SAF sues U.S. AG, ATF, FBI over medical marijuana 2A ban

[N4KVE]

You should get a refund from whatever law school you went to.

Fortunately, I didn’t pay anything. But I asked these 3 specific questions to the ATF agents working at their table at the Palm Beach show. This was their reply. Were they lying to me? GARY

[tector]

You should get a refund from whatever law school you went to.

Fortunately, I didn’t pay anything. But I asked these 3 specific questions to the ATF agents working at their table at the Palm Beach show. This was their reply. Were they lying to me? GARY

I just quoted you the fucking statute, verbatim. Look it up yourself if you think I've altered it.

"Somebody told me" is just as idiotic--if not more so--when the somebody is a Fed. Jesus H. Christ!

Your inner Canadian love of, and trust in, the benevolence of government flunkies is showing, again. You are a true Trudeau boy at heart, through and through.

[N4KVE]

The current PM, Justin is an idiot. OTOH, His Dad Pierre was a good PM, & I voted for him. GARY

[tector]

Well, Gary, here's the problem. You posted this:

The law is very specific.
If someone owns a bunch of guns, & applies for the card, can they keep their guns? Yes.
Can someone make a private purchase if they have the card. Yes.
Can someone make a purchase from a FFL, & fill out the 4473 if they have the card? No.

The actual statute says nothing "very specific" like this at all. Not even close. The message you posted is both OVERINCLUSIVE and UNDERCLUSIVE in terms of the statute.

The statute prohibits any person who is by federal law "an unlawful user of or addicted to any [federally] controlled substance"..."to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or POSSESS in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to RECEIVE any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Your post was OVERCLUSIVE to the extent it relied upon the idiotic idea (which you claim to have inherited from some Feds) that "cards" are some magic concept here. They are not. I could get a MM card tomorrow and buy a gun the next day at SS, filing out an 4473, and not have violated the law. I have to USE or be ADDICTED TO a federally scheduled substance, MM card status regardless.

Worse, your post was UNDERINCLUSIVE as to real dangers under the statute given the ridiculously broad definition of "commerce" in the Raich case (which, if you look at it, also involved weed). In Raich, the defendants were growing 6 plants for their own personal MM use, as allowed by state law. As described by Justice Thomas in his dissent:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States."

[...]

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

[...]

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, GUNS, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

[...]

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."[

Do you see what I highlighted for you in the next to the last paragraph? The SPECIFIC reference to "GUNS"? By Justice Thomas, not some dumbfuck ATF clowns you want to buddy up to, and from whom you are willing to accept their every utterances as gospel? HIS interpretation of this decision says this a very REAL risk, by his own words. So when the Biden Administration prosecutes people in front of liberal judges under this statute, WTF do you think is going to happen? Have you been watching these insane prosecutions relating (barely) to J6, or of Trump himself?

I know I have some used some harsh language, but basically you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and, simultaneously, are falsely advising people about the dangers they do and do not face under our Clown World government.

[N4KVE]

That tin foil hat starting to squeeze your brains? GARY.

[tector]

That tin foil hat starting to squeeze your brains? GARY.

Deep thoughts from you again. Thanks for the insights.

[photohause]

"But mind altering(thc) drugs and alcohol and guns do not mix legal or not."

BINGO - I'm on board with this also.

[jr81452]

"But mind altering(thc) drugs and alcohol and guns do not mix legal or not."

BINGO - I'm on board with this also.

The problem with that as it pertains to marijuana, is that THC is detectable in your system for up to 30 days after consumption.

Under current law, a man can smoke some weed at a weekend party, then 2 weeks later be pulled over while carrying (fully sober), and still be prosecuted for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), (d)(3). Regardless of their medical status.

Like civil asset forfeiture, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3), (d)(3) is another drug war policy that violates or side steps constitution rights in favor of some social policy with ambiguous benefit. I hope he slaughters them with this suit.

[jr81452]

You should get a refund from whatever law school you went to.

Fortunately, I didn’t pay anything. But I asked these 3 specific questions to the ATF agents working at their table at the Palm Beach show. This was their reply. Were they lying to me? GARY

Well, if some rando ATF clown said it, then it must be true. We all know the ATF is bound by whatever they say, even if it's just 1 agent with no record of the conversation. It's not like they've ever intentionally misled people, or changed their mind years later. /s

[jr81452]

"But mind altering(thc) drugs and alcohol and guns do not mix legal or not."

BINGO - I'm on board with this also.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a guy in the lane next to me who smoked a little prescription THC, than a Guy who snorted 2 oxy's he got from his dentist. Yet the oxy user is technically legal (prove he didn't use it as directed), and the THC user is a felon, who would be bared for life from their 2A rights if caught.