federal gun laws.

If following the law is important to you, then stay away from pot until it's legalized at both state and federal levels. Conversely, if you don't mind knowingly violating the federal drug laws, then why would you care about lying on the 4473? I would only suggest that if you choose to knowingly violate the federal drug laws, or lie on the 4473, or commit any other crimes (whether you feel that the violated laws are just or not), don't talk about it or advocate it here. Advocating lawlessness is not welcomed by the management of this forum, even when the violated laws are universally accepted to be unjust and/or unconstitutional.

Please note that I am not advocating that anybody falsifies a 4473 or violates any law. I am merely making a philosophical observation that debating the federal legality of pot+guns seems pointless to me when the pot part is federally illegal already with or without the guns, and with or without CA's legalization under state law.

383green
08-10-2010, 8:19 PM
My advice for all you Potheads is to go back in the closet, if you're going to keep owning guns if/after Prop 19 passes.

I think staying in the closet would be prudent even if they don't plan to keep owning guns. Openly flaunting the deliberate violation of one federal law isn't that much less risky than openly flaunting the deliberate violation of two federal laws. If there's to be any litigation against the federal pot law, then a wise person would find a way to get standing for the case without risking a criminal conviction, rather than getting locked up and then becoming the test case.

Vox
08-10-2010, 8:21 PM
Please note that I am not advocating that anybody falsifies a 4473 or violates any law. I am merely making a philosophical observation that debating the federal legality of pot+guns seems pointless to me when the pot part is federally illegal already with or without the guns, and with or without CA's legalization under state law.

Perhaps it's because I haven't been around here too much or because I've only been in the @nd Amendment and law forum but I haven't seen it discussed at all.


I think Prop 19 would provide a pretty decent 10th Amendment case, although I'm thinking I recall you mentioning a Montana gun case that is also likely to be a good vehicle for it.

A solid 10th amendment interpretation would be a first step to a major era of political reforms that I, as a libertarian, would love to see.

Mstrty
08-10-2010, 8:28 PM
Legal gun + Legal pot = Federal Felony. Even in the state of California.

Prop 19 will do nothing to to give you guns and pot with a get out of jail card.

Try Here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=318284&highlight=Prop19)

and here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=318825&highlight=Prop19)

CSACANNONEER
08-10-2010, 8:28 PM
The easiest way to answer the question is to state this: It is against Federal law to possess pot and until the USA makes pot legal, it will always be a crime to possess or use it. So, no matter what state laws are passed, ANY (with a very few exceptions) use of MJ will be "unlawful". Possession of illegal drugs along with an enhancement for being in possession of a firearm at the same time will get you a few extra years of free room and board.

383green
08-10-2010, 8:30 PM
I think Prop 19 would provide a pretty decent 10th Amendment case, although I'm thinking I recall you mentioning a Montana gun case that is also likely to be a good vehicle for it.

Pot and machineguns are both controversial subjects that provoke strong emotional responses in a lot of people. I think that something less controversial than either them might make an even better 10th Amendment case, though I can't think of a good candidate off the top of my head right now.

383green
08-10-2010, 8:37 PM
Prop 19 will do nothing to to give you guns and pot with a get out of jail card.

It won't even give you the pot with a get out of jail card. Federal prosecution is still possible. Even if federal prosecution seems fairly unlikely at the moment, that can change in an instant as long as the federal restrictions are on the books. Anybody who chooses to obtain/possess/use pot after the passage of Prop 19 will need to understand that they're still violating laws and taking a legal risk, even if that risk is lower than before the passage.

Vox
08-10-2010, 8:42 PM
Pot and machineguns are both controversial subjects that provoke strong emotional responses in a lot of people. I think that something less controversial than either them might make an even better 10th Amendment case, though I can't think of a good candidate off the top of my head right now.

I'm not so sure that pot is that controversial, certainly less so than machineguns and gay marriage. I would love to hear though any ideas on what would be a better 10A vehicle.. I believe the last big one was slavery... that didn't go very well. lol

383green
08-10-2010, 8:53 PM
I'm not so sure that pot is that controversial, certainly less so than machineguns and gay marriage.

It seems fairly controversial to me, at least based on the many sputtering emotional reactions I've seen here in previous discussions of this topic. I get the impression that pot is as stigmatized in some circles as guns are in others. Pot and guns each provoke mobs bearing pitchforks and torches, both for and against. Personally, I'm a card- and torch-carrying member of the pro-gun mob, and while I'm in favor of the legalization of pot I don't care strongly enough about it to either carry a torch in the pro-pot mob or go out of my way to avoid the folks in the anti-pot mob.

Edited to add: Ditto on the gay-marriage topic. Like the pot topic, I'm in favor of its legality for libertarian and pragmatic reasons, but it's not enough of a hot-button for me to get too involved in all of the hoopla.

fiddletown
08-10-2010, 8:55 PM
[1] On the sample of a 4473 I have (the 2008 revision), question 11e reads: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

[2] Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under 21 USC 812 . (See (c)(10) of Schedule I)

[3] There is no provision for the lawful prescription of Schedule 1 controlled substances (as there is for Schedule II, II, IV and V controlled substances) under 21 USC 829. It is unlawful to prescribe a Schedule I controlled substance and any purported prescription of a Schedule I controlled substance is invalid under federal law.

So a person who may be lawfully using marijuana under state law is still an unlawful user under federal law and therefore a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(g)(3). So possession of a gun by anyone who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, commits a federal felony by possessing a gun.

Mstrty
08-10-2010, 9:10 PM
[1] On the sample of a 4473 I have (the 2008 revision), question 11e reads: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

[2] Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under 21 USC 812 . (See (c)(10) of Schedule I)

[3] There is no provision for the lawful prescription of Schedule 1 controlled substances (as there is for Schedule II, II, IV and V controlled substances) under 21 USC 829. It is unlawful to prescribe a Schedule I controlled substance and any purported prescription of a Schedule I controlled substance is invalid under federal law.

So a person who may be lawfully using marijuana under state law is still an unlawful user under federal law and therefore a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(g)(3). So possession of a gun by anyone who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, commits a federal felony by possessing a gun.

You are correct. Until someone wants to lawyer up and challenge this, ill just observe from the cheap seats.

Vox
08-10-2010, 9:11 PM
It seems fairly controversial to me, at least based on the many sputtering emotional reactions I've seen here in previous discussions of this topic. I get the impression that pot is as stigmatized in some circles as guns are in others. Pot and guns each provoke mobs bearing pitchforks and torches, both for and against. Personally, I'm a card- and torch-carrying member of the pro-gun mob, and while I'm in favor of the legalization of pot I don't care strongly enough about it to either carry a torch in the pro-pot mob or go out of my way to avoid the folks in the anti-pot mob.

Edited to add: Ditto on the gay-marriage topic. Like the pot topic, I'm in favor of its legality for libertarian and pragmatic reasons, but it's not enough of a hot-button for me to get too involved in all of the hoopla.

I won't say I'm a torch and pitchfork guy for either Gay Marriage or Pot legalization, more of an armchair soldier. Although I am a torch and pitchfork 2A guy.

I am strongly in favor of the legalization of pot and even other drugs at the federal level and the regulation of them on the state level. (But I'm also pro prostitution and of the opinion that the FCC's only legitimate duty is to keep the noise down on the airwaves so any voices can be heard not to restrict things "for the children")

Vox
08-10-2010, 9:12 PM
You are correct. Until someone wants to lawyer up and challenge this, ill just observe from the cheap seats.

They have lawyered up already, Gonzales v Raich, but a political mandate from the state would make a new argument valid there. (I'm also pretty annoyed at Scalia for his concurrence in that one)

San FranPsycho
08-10-2010, 10:03 PM
What is wrong with some of you in this thread?

Calling someone a "pot head" because they support the end of marijuana prohibition is EXACTLY the same as calling someone a "gun nut" because they support, oh, say, the end of California gun prohibition...

It is funny to see fellow CalGunner's who are all about gun rights, but get all angry at the notion of pot legalization, and then to see my friends who are all about weed but think that guns should be banned. It is funny to see two different groups of peoples' idea of what "Freedom" really entails :rolleyes:

fiddletown
08-10-2010, 10:14 PM
...Calling someone a "pot head" because they support the end of marijuana prohibition is EXACTLY the same as calling someone a "gun nut" because they support, oh, say, the end of California gun prohibition...Be that as it may, the thrust of this discussion is the status of gun ownership if Proposition 19 passes. And if Proposition 19 passes, the use of marijuana will still be a federal crime, and possession of a gun by a marijuana user will still be a federal felony.

If anyone has the time and money to try to get Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) overturned, feel free. The courts will be open for business.

dfletcher
08-10-2010, 10:23 PM
Prop 19 will supposedly bring more tax money to CA and that's usually touted as a reason to vote for the proposition. I view it is a reason to vote no because this state needs to learn to spend less money, not discover new tax resources - I really don't want to encourage such creativity.

Getting more tax $$$ to the state under the premise of helping is like stuffing a diabetic with donuts to fix their hunger.

Mstrty
08-10-2010, 10:25 PM
Calling someone a "pot head" because they support the end of marijuana prohibition is EXACTLY the same as calling someone a "gun nut" because they support, oh, say, the end of California gun prohibition...



Crap. Are you telling me a "gun nut" is a bad thing. Ive always proudly wore that badge.
I can care less if pot gets legalized. The "pot heads" (you know the ones that want pot laws to go away) need to be aware that the US Marshall, BATF, DEA, would be very happy to use some California "pot head gun nuts" or now known as "PHGN's" to fill their quotas.:D

383green
08-10-2010, 10:45 PM
Getting more tax $$$ to the state under the premise of helping is like stuffing a diabetic with donuts to fix their hunger.

I can't counter that argument. Still, I'll vote for prop 19 because I believe strongly in freedom, and I accept that freedom is neither free nor safe. Now, if somebody wants to put another proposition on the ballot next year to eliminate the pot tax, I'll vote for that, too! :p I generally try to vote for more freedom and less tax (even in cases where the tax is levied on something I don't like, such as cigarette sales). In this case where those two goals are at odds, the freedom aspect seems to outweigh the tax aspect to me.


On another note, I proudly self-identify as a "gun-nut". The term may have been coined with pejorative intent, but by refusing to accept the evil connotation and instead embracing it as a badge of honor I strip the term of its barbs, much as gays snatched the term "queer" from the verbal arsenal of their hate-filled detractors (if I'm not mistaken). Words can certainly hurt, but sometimes they can be turned back upon those who use them with ill intent.

Since I'm in favor of pot legalization, does that make me a "pot-head" even though I've never once used the stuff? :rolleyes:

KylaGWolf
08-10-2010, 11:34 PM
I hope they don't legalize it. I am deadly allergic to the stuff and really don't want it out in public more than it already is. I hate having to go to the ER and get shots and oxygen and steroids and all that jazz every time because some stoner wants a buzz. Not to mention I have seen some really dumb things done while the person is stoned on pot. Mix that and guns it can be a really BAD combination. Then again I feel that way about any mind altering substance including alcohol.

As to the DROS nope that is a federal form and the federal government says it is still illegal so you would still have to answer yes and most likely get turned down.

Roadrunner
08-10-2010, 11:40 PM
I just lot my respect for you Roadrunner. Very Inappropriate IMO.

My advice for all you Potheads is to go back in the closet, if you're going to keep owning guns if/after Prop 19 passes.

Just my way of demonstrating absurdity by being absurd. :43:

BayAreaShooter
08-10-2010, 11:49 PM
It really does not matter to me if it passes or not. I am not against smoking pot, but I believe it should not be done while guns are around. I honestly do not think it will pass but we will see what happens. IMHO I believe that alcohol is a much much worse thing to be consuming than Pot. Either way If you decide to smoke I highly recommend you do not bring your stash with you while transporting any firearms.

Seesm
08-11-2010, 1:38 AM
I know a guy who has his CCW and is going for his 215 card and I was thinking there is NO way...

2Bear
08-11-2010, 1:46 AM
I honestly do not think it will pass but we will see what happens.

I also will be quite surprised if it passes. It seems it's quite different than legalizing for medical use, but then again the revenue will prove sorely tempting.

(I've heard parents of teens are quite opposed to it... No surprise there.)

Looks like it's still a toss-up:

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/08/2944518_a2943411/weed-goes-mainstream.html

CSACANNONEER
08-11-2010, 10:30 AM
I hope they don't legalize it. I am deadly allergic to the stuff and really don't want it out in public more than it already is. I hate having to go to the ER and get shots and oxygen and steroids and all that jazz every time because some stoner wants a buzz. Not to mention I have seen some really dumb things done while the person is stoned on pot. Mix that and guns it can be a really BAD combination. Then again I feel that way about any mind altering substance including alcohol.

As to the DROS nope that is a federal form and the federal government says it is still illegal so you would still have to answer yes and most likely get turned down.

I've never heard of anyone being allergic to it. I can relate since, I'm allergic to many things including the common antigen in allergy shots! Anyway, even given your allergy, I am on the oter side of the fence because, I've seen several responsible adults who medically benifit from THC more than any other drug that has been prescibed to them. In some cases, nothing else seems to work. Oh, these are not stoners but people who were even reluctant to try MMJ in the first place. Like any other drug that can be misused, it is dangerous to mix it with machinery, firearms, etc. Now, should anyone with a script for anti depressants, pain killers, heart medication, etc. be excluded from operating a firearm while taking their federally legal presciption?

383green
08-11-2010, 10:39 AM
Voting for legalization of something that was previously prohibited is voting for more freedom. If Prop 19 passes, then many of the people who voted for it will receive their first taste of increased freedom. They will like it, and some of them will become addicted to it and want more. Those people will then look for more opportunities to gain freedom, and they will pursue those opportunities.

As a hopelessly addicted freedom-head, this is a spreading disease that I can stand behind.

tacticalcity
08-11-2010, 10:49 AM
Firearms businesses have a lot in common with medical marijuana dispensaries, at least when it comes to the dirty tricks government officials are willing to play to shut us down. Sacramento County officials have been forcing dispensaries distributing medical marijuana to close because "there are no ordinances allowing them to operate within county lines". This same flawed logic has routinely been used against firearms related businesses here in California. Never mind the fact that the absence of a law governing an activity means it is legal, not illegal. Laws are not a checklist of things you can do, they are a checklist of things you cannot do. This is just another example of government officials willfully ignoring the law to push their own agenda. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent and should not be tolerated.

I do not smoke pot, and I am not a big fan of those that do. However, I believe the process of how government works is much more important than the end result. It is legal for those businesses to operate, and it is wrong for a handful of government officials with their own agenda to circumvent the law and shut them down. If anyone can relate to their situation, it should be the California gun community. As we are routinely the victim of the same type of persecution by our local officials.

Don't let your personal views about marijuana blind you to the fact that governmental abuse of power affects us all equally. The left ignored it in the past with regards to guns because they don't like guns or gun owners. Now they are paying the price because it is happening to them with regards to marijuana. We would be equally foolish to ignore what is happening to them, as it will be our turn again soon. The process matters much more than the issue. You don't have to agree or like the issue to be outraged by the complete and utter abuse of power by our government. If you let it slide on the things you are against, it will soon happen with regards to things you do care about.

thayne
08-11-2010, 11:44 AM
I support legalizing marijuana even though I dont use it, nor will I use it if its legal.

Snaps
08-11-2010, 11:58 AM
I just lot my respect for you Roadrunner. Very Inappropriate IMO.

My advice for all you Potheads is to go back in the closet, if you're going to keep owning guns if/after Prop 19 passes.

You come off quiet homophobic, even though this is about marijuana.

I hope they don't legalize it. I am deadly allergic to the stuff and really don't want it out in public more than it already is. I hate having to go to the ER and get shots and oxygen and steroids and all that jazz every time because some stoner wants a buzz. Not to mention I have seen some really dumb things done while the person is stoned on pot. Mix that and guns it can be a really BAD combination. Then again I feel that way about any mind altering substance including alcohol.

As to the DROS nope that is a federal form and the federal government says it is still illegal so you would still have to answer yes and most likely get turned down.

We should ban peanuts too. We wouldn't want other peoples freedom to eat peanuts infringe on your right to not have an allergic reaction (insert giant rolleyes).

If only freedom could be a utopia altered to your own desires....

Window_Seat
08-11-2010, 12:03 PM
I have a Calif. Commercial Class A drivers license.
I will never be able to use pot; because the drug restriction is Federal (DOT) Dept of Transportation.
You are in the same boat, so forget about it.
Learn to like beer and Bourbon; then memorize the mantra, "12 hours from bottle to throttle."

I also have a Class A (CDL), and (please correct me if necessary) in order for Class A drivers to be able to take advantage of any legalization of pot is for the U.S. DOT, the Federal Highway Administration and / or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to either suspend or completely stop the enforcement of 49CFR §40.85(a). Reputable trucking industry carriers would have to cooperate with this (they would likely hire their own private companies to test for Marijuana), so even if it were legal straight across the board, and the BoR had a 26A, there would still be lots of stubbornness, and lawsuits would have to be filed. Pot advocates have a HELLUVALONG ways to go.

49CFR §40.85 What drugs do laboratories test for?
As a laboratory, you must test for the following five drugs or classes of drugs in a DOT drug test. You must not test “DOT specimens” for any other drugs.
(a) Marijuana metabolites.
(b) Cocaine metabolites.
(c) Amphetamines.
(d) Opiate metabolites.
(e) Phencyclidine (PCP)

I do not know who would need to advise the DOT & the FMCSA to issue a new "rulemaking", or repeal the rulemaking in order for this to happen, but I would imagine that if Congress (it would take an act of Congress to legalize Marijuana) were to legalize it, there would still have to be this issue resolved.

Onto the argument of being all for gun rights, but throw the pothead to the curb...

What is wrong with some of you in this thread?

Calling someone a "pot head" because they support the end of marijuana prohibition is EXACTLY the same as calling someone a "gun nut" because they support, oh, say, the end of California gun prohibition...

It is funny to see fellow CalGunner's who are all about gun rights, but get all angry at the notion of pot legalization, and then to see my friends who are all about weed but think that guns should be banned. It is funny to see two different groups of peoples' idea of what "Freedom" really entails :rolleyes:

This ^^ reminds me of this quote:

If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what you will, is the great high-road to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause.

-Abraham Lincoln

Erik.

BayAreaShooter
08-11-2010, 12:11 PM
Now, should anyone with a script for anti depressants, pain killers, heart medication, etc. be excluded from operating a firearm while taking their federally legal presciption?

I am not sure if you where saying that pot will be federally legal if prop 19 passes and a medical user should be able to shoot a firearms while stoned, but I can assure you it will not be legal on a federal level. If you where not saying that than I interpreted it wrong.

bruceflinch
08-11-2010, 12:37 PM
You come off quiet homophobic, even though this is about marijuana.



We should ban peanuts too. We wouldn't want other peoples freedom to eat peanuts infringe on your right to not have an allergic reaction (insert giant rolleyes).

If only freedom could be a utopia altered to your own desires....

And you young Sir, come off as a immature troll, who needs to go back to school & learn a bit more about grammer & use of the English language. Maybe your Mama should teach you some manners as well.
:)

Mendo223
08-11-2010, 12:42 PM
Hey guys i didnt want this to get into a vote Yes vs Vote NO debate.


I wanted simple clarification of the law...and i guess this post sums it up.

[1] On the sample of a 4473 I have (the 2008 revision), question 11e reads: "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

[2] Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under 21 USC 812 . (See (c)(10) of Schedule I)

[3] There is no provision for the lawful prescription of Schedule 1 controlled substances (as there is for Schedule II, II, IV and V controlled substances) under 21 USC 829. It is unlawful to prescribe a Schedule I controlled substance and any purported prescription of a Schedule I controlled substance is invalid under federal law.

So a person who may be lawfully using marijuana under state law is still an unlawful user under federal law and therefore a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(g)(3). So possession of a gun by anyone who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, commits a federal felony by possessing a gun. ":




So i guess everytime i decide to smoke a joint before popping in my netflicks movies...im a felon.


isnt that awesome. im not a "pothead"...but i like to sometimes smoke with my brothers and friends when we watch movies or play video games at night.


it makes me kinda angry that i can get blind stupid drunk...(which is actually more dangerous)....and be totally legal. but once i smoke a joint im a felon.

also, i know people who have their 215 medical cannabis cards..AND THEY ALSO LEGALLY OWN GUNS? how does that work? my co-worker has had his med-card for years. and recently his garage was broken into and they tried to steal his Ford Mustang...so he went out a Dros'd a new shotgun and he passed and now he owns a gun, and he has marijuana at his house too. his step dad also smokes marijuana occasionally and owns several guns..

will the feds arrest him?

CSACANNONEER
08-11-2010, 12:53 PM
also, i know people who have their 215 medical cannabis cards..AND THEY ALSO LEGALLY OWN GUNS? how does that work? my co-worker has had his med-card for years. and recently his garage was broken into and they tried to steal his Ford Mustang...so he went out a Dros'd a new shotgun and he passed and now he owns a gun, and he has marijuana at his house too. his step dad also smokes marijuana occasionally and owns several guns..

will the feds arrest him?

They may legally own guns but, they can not legally own or smoke pot. At least under Federal law thay can't. Again, Federal law trumps state law here so, a 215 card does not make MJ legal for anyone. It's just a "feel good" (pun intended) state law that has no bearing in a Federal court. As far as your buddy committing a crime by perjuring himself when he marked that he was not an illegal user of MJ on his 4473, that's just another crime he can be convicted of. Sure, every time I buy a gun, no one comes to my house to inspect for drugs but, does that mean it's OK for me to have them at home? No. The fact is that MJ is illegal with or without firearms being present. IMHO, this needs to be changed on a Federal level because, I truely believe that MJ has legitimate medical purposes and other drugs just can not replace it. But, that does not change the fact that pot is illegal anywhere in the USA period!

Mendo223
08-11-2010, 1:09 PM
maybe i will vote Yes for 19...because if we legitimize marijuana in CA maybe theres a slim chance that they may decriminlize or legalize federally.

bruceflinch
08-11-2010, 1:23 PM
I'm a bit torn on the decision, personally. I used pot medicinally & non-medicinally at different periods in the 70's-80's. I feel there is a use for it medicinally. Granted it is probably safer than alcohol. However I hate to see another "vice" legalized, especially based on the possibility it will help bail out the state. Be a shame to make it easier to introduce substance abuse to more young generations.

I would support its use for real "medicinal" purposes. Currently the system for MMJ use is a joke & scam.

I would think even a "pothead" has a right to protect themselves with a gun in their home. But I sure as heck wouldn't hang with them as a friend.

Vox
08-11-2010, 1:34 PM
I'm a bit torn on the decision, personally. I used pot medicinally & non-medicinally at different periods in the 70's-80's. I feel there is a use for it medicinally. Granted it is probably safer than alcohol. However I hate to see another "vice" legalized, especially based on the possibility it will help bail out the state. Be a shame to make it easier to introduce substance abuse to more young generations.

What's wrong with legalizing vices? make an age restriction so you can't use until you're 18. Cigarettes are legal and I don't smoke them. I've had plenty of access to pot and I don't feel the need. The problem with vices is that you have to teach the kids moderation, if you can't do that you have no business being a parent.

gobler
08-11-2010, 1:54 PM
What it should come down to is States rights vs Federal rights. The control of drugs & alcohol* should be a State right since the Constitution does not give the Feds power over this. OTOH, the States should have less Gun Control because the Constitution does give the Feds power over them rather then the States.

We have things so backassward right now it's beyond frustrating.




*Prohibition was, in my mind a power grab by Wilson & Co and I truly believe the Founders would have tared and feathered them for implementing the 18th.

RideIcon
08-11-2010, 2:29 PM
there are thousands of people with 215 cards, and they get caught with the stuff all the time by state police, and nothing comes of it. Adding a gun to the situation still does not add a crime at the state level. Prop 19 passes, and you don't even need a 215 card.

you cannot be prosecuted by a state LEO, federal law is not their jurisdiction, so unless your on federal land, or plan on dealing with some federal agents, nothing is going to come of it.

ironpegasus
08-11-2010, 3:03 PM
You come off quiet homophobic, even though this is about marijuana.



We should ban peanuts too. We wouldn't want other peoples freedom to eat peanuts infringe on your right to not have an allergic reaction (insert giant rolleyes).

If only freedom could be a utopia altered to your own desires....

Problem with your argument here is that people don't generally smoke peanuts and get peanut particles in the air. Right now people generally smoke their pot indoors to avoid being in public sight so that it is harder to get busted. If it gets legalized and this person's neighbors light up in the back yard while they are in their back yard = trip to the hospital for the allergic party. Or maybe it's two doors down. Smoke travels a long way. Who pays the hospital or ambulance bill? Or what if they are growing their 25 square feet and some of it grows through the fence and the allergic person brushes up against it? When was the last time you saw somebody smoking peanuts recreationally?
The argument is not wholly valid because of the nature of the two substances' methods of consumption.
Even if we legalize pot, the state is going to jack up the taxes to such a high point that it's going to drive a black market anyway, just like the black market is there now. Only difference is that Franchise Tax Board Agents are going to now be running around kicking down doors to make sure you paid your taxes on your crop. You rally want more people in control of your life? If you want to legalize it, legalize it and let the market naturally set the price that it will bear - don't give the government the power to tax it beyond a sales tax - otherwise you sacrifice freedom. Just looking at the basic economics, the state wants to charge $50/ounce. Not knowing what the street price is, I can't say what that translates to in additional cost, but it's going to make it more expensive, not less, especially since you need to have additional staff to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations. That will drive the black market.
Additionally, do you really think that all the street pharmacists are going to just let themselves be put out of business? Doubtful that the major runners who make a bunch of money on smuggling and growing are going to take a hit because of legalization - they'll turn out the vote for a "no" and they'll spread the money to make sure they get the result they want.

wash
08-11-2010, 3:14 PM
Obama has stated that he does not intend to enforce fedral drug laws in states that legalize marijuana.

The law is still broken.

The up side is that if CA legalizes for general use, the feds stay hands off for a couple years and the sky doesn't fall, it will be very hard for anyone to argue for renewing the enforcement of federal marijuana laws. That would lead to more states legalizing and eventually federal legalization. That's what you have to wait for if you want dope and guns legal.

I want legalization so we can get rid of this damn drug war and let the Mexican drug cartels keep their crime in Mexico.

More freedom is always better than less. I don't like the federal government (or CA government) telling me that I can't drill one extra hole in my AR lowers. I bet gay people don't like California telling them that they can't marry and I bet pot heads don't like California telling them that Marijuana is illegal. I figure that letting other people have a few things that I shouldn't care about is a small price to pay for my personal freedom.

safewaysecurity
08-11-2010, 3:23 PM
Pretty sure you won't be able to own firearms if you smoke weed period. Still gotta fill at the BATF form.

wash
08-11-2010, 3:25 PM
Just looking at the basic economics, the state wants to charge $50/ounce. Not knowing what the street price is, I can't say what that translates to in additional cost, but it's going to make it more expensive, not less, especially since you need to have additional staff to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations. That will drive the black market.

I have heard that marijuana sells for about $400 an ounce and is quite frequently sold by the gram so $50 an ounce is peanuts because the cost to grow is almost nothing.

Marijuana could cost $100 an ounce (tax included) and the growers would still make lots of money.

Also I have heard that weed grown for personal consumption rather than sale will not be taxed. I'm not 100% sure about that but if a pot head can buy enough weed to get stoned every night for a week for less than the cost of enough booze to get him drunk for a week, he probably won't grow, he'll just buy.

IGOTDIRT4U
08-11-2010, 3:27 PM
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. This topic has come up many times here already. It's not the deadest horse around here, but it's on the list. ;)

Personally, I'm in favor of the legalization of pot for various reasons, despite having never tried the stuff and having no particular plans to try it in the future. However, I also recognize that even if CA legalizes it this November, it'll still be illegal under federal law. I don't see much point to the debate over whether pot use after CA legalizes it would have particular implications for people interested in purchasing/possessing firearms. Since pot use after CA legalization would automatically involve violating federal drug laws, it seems irrelevant to me to debate whether it also happens to violate federal gun laws.

If following the law is important to you, then stay away from pot until it's legalized at both state and federal levels. Conversely, if you don't mind knowingly violating the federal drug laws, then why would you care about lying on the 4473? I would only suggest that if you choose to knowingly violate the federal drug laws, or lie on the 4473, or commit any other crimes (whether you feel that the violated laws are just or not), don't talk about it or advocate it here. Advocating lawlessness is not welcomed by the management of this forum, even when the violated laws are universally accepted to be unjust and/or unconstitutional.

Please note that I am not advocating that anybody falsifies a 4473 or violates any law. I am merely making a philosophical observation that debating the federal legality of pot+guns seems pointless to me when the pot part is federally illegal already with or without the guns, and with or without CA's legalization under state law.

Well said.

Gun + pot + 4473 = illegal

That's just how it is.

Someone mentioned a 10A fight. Great point.

IGOTDIRT4U
08-11-2010, 3:28 PM
Oh, and I think that the tobacco companies are going to have a field day in court in CA if 19 passes.

dfletcher
08-11-2010, 3:50 PM
We should ban peanuts too. We wouldn't want other peoples freedom to eat peanuts infringe on your right to not have an allergic reaction (insert giant rolleyes).



I'm allergic to pretty much nothing and happen to smoke cigars, but the peanut analogy falls a bit short - you've got to eat the darn peanut as opposed to the wind carrying some smoke your way, right?

I don't know where all these allergies come from - when I was a kid about the only one I'd heard of was penicillin & bee stings. I'm not doubting anyone, but what the heck is happening?

Vox
08-11-2010, 3:52 PM
I'm allergic to pretty much nothing and happen to smoke cigars, but the peanut analogy falls a bit short - you've got to eat the darn peanut as opposed to the wind carrying some smoke your way, right?

I don't know where all these allergies come from - when I was a kid about the only one I'd heard of was penicillin & bee stings. I'm not doubting anyone, but what the heck is happening?

it's the chem trails...

*adjusts tin foil hat.*

dfletcher
08-11-2010, 3:56 PM
there are thousands of people with 215 cards, and they get caught with the stuff all the time by state police, and nothing comes of it. Adding a gun to the situation still does not add a crime at the state level. Prop 19 passes, and you don't even need a 215 card.

you cannot be prosecuted by a state LEO, federal law is not their jurisdiction, so unless your on federal land, or plan on dealing with some federal agents, nothing is going to come of it.

I'm being lazy, have posted it before, a fellow in WA who had a medical MJ card shot an intruder - ATF pinched him & he's prohibited from buying guns. Somehow the info got to them.

Vox
08-11-2010, 3:59 PM
Also I have heard that weed grown for personal consumption rather than sale will not be taxed.

Tell that to Roscoe Filburn

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/politics_conservative/116457
(and the article is even topical!)

I'm not 100% sure about that but if a pot head can buy enough weed to get stoned every night for a week for less than the cost of enough booze to get him drunk for a week, he probably won't grow, he'll just buy.

Just like booze you build up a tolerance to weed, don't you?

wash
08-11-2010, 4:47 PM
Tell that to Roscoe Filburn

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/politics_conservative/116457
(and the article is even topical!)



Just like booze you build up a tolerance to weed, don't you?
That's not quite relevent because the feds got Roscoe and Obama has said the feds will not enforce in states that legalize.

As far as tollerance goes, yes, pot heads can smoke lots after they build up a tolerance but the amount of marijuana that can be grown in that 25 ft^2 area is far more than any one person could smoke, probably 30 lbs a year would be doable with the proper techniques, that's about 1.3 ounces a day.

One particularly notorious hemp enthusiast said he smoked about 1/2 ounce a day.

I don't doubt that there might be a black market but I bet it will be more like pot heads selling off the part of their crop that they can't smoke rather than drug submarines bringing in bricks of Mexican weed.

Vox
08-11-2010, 5:10 PM
That's not quite relevent because the feds got Roscoe and Obama has said the feds will not enforce in states that legalize.

I don't doubt that there might be a black market but I bet it will be more like pot heads selling off the part of their crop that they can't smoke rather than drug submarines bringing in bricks of Mexican weed.

My mention of Roscoe was relevant actually to the discussion of taxation of a personal stash on a state level. I still thin that's relevant.

I would think that, much like the cultivation of personal tobacco crops doesn't really exist that it wouldn't be a huge issue.

otteray
08-11-2010, 5:42 PM
So i guess everytime i decide to smoke a joint before popping in my netflicks movies...im a felon.


isnt that awesome. im not a "pothead"...but i like to sometimes smoke with my brothers and friends when we watch movies or play video games at night.


it makes me kinda angry that i can get blind stupid drunk...(which is actually more dangerous)....and be totally legal. but once i smoke a joint im a felon.

also, i know people who have their 215 medical cannabis cards..AND THEY ALSO LEGALLY OWN GUNS? how does that work? my co-worker has had his med-card for years. and recently his garage was broken into and they tried to steal his Ford Mustang...so he went out a Dros'd a new shotgun and he passed and now he owns a gun, and he has marijuana at his house too. his step dad also smokes marijuana occasionally and owns several guns..

will the feds arrest him?

Now that they've read this?
Maybe?:shrug:

dustoff31
08-11-2010, 7:10 PM
you cannot be prosecuted by a state LEO, federal law is not their jurisdiction, so unless your on federal land, or plan on dealing with some federal agents, nothing is going to come of it.

Any state/local LEO, can arrest and book on the federal charges if they choose do so. Whether the US Attorney files on you or not is another matter. Even if he doesn't file, you have been arrested, sat in jail until you can bail out, your guns are seized, etc.

I believe you'll see a lot of that if Prop 19 passes. PDs/SOs are NOT going to give up the federal drug interdiction money.

Mstrty
08-11-2010, 9:06 PM
Any state/local LEO, can arrest and book on the federal charges if they choose do so. Whether the US Attorney files on you or not is another matter. Even if he doesn't file, you have been arrested, sat in jail until you can bail out, your guns are seized, etc.

I believe you'll see a lot of that if Prop 19 passes. PDs/SOs are NOT going to give up the federal drug interdiction money.

I belive you are correct. Some just dont want to hear this. It doesnt jive with their future intentions. Time will tell.

dfletcher
08-11-2010, 9:46 PM
You know, the current Chief Executive won't be around forever - another Ed Meese or John Ashcroft may be in the federal government's future. Not only might they decide to rescind the hands off approach, they may try to use interstate commerce against the folks who grow their own. If they're growing and buying their own, they're not buying the stuff brought in from AZ & NV, even if it is illegal. I wonder if that stretch of law would work?

Vox
08-12-2010, 1:35 AM
You know, the current Chief Executive won't be around forever - another Ed Meese or John Ashcroft may be in the federal government's future. Not only might they decide to rescind the hands off approach, they may try to use interstate commerce against the folks who grow their own. If they're growing and buying their own, they're not buying the stuff brought in from AZ & NV, even if it is illegal. I wonder if that stretch of law would work?

They won't need to use any clause to justify anything. The law is already there. All they have to do is enforce existing law which the current President has directed them not to "waste resources on" or some such thing.

safewaysecurity
08-12-2010, 1:39 AM
So why don't one of you calgunners be the first arrested and start up a lawsuit? XD

San FranPsycho
08-12-2010, 2:52 AM
I would like to hear a bit more from the folks who say they are "allergic" to pot. Not ridiculing or doubting you in any way, it is just that that is quite a new concept to me as I go to college in San Francisco (a LOT of people I know smoke weed) and I have never, ever heard of someone being allergic to weed from "second hand" smoke. I have heard of people becoming sick from super dry, improperly cured weed, and people becoming sick from SMOKING pot, but I've never heard of somebody getting violently or dangerously ill from smoking inhaling small amounts of second hand pot smoke from people far away. Please reply if you have any experience with this.

San FranPsycho
08-12-2010, 2:58 AM
In my opinion, pot users and gun owners are in the same bandwagon when it comes to it. But that's just me :)

bruceflinch
08-12-2010, 6:50 AM
I would like to hear a bit more from the folks who say they are "allergic" to pot. Not ridiculing or doubting you in any way, it is just that that is quite a new concept to me as I go to college in San Francisco (a LOT of people I know smoke weed) and I have never, ever heard of someone being allergic to weed from "second hand" smoke. I have heard of people becoming sick from super dry, improperly cured weed, and people becoming sick from SMOKING pot, but I've never heard of somebody getting violently or dangerously ill from smoking inhaling small amounts of second hand pot smoke from people far away. Please reply if you have any experience with this.

Please don't encourage threadjacking. Go to the OT Forum & start a new thread. There's more pot smokers over there as well.


In my opinion, pot users and gun owners are in the same bandwagon when it comes to it. But that's just me :)

What wagon is that?

dfletcher
08-12-2010, 9:12 AM
Voting for legalization of something that was previously prohibited is voting for more freedom. If Prop 19 passes, then many of the people who voted for it will receive their first taste of increased freedom. They will like it, and some of them will become addicted to it and want more. Those people will then look for more opportunities to gain freedom, and they will pursue those opportunities.

As a hopelessly addicted freedom-head, this is a spreading disease that I can stand behind.

I don't know that I would ascribe such lofty intentions. After all, it's mostly just folks just sitting around getting loaded. :rolleyes:

I do not underestimate the CA legislature's ability to see and sieze an opportunity to address a "problem" (as being done with UOC) regarding guns and MJ. They'll discover that some people own guns and a medical MJ card or otherwise use, and they'll pass a state law which we hope at best will be limited to MJ and gun ownership and not include prescription medicine or God only knows what else they can dream up. Maybe a nice long list of medication the state deems not compatible with gun ownership?

Really, I don't understand why some folks want to make owning a gun in CA a more contentious matter.

Luieburger
08-12-2010, 11:59 AM
Personally, I'm in favor of the legalization of pot for various reasons, despite having never tried the stuff and having no particular plans to try it in the future.

Same here. It's better for everybody (except the drug cartels and the Taliban) if it is legal. That doesn't mean I need to participate in using it.

San FranPsycho
08-12-2010, 4:33 PM
Please don't encourage threadjacking. Go to the OT Forum & start a new thread. There's more pot smokers over there as well.




What wagon is that?

I don't mean to hijack the thread, I just wanted to expand on this discussion because pot allergies is something I have never heard of.

For some reason, although there is no Amendment protecting a right to smoke weed, I feel like trying to control and regulate what people choose to put into their bodies is as Draconian as trying to control the amount and types of arms that the general populace chooses to own.

Do people act stupid when they smoke weed? Sure. But I just find it ridiculous that if you are an alcoholic, the feds would be very hard pressed to take your guns away because of that yet if you are a light marijuana user, you can get get your guns taken away and thrown in prison simply because of that. Something is not right about this and it disappoints me that some people don't see this. There are TONS of cases of violent drunks shooting people but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case of somebody who smoked a joint suddenly and inexplicably become violent and go on a shooting rampage.

dustoff31
08-12-2010, 4:45 PM
Obama has stated that he does not intend to enforce fedral drug laws in states that legalize marijuana.

That's not at all what he said.

In another thread, I posted the guidance letter that US DOJ sent out to all US Attorneys.

It said they did not intend to prosecute for MEDICAL MJ, when used in accordance with state law. It said that non-medical MJ remained a federal crime regardless of what state law said and that it could/would be prosecuted.

It also specifically said that the decision not to prosecute did not necessarily apply to MJ mixed with guns.

wash
08-12-2010, 5:08 PM
Well, I can't quote it but I believe he said something to that effect, a quote, not a letter.

Still, the feds would have a hard time enforcing those laws across an entire uncooperative state.

And like I said, when the sky doen't fall it will be pretty hard to argue against legalization.

gbp
08-12-2010, 7:04 PM
i cant believe there are 76 posts on an issue like this,
it just amases me
fed law says no, state law says you can smoke w/ prescription who trumps who?? and before anyone foes off saying state should trumph fed think about what state you are in amd what that could mean.
personally my business requirres that we are dot certified and they really don't care what the state of cali says. work or no work, paycheck or no paycheck. do the math

JM$0.02

Fjold
08-12-2010, 7:54 PM
I don't care if they vote to legalize pot in the State but the first ***hat who starts a post titled "Possession of guns and pot, how do I get my gun rights back?" is going to get blasted so harshly that I will earn at least a 5 day ban.

Mstrty
08-13-2010, 1:41 AM
I'm being lazy, have posted it before, a fellow in WA who had a medical MJ card shot an intruder - ATF pinched him & he's prohibited from buying guns. Somehow the info got to them.

Another turn in the story of a medical marijuana activist who nearly killed an intruder in his home this month. Steve Sarich said he tried to buy a shotgun and a pistol a few days after the March 15 shootout to replace ones that were seized by investigators, but he failed the background check. Sarich claims he has no criminal record.


Story (http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-031510-homeinvasion,0,5870573.story)

bruceflinch
08-13-2010, 8:01 AM
Do people act stupid when they smoke weed? Sure. But I just find it ridiculous that if you are an alcoholic, the feds would be very hard pressed to take your guns away because of that yet if you are a light marijuana user, you can get get your guns taken away and thrown in prison simply because of that. Something is not right about this and it disappoints me that some people don't see this. There are TONS of cases of violent drunks shooting people but I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case of somebody who smoked a joint suddenly and inexplicably become violent and go on a shooting rampage.

Good point.
If a husband gets arrested for DV, his gun rights are suspended.
You never hear about that regarding, arrested drunks who are violent..

Vipersx911
08-13-2010, 12:16 PM
Personally my problem is not with legalizing of the Marijuana, I dont smoke so I really dont care either way. The problem comes up if you are in posession and get stopped and in posession of a firearm under federal law it would void your registration. This is as far as I know, as it is still a Schedule I Narcotic under federal law, so even if you get pulled by local or state you than have to worry about if they have a federal LE with them, if they do you can still be screwed. My best advice would be pick one or the other, wanna smoke weed that is on you dont be a gun owner if you do. Than this will never be an issue.

wash
08-13-2010, 1:15 PM
i cant believe there are 76 posts on an issue like this,
it just amases me
fed law says no, state law says you can smoke w/ prescription who trumps who?? and before anyone foes off saying state should trumph fed think about what state you are in amd what that could mean.
personally my business requirres that we are dot certified and they really don't care what the state of cali says. work or no work, paycheck or no paycheck. do the math

JM$0.02
Nobody is really arguing that marijuana smoking and posession would not be a crime on a federal level, it will be. The question is will the feds try to enforce those laws?

Either way, I think legalization would be a good thing because it might lead to federal legalization.

I saw my mother suffer through chemo-therapy twice with all kinds of nausea, lack of hunger and pain. I believe she would have greatly benefitted from medicinal marijuana but the criminal stigma attached to it made her reject that option.

I don't see a problem with a person that smokes an ocasional joint and wants a gun collection also.

I do see a problem with Mexican drug cartels getting rich off of the marijuana trade.

I say legalize in CA and see what happens. If it's anything like Holland or Brittish Columbia, that's a big improvement over our current situation.

Mendo223
08-13-2010, 4:37 PM
More freedom is always better than less. I don't like the federal government (or CA government) telling me that I can't drill one extra hole in my AR lowers. I bet gay people don't like California telling them that they can't marry and I bet pot heads don't like California telling them that Marijuana is illegal. I figure that letting other people have a few things that I shouldn't care about is a small price to pay for my personal freedom.

well said! i agree with you 100% on this.



I don't see a problem with a person that smokes an ocasional joint and wants a gun collection also.
.


the interesting thing is..the guy who introduced me to CA legal ar 15s was a "pothead" in college. except when you look at him you would never think he smokes. hes a regular preppy college kid. i think alot of people on calguns have this negative stigma of potheads as lazy dudes sitting in their parents basements who havent showered in weeks. i notice that when i smoke, i dont feel dumbed down or slow, but i feel more aware and alert. im also alot more cautious, the last thing i would do is pick up a gun and start playing with it.

My best advice would be pick one or the other, wanna smoke weed that is on you dont be a gun owner if you do. Than this will never be an issue.
thats probably the best bet, but alot of the younger generation, guys in the 20s who are emerging as a large group of firearm owners, have grown up around pot and dont have the negative stigma attached to it that many older folks do. alot of people in live in mendocino and northern california enjoy their pot just as much as they enjoy their hunting, fishing, hiking, etc.....and i think people who smoke should every right to defend themselves and use the 2nd amendment. its totally backwards how you can legally drink, do prescription drugs, and own firearms, but not smoke a joint and own firearms.

BoxesOfLiberty
08-13-2010, 4:54 PM
Learn to like beer and Bourbon; then memorize the mantra, "12 hours from bottle to throttle."

I thought it was "12 hours from jigger to trigger".