Legalized Marijuana and Firearms.

[Vashjir]

It is my understanding that to purchase "Recreational" pot they swipe the Driners License at the time of purchase.

I had some friends out in Colorado for a business trip who decided to try the stuff and they said it was easier than buying booze. No dl swipe (I doubt they can do out of state swipes anyway) and no record of their cash purchase other than a receipt.

[jshuberg]

Given the fact that Barry O was an admitted unlawful user of pot, and doesn't simply possess a gun, but is in command of the entire US military, including its nuclear arsenal, should speak to the fact that potheads aren't overly dangerous. Banning pot, or firearms for pot users is completely political, and lacks all substance.

[infidel]

People can abuse prescription drugs or alcohol (both can be far more dangerous than weed), and should still be able own a gun to defend themselves.

[LePetomane]

Here we go again.

[jshuberg]

The standard for speech not protected by the 1st amendment used to be speech that presented "a clear and present danger" was not protected. The Supreme Court reversed this in 1968, stating that the previous standard was too broad. The new standard is that speech that that intends to incite an imminent lawless action is not protected.

The same standard should apply to the 2nd amendment. Firearms rights should not be restricted based on the potential for danger, but only when an actual illegal action is imminent, or has already occurred. In other words, only after a crime of violence has been attempted or committed. Making someone a "prohibited person" for anything other than an imminent or actual violent action is an unconstitutional infringement of our fundamental rights.

This kind of thing pisses me off to no end, and sends me off into a rant. Can you tell yet?

[steve4102]

U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009

WHITE, Circuit Judge.

Following trial on three counts of knowingly possessing a firearm in and affecting commerce while being an unlawful user or addicted to a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and § 924(a)(2), a jury found Defendant Randall H. Burchard guilty of possessing five of the nine firearms charged in the indictment. The district court sentenced Burchard to concurrent terms of 27 months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release on each of the three counts, and imposed a $6,000 fine. Burchard appeals from the sentence and final judgment, challenging the adequacy of the jury instruction defining an "unlawful user of controlled substance" and the district court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, contending that the Government failed to establish that his drug use was consistent or prolonged. We disagree, and affirm.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

[XDM45]

It is my understanding that to purchase "Recreational" pot they swipe the Driners License at the time of purchase.

I had some friends out in Colorado for a business trip who decided to try the stuff and they said it was easier than buying booze. No dl swipe (I doubt they can do out of state swipes anyway) and no record of their cash purchase other than a receipt.

Any state's DL can be read. All you need is a MagTek 2D Card Reader ( https://www.google.com/#q=MagTek ), hook up the USB end into any PC, open up Notepad, swipe the magnetic strip on the DL, and viola!! DL info. Anyway..... anyone who isn't from CO can buy 1/4 oz in CO. CO Residents can buy an Ounce and can grow a certain number of plants. (6 total with 3 mature at any one time.) The thing CO did differently than CA is that CO made pot sales part of the state budget. Once they did that (and saw the projected $5,000,000 in tax revenue), pot became a sacred cow in CO and not to be trifled with. Smart move on their part.

People can abuse prescription drugs or alcohol (both can be far more dangerous than weed), and should still be able own a gun to defend themselves.

Agreed.

Drink too much = Die (or at least get Alcohol Poisoning)
Smoke Too Much = Maybe smoke yourself sober...or at least you'll get the munchies and want to order a pizza.

Drink Too Much = Many people want to fight.
Smoke Too Much = You just wanna chill even more. Time for a movie with that pizza.

First off, Shuberg wins. Hands down, no question.

This could all be avoided if weed was legalized.

Legalize it. Tax it. Just like booze and cigarettes. Let people grow a small amount (just like people can home brew beer) and live and let live.

And amen to that XDM, just think of all the money the mexican cartels would be out if everyone grew there weed at home. Not to mention the huge increase in tax revenue and decrease in numbers in the prison system. I am not a user of marijuana, but I cannot begin to understand why anyone would appose ending the prohibition. (Other than the federal government having to admit they were wrong all these years of course)

True that.

You can get rid of all of the drugs (or anything that can affect one's state), and you'll STILL have a "Drug Problem" because even though the supply is gone, the demand isn't. Getting rid of drugs and thinking the problem will go away makes about as much sense as some people thinking that by getting rid of guns that murders will somehow magically stop. People killed before guns and they will kill after guns. People, not guns, are the problem. People will find a way to get high if all drugs were removed somehow, once again, people, not drugs are the problem.

America has more people in prison than any other nation because incarceration is big business. Most of the people in prison are there for non-violent offenses, like weed. Most drug busts are for weed, not hard drugs. Sure, you get the really bad apples in prison, the rapists, murderers, etc, true.... but if we let everyone go who was in for only weed, there'd be a lot more room. Clearly the war on drugs isn't working, hasn't worked, and will continue to not work the way the American people THINK it SHOULD work, which is to get rid of drugs - which will never happen and won't fix anything anyway. The war on drugs isn't about drugs or even helping people... it's really about big business and big government helping itself. Private prisons, DEA, FBI, Courts, "The System", etc.

We need to look beyond the propaganda with drugs just like we do with guns. For example, one line of bs is "Weed is a gateway drug" Ah bull pucky. All hard drug users smoke weed, but not all weed users used hard drugs. In fact, most users of weed, stay with weed and don't move onto the hard things.

I don't think that anything and everything should be legal and anything goes, but American has to stop the insanity and use common sense. Certain things aren't going to cause the end of the World, and legalizing weed is one of them. It WILL put an end to a lot of senseless wasting of people's lives in the system, it will put the end to a lot of use of law resources, etc. Same thing with prostitution. Legalize that as well. Why is it illegal to sell what is perfectly legal to give away freely? (Sex) If 2 (or more) consenting adults want to do business, go for it. If some guy wants to smoke a joint while getting a hummer, go for it. both should be legal.

[Mn01r6]

U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009

WHITE, Circuit Judge.

Following trial on three counts of knowingly possessing a firearm in and affecting commerce while being an unlawful user or addicted to a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and § 924(a)(2), a jury found Defendant Randall H. Burchard guilty of possessing five of the nine firearms charged in the indictment. The district court sentenced Burchard to concurrent terms of 27 months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release on each of the three counts, and imposed a $6,000 fine. Burchard appeals from the sentence and final judgment, challenging the adequacy of the jury instruction defining an "unlawful user of controlled substance" and the district court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, contending that the Government failed to establish that his drug use was consistent or prolonged. We disagree, and affirm.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

Did you even read the jury instruction affirmed by that case?

"The term "unlawful user of a controlled substance" means a person who uses a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. ..."

[tazdevil]

Does any else here read USCCA magazine? There's a article in there that addresses the myth that people high on pot do not commit violent crimes. Quoting from the article "Marijuana legalization advocates argue that one hears of violent drunks, but one does not hear of violet stoners...........rural teenagers who smoked marijuana and then amused themselves by shooting tourists rafting down a river. One was killed and two wounded." USCCA magazine, page 30; from Jackson, One Range, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 2002 at 133-140.

Plus, habitual stoners who lose their jobs as a result (not showing up for work, lack of work drive etc.), hence running out of money, have been known to burglarize in order to get money for more pot. Anyone high on anything either legal or illicit has no business being around a firearm at the time they are high.

[AutomaticAron]

This could all be avoided if weed was legalized.

Legalize it. Tax it. Just like booze and cigarettes. Let people grow a small amount (just like people can home brew beer) and live and let live.

This. Allow responsible adults to possess and use marijuana as they see fit. And if they make irresponsible choices while under the influence, hold them accountable. Done.

[ericinmn1970]

Given the fact that Barry O was an admitted unlawful user of pot, and doesn't simply possess a gun, but is in command of the entire US military, including its nuclear arsenal, should speak to the fact that potheads aren't overly dangerous. Banning pot, or firearms for pot users is completely political, and lacks all substance.

100%!!

True that.

...People, not guns, are the problem. People will find a way to get high if all drugs were removed somehow, once again, people, not drugs are the problem.....I don't think that anything and everything should be legal and anything goes, but American has to stop the insanity and use common sense. Certain things aren't going to cause the end of the World.....

Being proactive can and does cross a line and become an infringement upon our rights, freedoms, and privileges we as individuals should have in the "land of the free". People need to be held accountable for their actions and decisions. Arbitrary laws that restrict and limit personal behavior, just because one "might" do something dangerous, in my opinion, means "we the people" are being presumed guilty. I live by a simple philosophy, I don't care how you live your life and pursue happiness, as long as you're not violating mine or anyone else's rights or making serious efforts to do so.

[LePetomane]

Does any else here read USCCA magazine? There's a article in there that addresses the myth that people high on pot do not commit violent crimes. Quoting from the article "Marijuana legalization advocates argue that one hears of violent drunks, but one does not hear of violet stoners...........rural teenagers who smoked marijuana and then amused themselves by shooting tourists rafting down a river. One was killed and two wounded." USCCA magazine, page 30; from Jackson, One Range, University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas, 2002 at 133-140.

Plus, habitual stoners who lose their jobs as a result (not showing up for work, lack of work drive etc.), hence running out of money, have been known to burglarize in order to get money for more pot. Anyone high on anything either legal or illicit has no business being around a firearm at the time they are high.

Thanks for the post and the reference. These pot advocates who claim that it is no more dangerous than alcohol probably have a point, but they won't admit that it is less safe. They want us to think they are getting high and sitting around talking about world peace and solutions to poverty, etc.. when in fact they are no different than those consuming alcohol to excess.

[ericinmn1970]

These pot advocates who claim that it is no more dangerous than alcohol probably have a point, but they won't admit that it is less safe.

I'm of the opinion that it does seem that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol. Maybe it's just me, but saying that IS NOT saying, it's safer than alcohol. I'm well aware there are some significant side effects from chronic use of marijuana that much of the public may or not be aware of. I don't consider myself so much an advocate for pot and more so as being an advocate against this "nanny state" government mentality that over-assumes responsibility (and authority) of protecting people from themselves. I think there's only so many preventative steps that can be taken.

In my mind, use whatever you like but no matter what mind altering substance is used, you don't get a pass for being under the influence when/if something happens due to negligent or criminal actions. If you caused harm to someone while under the influence of "XYZ", whether accidental, during commission of a crime, or were proven to be planning a crime, you will still be held responsible and face the consequences of your choices.

[ericinmn1970]

"Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

According to a guy at Bill's Gun Shop tonight, drinking coffee qualifies as a yes answer for 11e. When last I checked, coffee is legal, so if I drink it I'm not an "unlawful user" and it's not addictive....

http://www.examiner.com/article/caffein ... ate-market

Looks like I spoke to soon. And of course, I'm going to assume the anti-gun grabbing statist politicians and maybe even the POTUS, will latch onto this and try to use it somehow....Good friggin grief

[steve4102]

U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009

WHITE, Circuit Judge.

Following trial on three counts of knowingly possessing a firearm in and affecting commerce while being an unlawful user or addicted to a controlled substance, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and § 924(a)(2), a jury found Defendant Randall H. Burchard guilty of possessing five of the nine firearms charged in the indictment. The district court sentenced Burchard to concurrent terms of 27 months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release on each of the three counts, and imposed a $6,000 fine. Burchard appeals from the sentence and final judgment, challenging the adequacy of the jury instruction defining an "unlawful user of controlled substance" and the district court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, contending that the Government failed to establish that his drug use was consistent or prolonged. We disagree, and affirm.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... i=scholarr

Did you even read the jury instruction affirmed by that case?

"The term "unlawful user of a controlled substance" means a person who uses a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. ..."

The Federal Government classifies Marijuana as a "Controlled Substance". The Federal Government does NOT recognize ANY Medical Prescription of Marijuana as "LEGAL". According to the Federal Government anyone using Marijuana, Prescription or not, is and ILLEGAL user. A Doctor cannot Legally prescribe Marijuana according to Federal Law.