dobedo
Member
A kick in the pants and totally do as I say not as I do.
DOJ Prosecuting Pot-Using Gun Owners Despite State Legalization | National Review
DOJ Prosecuting Pot-Using Gun Owners Despite State Legalization | National Review
DOJ Prosecuting Pot-Using Gun Owners Despite State Legalization
- Thread starter dobedo
- Start date
- Status
JN01
Member
Good thing that wasn't pot that Hunter Biden was smoking when he bought his gun.
edwardware
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,426
Well, the article is correct in stating, "Federal statute makes it a felony punishable by up to 15 years for an unlawful user of a controlled substance to possess a firearm."
Not a bait and switch or the slightest bit surprising, and every bit as constitutional as (almost) every other arms regulation.
AJC1
Member
I'll keep asking till I get a reasonable answer, the state should be a co-defendant based on profiting on the sale.
CapnMac
Member
Question (e) is quite clear on this.
Further 18 USC 922 at (d) (3) is equally clear:
This is not new, this has been going on since the first State adopted policies to not enforce 21 USC 802.
Persons using cannabis ought realize that there is a significant difference between "legalization" and being facia raza, blank faced, about enforcement. States do not have the power to "decriminalize" Federal laws--there are as many arguments against such a thing as for it; and either are not suited for THR, nor for Legal.
Now, if the reverse were true, that 21 USC 802 were repealed and State [xxx] created a law prohibiting use of [thing] so as to better preserve the health & welfare of the commonweal, that would be different.
There is an argument that, under Bruen, there's not going to be a historical precedent for "controlled substance use" bans. The problem being that will devolve into discussions about whether being a "notorious" threat to public [good and/or safety] was covering in contemporaneous laws of the time. Being a dissolute person was a thing known at the time.
Arguments about whether "prescribed" use wanders into intoxication or dissolution, is also not fodder for THR, nor Legal.
Further 18 USC 922 at (d) (3) is equally clear:
Federal law in this case trumps State law.
This is not new, this has been going on since the first State adopted policies to not enforce 21 USC 802.
Persons using cannabis ought realize that there is a significant difference between "legalization" and being facia raza, blank faced, about enforcement. States do not have the power to "decriminalize" Federal laws--there are as many arguments against such a thing as for it; and either are not suited for THR, nor for Legal.
Now, if the reverse were true, that 21 USC 802 were repealed and State [xxx] created a law prohibiting use of [thing] so as to better preserve the health & welfare of the commonweal, that would be different.
There is an argument that, under Bruen, there's not going to be a historical precedent for "controlled substance use" bans. The problem being that will devolve into discussions about whether being a "notorious" threat to public [good and/or safety] was covering in contemporaneous laws of the time. Being a dissolute person was a thing known at the time.
Arguments about whether "prescribed" use wanders into intoxication or dissolution, is also not fodder for THR, nor Legal.
OP
OP
dobedo
Member
Correct however Biden and Obama both pardoned people in jail/prison for pot use that does not stack up to consistency which we surly lack depend on which way the wind blows.
OP
OP
dobedo
Member
Everything you alluded to is 100% correct, my question is then why the states don't lose their federal funding for the same reason?
In particular by not following the constitution such as the Second Amendment.
And that’s a political question outside the scope of the Legal Forum and THR.
- Status
