login
Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2014-01-06 10:45 AM in reply to: powerman |
 Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control itemOriginally posted by powerman And an individual must be adjudicated addicted to have rights striped... not just a "user". That's just it. Yes, just a "user" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922 U.S. Code Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (...) (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (...) 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. That's to own. Possess is to physically hold as in you cannot even go to a range and use a buddy's firearm with him there. The commerce bit is so they could make believe you holding a firearm has something to do with interstate commerce so they could pass the law. This is the paragraph they use to arrest felons for possession of a firearm or even a single round of ammo. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf? ATF Form 4733: e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? That's to buy. So, yeah, user of. Not just addicted to, no adjudication necessary, just user of. |
| 2014-01-06 10:52 AM in reply to: DanielG |
Pro  15655    | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman And an individual must be adjudicated addicted to have rights striped... not just a "user". That's just it. Yes, just a "user" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922U.S. Code Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (...) (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (...) 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. That's to own. Possess is to physically hold as in you cannot even go to a range and use a buddy's firearm with him there. The commerce bit is so they could make believe you holding a firearm has something to do with interstate commerce so they could pass the law. This is the paragraph they use to arrest felons for possession of a firearm or even a single round of ammo. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf?ATF Form 4733: e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? That's to buy. So, yeah, user of. Not just addicted to, no adjudication necessary, just user of. I agree with you, Daniel........up to a point. And that point is the fact that the Feds can't even enforce the gun laws on the books now.......they won't be able to enforce anything you've brought up. The gun ship has sailed.......everybody might as well get used to it..... even those of us who worry that the govt. could try to strip our gun rights. It's over, done.....the most heavily armed society in the history of the world will never be disarmed......it's only worth discussing in a hypothetical way because, in practice, it would be impossible. |
| 2014-01-06 11:12 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Expert 2180  Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman And an individual must be adjudicated addicted to have rights striped... not just a "user". That's just it. Yes, just a "user" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922U.S. Code Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (...) (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (...) 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. That's to own. Possess is to physically hold as in you cannot even go to a range and use a buddy's firearm with him there. The commerce bit is so they could make believe you holding a firearm has something to do with interstate commerce so they could pass the law. This is the paragraph they use to arrest felons for possession of a firearm or even a single round of ammo. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf?ATF Form 4733: e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? That's to buy. So, yeah, user of. Not just addicted to, no adjudication necessary, just user of. I agree with you, Daniel........up to a point. And that point is the fact that the Feds can't even enforce the gun laws on the books now.......they won't be able to enforce anything you've brought up. The gun ship has sailed.......everybody might as well get used to it..... even those of us who worry that the govt. could try to strip our gun rights. It's over, done.....the most heavily armed society in the history of the world will never be disarmed......it's only worth discussing in a hypothetical way because, in practice, it would be impossible. ALRIGHT! No more talk about GUNS! It's looking like a great New Year already. |
| 2014-01-06 11:13 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
| Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman And an individual must be adjudicated addicted to have rights striped... not just a "user". That's just it. Yes, just a "user" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922U.S. Code Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (...) (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (...) 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. That's to own. Possess is to physically hold as in you cannot even go to a range and use a buddy's firearm with him there. The commerce bit is so they could make believe you holding a firearm has something to do with interstate commerce so they could pass the law. This is the paragraph they use to arrest felons for possession of a firearm or even a single round of ammo. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf?ATF Form 4733: e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? That's to buy. So, yeah, user of. Not just addicted to, no adjudication necessary, just user of. I agree with you, Daniel........up to a point. And that point is the fact that the Feds can't even enforce the gun laws on the books now.......they won't be able to enforce anything you've brought up. The gun ship has sailed.......everybody might as well get used to it..... even those of us who worry that the govt. could try to strip our gun rights. It's over, done.....the most heavily armed society in the history of the world will never be disarmed......it's only worth discussing in a hypothetical way because, in practice, it would be impossible. You know probably better than most here I bring a lot of these up strictly as mental exercise and perhaps some might see there are areas that are possible to misuse on the population in general. There are a bunch of law quotes that fit, from Ayn Rand to Frank Zappa to Albert Einstein. |
| 2014-01-06 11:15 AM in reply to: jeffnboise |
| Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman And an individual must be adjudicated addicted to have rights striped... not just a "user". That's just it. Yes, just a "user" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922U.S. Code Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (...) (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (...) 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. That's to own. Possess is to physically hold as in you cannot even go to a range and use a buddy's firearm with him there. The commerce bit is so they could make believe you holding a firearm has something to do with interstate commerce so they could pass the law. This is the paragraph they use to arrest felons for possession of a firearm or even a single round of ammo. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf?ATF Form 4733: e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? That's to buy. So, yeah, user of. Not just addicted to, no adjudication necessary, just user of. I agree with you, Daniel........up to a point. And that point is the fact that the Feds can't even enforce the gun laws on the books now.......they won't be able to enforce anything you've brought up. The gun ship has sailed.......everybody might as well get used to it..... even those of us who worry that the govt. could try to strip our gun rights. It's over, done.....the most heavily armed society in the history of the world will never be disarmed......it's only worth discussing in a hypothetical way because, in practice, it would be impossible. ALRIGHT! No more talk about GUNS! It's looking like a great New Year already. You go into a thread with the word gun in the title. Odds are pretty good guns are either being or going to be discussed in the thread. Perhaps if one doesn't want to get into or be subjected to discussions about guns, not going into threads with gun in the title might be a good rule of thumb. |
| 2014-01-06 11:20 AM in reply to: DanielG |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by Left Brain You know probably better than most here I bring a lot of these up strictly as mental exercise and perhaps some might see there are areas that are possible to misuse on the population in general. There are a bunch of law quotes that fit, from Ayn Rand to Frank Zappa to Albert Einstein. Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman And an individual must be adjudicated addicted to have rights striped... not just a "user". That's just it. Yes, just a "user" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922U.S. Code Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (...) (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (...) 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. That's to own. Possess is to physically hold as in you cannot even go to a range and use a buddy's firearm with him there. The commerce bit is so they could make believe you holding a firearm has something to do with interstate commerce so they could pass the law. This is the paragraph they use to arrest felons for possession of a firearm or even a single round of ammo. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf?ATF Form 4733: e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? That's to buy. So, yeah, user of. Not just addicted to, no adjudication necessary, just user of. I agree with you, Daniel........up to a point. And that point is the fact that the Feds can't even enforce the gun laws on the books now.......they won't be able to enforce anything you've brought up. The gun ship has sailed.......everybody might as well get used to it..... even those of us who worry that the govt. could try to strip our gun rights. It's over, done.....the most heavily armed society in the history of the world will never be disarmed......it's only worth discussing in a hypothetical way because, in practice, it would be impossible. Absolutely.....and I enjoy it. |
| 2014-01-06 11:20 AM in reply to: DanielG |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by jeffnboise You go into a thread with the word gun in the title. Odds are pretty good guns are either being or going to be discussed in the thread. Perhaps if one doesn't want to get into or be subjected to discussions about guns, not going into threads with gun in the title might be a good rule of thumb. Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman And an individual must be adjudicated addicted to have rights striped... not just a "user". That's just it. Yes, just a "user" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922U.S. Code Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (...) (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (...) 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. That's to own. Possess is to physically hold as in you cannot even go to a range and use a buddy's firearm with him there. The commerce bit is so they could make believe you holding a firearm has something to do with interstate commerce so they could pass the law. This is the paragraph they use to arrest felons for possession of a firearm or even a single round of ammo. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf?ATF Form 4733: e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? That's to buy. So, yeah, user of. Not just addicted to, no adjudication necessary, just user of. I agree with you, Daniel........up to a point. And that point is the fact that the Feds can't even enforce the gun laws on the books now.......they won't be able to enforce anything you've brought up. The gun ship has sailed.......everybody might as well get used to it..... even those of us who worry that the govt. could try to strip our gun rights. It's over, done.....the most heavily armed society in the history of the world will never be disarmed......it's only worth discussing in a hypothetical way because, in practice, it would be impossible. ALRIGHT! No more talk about GUNS! It's looking like a great New Year already. But then, what EVER would i do to elicit such strong responses from the forum 'regulars'? Sometimes, thou doest protest too much! |
| 2014-01-06 12:03 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
| Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by jeffnboise Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by jeffnboise You go into a thread with the word gun in the title. Odds are pretty good guns are either being or going to be discussed in the thread. Perhaps if one doesn't want to get into or be subjected to discussions about guns, not going into threads with gun in the title might be a good rule of thumb. Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman And an individual must be adjudicated addicted to have rights striped... not just a "user". That's just it. Yes, just a "user" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922U.S. Code Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (...) (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (...) 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. That's to own. Possess is to physically hold as in you cannot even go to a range and use a buddy's firearm with him there. The commerce bit is so they could make believe you holding a firearm has something to do with interstate commerce so they could pass the law. This is the paragraph they use to arrest felons for possession of a firearm or even a single round of ammo. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf?ATF Form 4733: e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? That's to buy. So, yeah, user of. Not just addicted to, no adjudication necessary, just user of. I agree with you, Daniel........up to a point. And that point is the fact that the Feds can't even enforce the gun laws on the books now.......they won't be able to enforce anything you've brought up. The gun ship has sailed.......everybody might as well get used to it..... even those of us who worry that the govt. could try to strip our gun rights. It's over, done.....the most heavily armed society in the history of the world will never be disarmed......it's only worth discussing in a hypothetical way because, in practice, it would be impossible. ALRIGHT! No more talk about GUNS! It's looking like a great New Year already. But then, what EVER would i do to elicit such strong responses from the forum 'regulars'? Sometimes, thou doest protest too much! Huh? Wasn't protesting, was trying to work with you to alleviate your apparent issue with some of the threads. Enjoy the threads, in that case. |
| 2014-01-06 12:11 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Champion 6503 NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by pga_mike So if they passed magazine limit bills, registration bills and gun type bans, it would be okay to ignore those laws as well. Glad to know it. 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". Not what I said at all. I can go into a pharmacy and buy a narcotic. No "registration required". I can go into a liquor store and buy vodka. No registration required. I can NOW go into a dispensary and purchase cannibus in CO. "No registration required". This would NOT be a violation according to your law. Am I a user of alcohol today because I had a glass of champagne on New Years? And I thought that that sarc font was pretty obvious on point 2. Perhaps it wasn't. |
| 2014-01-06 12:33 PM in reply to: pga_mike |
| Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by pga_mike So if they passed magazine limit bills, registration bills and gun type bans, it would be okay to ignore those laws as well. Glad to know it. 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". Not what I said at all. I can go into a pharmacy and buy a narcotic. No "registration required". I can go into a liquor store and buy vodka. No registration required. I can NOW go into a dispensary and purchase cannibus in CO. "No registration required". This would NOT be a violation according to your law. Am I a user of alcohol today because I had a glass of champagne on New Years? And I thought that that sarc font was pretty obvious on point 2. Perhaps it wasn't. If you are a firearm owner, you cannot go purchase cannibus in CO, use it, and still possess the firearm legally. You can, however, get drunk, you can get percocet via prescription, you can still, even with both of those in your system, possess a firearm legally. |
| 2014-01-06 1:39 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5
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. 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. DC/Heller addressed the rights of owners because DC is indeed not a State. They argued they can do what they want. SCOTUS ruled in fact they can't. They went further.... because DC argued it wasn't an individual right.... that the 2A was an individual right. Period, end of discussion. Individual right, which has nothing to do with DC or States, but the Constitution. Chicago argued that it did not apply to them... and SCOTUS ruled that indeed it did... DUH! And the sky is blue.... just sayin' |
| 2014-01-06 1:46 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman And an individual must be adjudicated addicted to have rights striped... not just a "user". That's just it. Yes, just a "user" http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922U.S. Code Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922 (g) It shall be unlawful for any person— (...) (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (...) 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. That's to own. Possess is to physically hold as in you cannot even go to a range and use a buddy's firearm with him there. The commerce bit is so they could make believe you holding a firearm has something to do with interstate commerce so they could pass the law. This is the paragraph they use to arrest felons for possession of a firearm or even a single round of ammo. http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf?ATF Form 4733: e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? That's to buy. So, yeah, user of. Not just addicted to, no adjudication necessary, just user of. Right Daniel... but according to law, they are indeed UNLAWFUL users of as it stands now. And that is indeed true to Federal law. So for alcohol, you have to be ruled an alcoholic by a court and you are done. A prescription drug user is just that... a lawful user of a controlled substance. If you are an addict... then you are an unlawful user of an controlled substance and can't own guns. Because by that point, I promise you you are doctor shopping and other activities to get more and more. Right now, the Feds can prosecute you for MMJ, but they just won't do it... but that does not make it legal. But if the States are going to legalize, then the Federal law needs to change. At that point you would not be an "unlawful" user... but they could still say no, if you are addicted. To be sure it is going to create contradictions that will get sorted out. But as it stands to Federal law, there is nothing wrong.
|
| 2014-01-06 1:58 PM in reply to: powerman |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5
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. 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. DC/Heller addressed the rights of owners because DC is indeed not a State. They argued they can do what they want. SCOTUS ruled in fact they can't. They went further.... because DC argued it wasn't an individual right.... that the 2A was an individual right. Period, end of discussion. Individual right, which has nothing to do with DC or States, but the Constitution. Chicago argued that it did not apply to them... and SCOTUS ruled that indeed it did... DUH! And the sky is blue.... just sayin' Look, we both agree on the facts of the case, I think you just don't understand the technicalities about where cases originate, and then where the ruling can be applied because of the point of origin. That case, on its own before the Chicago case, could not legally be applied in terms of states rights. |
| 2014-01-06 3:18 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5
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. 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. DC/Heller addressed the rights of owners because DC is indeed not a State. They argued they can do what they want. SCOTUS ruled in fact they can't. They went further.... because DC argued it wasn't an individual right.... that the 2A was an individual right. Period, end of discussion. Individual right, which has nothing to do with DC or States, but the Constitution. Chicago argued that it did not apply to them... and SCOTUS ruled that indeed it did... DUH! And the sky is blue.... just sayin' Look, we both agree on the facts of the case, I think you just don't understand the technicalities about where cases originate, and then where the ruling can be applied because of the point of origin. That case, on its own before the Chicago case, could not legally be applied in terms of states rights. OK, but the end result is the world we live in today after Heller and McDonald... which is it is an individual right not contingent upon militia service which applies to all US citizens regardless where they live. It even applies to Daniel. So the question of which militia he belonged to... was pointless. |
| 2014-01-06 3:28 PM in reply to: powerman |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5
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. 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. DC/Heller addressed the rights of owners because DC is indeed not a State. They argued they can do what they want. SCOTUS ruled in fact they can't. They went further.... because DC argued it wasn't an individual right.... that the 2A was an individual right. Period, end of discussion. Individual right, which has nothing to do with DC or States, but the Constitution. Chicago argued that it did not apply to them... and SCOTUS ruled that indeed it did... DUH! And the sky is blue.... just sayin' Look, we both agree on the facts of the case, I think you just don't understand the technicalities about where cases originate, and then where the ruling can be applied because of the point of origin. That case, on its own before the Chicago case, could not legally be applied in terms of states rights. OK, but the end result is the world we live in today after Heller and McDonald... which is it is an individual right not contingent upon militia service which applies to all US citizens regardless where they live. It even applies to Daniel. So the question of which militia he belonged to... was pointless. I can still think its a chit interpretation and that I will see it overruled in my lifetime. |
| 2014-01-06 4:00 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by dmiller5
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. 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. DC/Heller addressed the rights of owners because DC is indeed not a State. They argued they can do what they want. SCOTUS ruled in fact they can't. They went further.... because DC argued it wasn't an individual right.... that the 2A was an individual right. Period, end of discussion. Individual right, which has nothing to do with DC or States, but the Constitution. Chicago argued that it did not apply to them... and SCOTUS ruled that indeed it did... DUH! And the sky is blue.... just sayin' Look, we both agree on the facts of the case, I think you just don't understand the technicalities about where cases originate, and then where the ruling can be applied because of the point of origin. That case, on its own before the Chicago case, could not legally be applied in terms of states rights. OK, but the end result is the world we live in today after Heller and McDonald... which is it is an individual right not contingent upon militia service which applies to all US citizens regardless where they live. It even applies to Daniel. So the question of which militia he belonged to... was pointless. I can still think its a chit interpretation and that I will see it overruled in my lifetime. Please. What you wish the 2A is does not mean that is what it is. The Bill of Rights was written to protect individual rights, not militias. It's not complicated. If you disagree, then repeal the 2A. But you will never see Heller overturned, no more than we will see Roe overturned. It's not going to happen. Not to mention the fact that we have never before had so many gun laws on the books, and we have never before been so well armed. Perhaps it's time to move onto more practical matters like curing hunger. |
| 2014-01-06 6:50 PM in reply to: DanielG |
| Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item BWHAAHA. http://www.9news.com/news/article/371964/188/Guns-and-marijuana-A-c... Guns and marijuana: A criminal combination |
| 2014-01-06 6:55 PM in reply to: powerman |
| Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by powerman Right Daniel... but according to law, they are indeed UNLAWFUL users of as it stands now. And that is indeed true to Federal law. So for alcohol, you have to be ruled an alcoholic by a court and you are done. A prescription drug user is just that... a lawful user of a controlled substance. If you are an addict... then you are an unlawful user of an controlled substance and can't own guns. Because by that point, I promise you you are doctor shopping and other activities to get more and more. Right now, the Feds can prosecute you for MMJ, but they just won't do it... but that does not make it legal. But if the States are going to legalize, then the Federal law needs to change. At that point you would not be an "unlawful" user... but they could still say no, if you are addicted. To be sure it is going to create contradictions that will get sorted out. But as it stands to Federal law, there is nothing wrong.
Huh? You start out agreeing. Couldn't care less about booze or prescription drugs, they're not an issue for this. Then you say there's nothing wrong federally as it stands? You mean except for the illegal user of MJ federally because there is no legal use of it federally? That goes against your first block up there. |
| 2014-01-06 11:11 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman Huh? You start out agreeing. Couldn't care less about booze or prescription drugs, they're not an issue for this. Then you say there's nothing wrong federally as it stands? You mean except for the illegal user of MJ federally because there is no legal use of it federally? That goes against your first block up there. Right Daniel... but according to law, they are indeed UNLAWFUL users of as it stands now. And that is indeed true to Federal law. So for alcohol, you have to be ruled an alcoholic by a court and you are done. A prescription drug user is just that... a lawful user of a controlled substance. If you are an addict... then you are an unlawful user of an controlled substance and can't own guns. Because by that point, I promise you you are doctor shopping and other activities to get more and more. Right now, the Feds can prosecute you for MMJ, but they just won't do it... but that does not make it legal. But if the States are going to legalize, then the Federal law needs to change. At that point you would not be an "unlawful" user... but they could still say no, if you are addicted. To be sure it is going to create contradictions that will get sorted out. But as it stands to Federal law, there is nothing wrong.
I guess I do not understand the confusion. MMJ users are unlawful users of controlled substances. They can not own weapons. If they lie they can be prosecuted for perjury. The question was on the form before MMJ was legal in the first state. This is not hidden gun control. It was out in the open for ever. If owning guns are important to you, do not register for MMJ. |
| 2014-01-06 11:33 PM in reply to: powerman |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman Huh? You start out agreeing. Couldn't care less about booze or prescription drugs, they're not an issue for this. Then you say there's nothing wrong federally as it stands? You mean except for the illegal user of MJ federally because there is no legal use of it federally? That goes against your first block up there. Right Daniel... but according to law, they are indeed UNLAWFUL users of as it stands now. And that is indeed true to Federal law. So for alcohol, you have to be ruled an alcoholic by a court and you are done. A prescription drug user is just that... a lawful user of a controlled substance. If you are an addict... then you are an unlawful user of an controlled substance and can't own guns. Because by that point, I promise you you are doctor shopping and other activities to get more and more. Right now, the Feds can prosecute you for MMJ, but they just won't do it... but that does not make it legal. But if the States are going to legalize, then the Federal law needs to change. At that point you would not be an "unlawful" user... but they could still say no, if you are addicted. To be sure it is going to create contradictions that will get sorted out. But as it stands to Federal law, there is nothing wrong.
I guess I do not understand the confusion. MMJ users are unlawful users of controlled substances. They can not own weapons. If they lie they can be prosecuted for perjury. The question was on the form before MMJ was legal in the first state. This is not hidden gun control. It was out in the open for ever. If owning guns are important to you, do not register for MMJ. I will go with it's a doctor's prescription......same as any other medicine that is a controlled substance. A legally prescribed medication by a doctor will win out in a court of appeals......bet it. |
| 2014-01-07 1:52 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman Huh? You start out agreeing. Couldn't care less about booze or prescription drugs, they're not an issue for this. Then you say there's nothing wrong federally as it stands? You mean except for the illegal user of MJ federally because there is no legal use of it federally? That goes against your first block up there. Right Daniel... but according to law, they are indeed UNLAWFUL users of as it stands now. And that is indeed true to Federal law. So for alcohol, you have to be ruled an alcoholic by a court and you are done. A prescription drug user is just that... a lawful user of a controlled substance. If you are an addict... then you are an unlawful user of an controlled substance and can't own guns. Because by that point, I promise you you are doctor shopping and other activities to get more and more. Right now, the Feds can prosecute you for MMJ, but they just won't do it... but that does not make it legal. But if the States are going to legalize, then the Federal law needs to change. At that point you would not be an "unlawful" user... but they could still say no, if you are addicted. To be sure it is going to create contradictions that will get sorted out. But as it stands to Federal law, there is nothing wrong.
I guess I do not understand the confusion. MMJ users are unlawful users of controlled substances. They can not own weapons. If they lie they can be prosecuted for perjury. The question was on the form before MMJ was legal in the first state. This is not hidden gun control. It was out in the open for ever. If owning guns are important to you, do not register for MMJ. I will go with it's a doctor's prescription......same as any other medicine that is a controlled substance. A legally prescribed medication by a doctor will win out in a court of appeals......bet it. Yes, but you have to be the one to put your liberty on the line and see the court process to the end. Most MMJ users can't put down the video game long enough to do that. I'm not saying how I think it should be, I'm just saying how it is. As far as the OP... it's not "hidden" gun control. It was always illegal... now the war on drugs must be ended and the laws removed from the books. That' how I think it should be. |
| 2014-01-07 9:25 AM in reply to: powerman |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by powerman Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman Huh? You start out agreeing. Couldn't care less about booze or prescription drugs, they're not an issue for this. Then you say there's nothing wrong federally as it stands? You mean except for the illegal user of MJ federally because there is no legal use of it federally? That goes against your first block up there. Right Daniel... but according to law, they are indeed UNLAWFUL users of as it stands now. And that is indeed true to Federal law. So for alcohol, you have to be ruled an alcoholic by a court and you are done. A prescription drug user is just that... a lawful user of a controlled substance. If you are an addict... then you are an unlawful user of an controlled substance and can't own guns. Because by that point, I promise you you are doctor shopping and other activities to get more and more. Right now, the Feds can prosecute you for MMJ, but they just won't do it... but that does not make it legal. But if the States are going to legalize, then the Federal law needs to change. At that point you would not be an "unlawful" user... but they could still say no, if you are addicted. To be sure it is going to create contradictions that will get sorted out. But as it stands to Federal law, there is nothing wrong.
I guess I do not understand the confusion. MMJ users are unlawful users of controlled substances. They can not own weapons. If they lie they can be prosecuted for perjury. The question was on the form before MMJ was legal in the first state. This is not hidden gun control. It was out in the open for ever. If owning guns are important to you, do not register for MMJ. I will go with it's a doctor's prescription......same as any other medicine that is a controlled substance. A legally prescribed medication by a doctor will win out in a court of appeals......bet it. Yes, but you have to be the one to put your liberty on the line and see the court process to the end. Most MMJ users can't put down the video game long enough to do that. I'm not saying how I think it should be, I'm just saying how it is. As far as the OP... it's not "hidden" gun control. It was always illegal... now the war on drugs must be ended and the laws removed from the books. That' how I think it should be. Agreed! |
| 2014-01-09 12:47 PM in reply to: powerman |
| Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by powerman [As far as the OP... it's not "hidden" gun control. It was always illegal... now the war on drugs must be ended and the laws removed from the books. That' how I think it should be. I have frequently said I'm for legalizing all drugs and doing away with the prescription system. Over the counter for everything. Opiates, MJ, sudafed, everything. I have no problem with that at all. But as of right now all it takes is one law enforcement group to get a wild hair and all the sudden there's a bunch of people who are very much on the wrong side and get slammed with felonies that last a lifetime. |
| 2014-01-09 2:00 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by powerman I have frequently said I'm for legalizing all drugs and doing away with the prescription system. Over the counter for everything. Opiates, MJ, sudafed, everything. I have no problem with that at all. But as of right now all it takes is one law enforcement group to get a wild hair and all the sudden there's a bunch of people who are very much on the wrong side and get slammed with felonies that last a lifetime. [As far as the OP... it's not "hidden" gun control. It was always illegal... now the war on drugs must be ended and the laws removed from the books. That' how I think it should be. Absolutely... not only for 2A, but for their very liberty. In 2016 the political winds could shift and the DEA could be directed to bust them all. And people would loose a lot of money and their freedom.... but I really do not see the MJ issue going backwards... I only see it moving forwards to be legalized... and in turn being reduced on the controlled substance schedule to be regulated for sale. I do not know how you treat MJ as any sort of a "controlled substance" when alcohol isn't. So it will be interesting to see if MJ is treated as a product for sale and regulation like alcohol, or if they still try to keep it "controlled". As far as all the other drugs... well that is still TBD. I agree with you on prescription drugs being "controlled substances". Harder illegal drugs may become legal... but no way in heck the Controlled substance act gets canned. That isn't how government works... once it grows, it does not shrink. Nobody is about to get rid of the DEA, ATF or the FDA regardless of how they reschedule hard drugs. |
| 2014-01-12 4:15 PM in reply to: DanielG |
Champion 6503 NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: RE: Congrats Colorado on the sneakiest gun control item Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by pga_mike If you are a firearm owner, you cannot go purchase cannibus in CO, use it, and still possess the firearm legally. You can, however, get drunk, you can get percocet via prescription, you can still, even with both of those in your system, possess a firearm legally. Originally posted by DanielG Originally posted by pga_mike So if they passed magazine limit bills, registration bills and gun type bans, it would be okay to ignore those laws as well. Glad to know it. 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". Not what I said at all. I can go into a pharmacy and buy a narcotic. No "registration required". I can go into a liquor store and buy vodka. No registration required. I can NOW go into a dispensary and purchase cannibus in CO. "No registration required". This would NOT be a violation according to your law. Am I a user of alcohol today because I had a glass of champagne on New Years? And I thought that that sarc font was pretty obvious on point 2. Perhaps it wasn't. But if I use percocet outside of its prescription, I am committing a felony. If I use "left over" narcotics for a use outside of its doctor prescribed purpose, it becomes the use of a controlled substance without a prescription. And if I give one that I have left over from a tooth extraction to a friend who threw his back out, I'd also be distributing a controlled substance. But guess what? No one is filling out gun applications saying that they are "users" in these situations. Neither would I expect someone who purchases cannibus in a state where it is legal to do so to fill out that they have committed a drug related crime. Maybe the law should say, "Have you ever been arrested or convicted of a crime" I'm not sure that I care beyond that.
|
|
|
|
|
| Yet ANOTHER school shooting...and another thread about gun control. Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
| Gun control - The Answer? Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| Medical Groups Oppose Gun-Law Change To Share Mental Health Records | ||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK