Attention pot heads.....

[karlvv30]

Negatory sir. Thats not in that article at all. There isnt even a mention of alcohol other than in naming the BATFE.

Break a federal law, don't get federal privileges...

The right to keep and bear arms is not a federal privilege.

 

[Leshaire]

The right to keep and bear arms is not a federal privilege.

Whatever you want to call it. It surely isn't only a state privilege either. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". The federal gov isnt doing anything unexpected here. I don't understand what everyone is so confused and distraught about. It there an underlying issue here? Absolutely. But is the federal government doing something ridiculous? Absolutely not.

Break a federal law, don't get the federal government to approve you for a federal/state right***

 

[rOmiLaYu]

and the ninth circuit shows just how crazy it is again

Yeah, I stopped reading after "The ninth circuit court upheld..."

 

[karlvv30]

Whatever you want to call it. It surely isn't only a state privilege either. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". The federal gov isnt doing anything unexpected here. I don't understand what everyone is so confused and distraught about. It there an underlying issue here? Absolutely. But is the federal government doing something ridiculous? Absolutely not.

Break a federal law, don't get the federal government to approve you for a federal/state right***

It does set a precedent. If the court does not agree with the prescription your doctors give you then your 2a right can be rescinded.

"In addition, a ban on the sale of guns to marijuana and other drug users is reasonable because the use of such drugs "raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated," Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff said. <---directly from the article.

 

[palmettomoon]

Whatever you want to call it. It surely isn't only a state privilege either. The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". The federal gov isnt doing anything unexpected here. I don't understand what everyone is so confused and distraught about. It there an underlying issue here? Absolutely. But is the federal government doing something ridiculous? Absolutely not.

Break a federal law, don't get the federal government to approve you for a federal/state right***

Whew....it sure is a relief knowing that the Supremes cannot make a mistake. Glad to get that cleared up now. I guess the word "people" used in the 2nd means the militia....and not the people. But when used in any other amendment it actually means "the people."

 

[rOmiLaYu]

Whew....it sure is a relief knowing that the Supremes cannot make a mistake. Glad to get that cleared up now. I guess the word "people" used in the 2nd means the militia....and not the people. But when used in any other amendment it actually means "the people."

^triggered

 

[Leshaire]

It does set a precedent. If the court does not agree with the prescription your doctors give you then your 2a right can be rescinded.

"In addition, a ban on the sale of guns to marijuana and other drug users is reasonable because the use of such drugs "raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated," Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff said. <---directly from the article.

I don't deny that at all. What I said was that you included alcohol, which isn't mentioned in the article and isn't really even relevant at all considering it's not a Federal or State illegal drug. The article states "and other drug users" which is vague if you're a scholar per reviewing a paper, but I think it's clear here they mean illegal ones...

 

[karlvv30]

I don't deny that at all. What I said was that you included alcohol, which isn't mentioned in the article and isn't really even relevant at all considering it's not a Federal or State illegal drug. The article states "and other drug users" which is vague if you're a scholar per reviewing a paper, but I think it's clear here they mean illegal ones...

Maybe I lack the faith you have in our Government. That being said, I'd rather a pot head had a gun than someone hooked on prescription pain killers, anti depressants, or alcohol.

 

[Leshaire]

Whew....it sure is a relief knowing that the Supremes cannot make a mistake. Glad to get that cleared up now. I guess the word "people" used in the 2nd means the militia....and not the people. But when used in any other amendment it actually means "the people."

Whew, it sure is a relief knowing that you can read an unbiased, fact driven comment and still get all worked up like I just spat some liberal blasphemy. Let me try again for you. Is the main point of the article ethical, moral, or even logical? No. But does it coincide with Federal law exactly and perfectly? Yes. You can't deny that.

 

[Laufen]

Maybe I lack the faith you have in our Government. That being said, I'd rather a pot head had a gun than someone hooked on prescription pain killers, anti depressants, or alcohol.

Why would you even have to make that decision? This has nothing to do with varying degrees of "naughty", it has to do with following the letter of the law.