Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item

This sounds like a federal policy, not a state one.  Why the congrats to Colorado?  It's not the state's doing, right?

Was the federal policy established and publicized prior to the medical permits?  I honestly don't know, I'm merely asking.  Colorado isn't alone in this, either, correct?  I believe that a good number of states have adopted some sort of permitted medical marijuana, no?

You know.....if we could get everyone to turn in their guns and smoke weed instead we'd probably have no need for guns. 

a) Colorado has passed a law to allow the recreational (not medicinal) use of cannibus.  These users do not need to register.  I'm not sure why you would use it medicinally when you could use it for fun.

b) The right answer to the form is "Not today".

my hat it has tinfoil,

tinfoil has my hat,

if it didn't have tinfoil,

it wouldn't be my hat!

is this also taking your rights? CA Penal Code

While exercising the privileges granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the licensee shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:
? Consume any alcoholic beverage.
? Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption.
? Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
? Refuse to show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon demand.
? Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.
? Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace officer as defined by California law.
? Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.
? Carry a concealed weapon not listed on the permit
? Carry a concealed weapon at times or circumstances other than those specified in the permit.

Maybe people on drugs shouldn't have guns...................................................

Also you, like most people, are taking such a poor interpretation of the second amendment, it does NOT say that everyone gets to have a gun.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Which militia are you a part of?

You might want to read up on Heller vs DC.

So should you, that decision only applies to federal enclaves, and not to the individual states.

McDonald v Chicago is a separate case that did apply to the states.

Also, whether or not you do, I still believe that the second amendment is poorly applied and that one day, hopefully sooner rather than later, cases like those will be overturned.  Supreme court has made mistakes before a la  Plessy v Ferguson.

My point about the concealed carry was to show the precedent for the concept that, under circumstances, the use of guns can be restricted. Some of those circumstances include the use of drugs. Can we not apply similar logic to someone who has a card to use pot maybe isn't the best person to have a gun.

You do realize the SCOTUS ruled it as an individual rights, and that the US Constitution does indeed apply to States... you might want to reald up on McDopnald vs Chicago

I was replying to his assertion that Heller vs DC applied to the states.

Heller v DC does not apply to the states,

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark^[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. 

It did not find that the other case applies to the states, it found that the second amendment applies to the states. ok, time to move on from this point.

X

You might want to get the actual point before moving on.... the 2A is a INDIVIDUAL right. PERIOD, as determined by DC vs Heller. When SCOTUS rules... it applies to all... not just DC. How in the world you would think it only applies to DC is beyond me. After ruling it is an individual right... SCOTUS ruled it applied to the States in McDonald vs Chicago.... I agree it was stating the obvious, but Chicago needed to hear it from them apparently. 

You are the one that brought up militia. You might want to understand it if you are discussing it. Just trying to help.

As far as the OP, there are choices in life. I'm going to go out on a limb and say 95% of medicinal MJ users are just recreational users. 

As far as actual medical issues.... you can't be under the influence, but users of alcohol and prescription medications are not barred from ownership. If weed or drugs become legal, then they should not be barred either. And an individual must be adjudicated addicted to have rights striped... not just a "user". 

But as has been said, it is against Federal law, so you can't do it. At some point, the Federal law is going to have to be changed. But for now, I don't shed any tears for all the stoners with MMJ cards and a hang nail. 

Even if say cocaine was to become legal... that would still have to be regulated for use. I do not know what to think of a adult doing a legal activity but not being able to have full rights. But I think we might agree that coked out gun owners might be a problem... well, except for that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.  

You are still wrong. DC vs Heller could not have applied to states rights. As DC is not a state, the ruling only applied to the federal court. Therefore, HELLER DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE ANYWHERE OUTSIDE OF A FEDERAL ENCLAVE (I.E. THE STATES).

McDonald vs Chicago is a completely SEPERATE ruling that extends the ruling in DC v Heller to the states.

So the assertion that DC v Heller applied the 2A to individuals in the states, would be incorrect.