Dr.Pecker
Well-Known Member
Didnt somebody give the mmmp information to the dea
Gun Laws - Change Is Coming
- Thread starter Rrog
- Start date
CashCrops
Well-Known Member
Well if they did and it could ever be proved in court, they'd never see the light of day. (Your'e probably right though)
Also if that were true and the DEA plans to come to or investigate every single person who has their card then no one is safe regardless if they follow the rules of mmmp
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
As a card carrying member of the NRA and avid hunter/shooter/cpl holder I am certainly pro firearm. But until the federal marijuana and/or gun laws change, there will be issues with federal gun laws and marijuana. You have to remember marijuana is not legal, the MMMA just blocks prosecution under state, but not federal, law.
The other issue is that the second amendment deals with 'the people' but 'individuals' can be specifically denied the right to own firearms for cause. Being a felon is an example of a class of people that not only are denied the right to have a firearm, but even to vote. Under current law, there is an argument to deny the right to have firearms, but in some cases, that has been overcome in court in specific cases (there is a federal appeals court ruling out West that applies in that district, but the supreme court would not hear the appeal).
In the case of my patient, he did have a card but was able to prove he wasn't using it, and won his case.
Dr. Bob
The other issue is that the second amendment deals with 'the people' but 'individuals' can be specifically denied the right to own firearms for cause. Being a felon is an example of a class of people that not only are denied the right to have a firearm, but even to vote. Under current law, there is an argument to deny the right to have firearms, but in some cases, that has been overcome in court in specific cases (there is a federal appeals court ruling out West that applies in that district, but the supreme court would not hear the appeal).
In the case of my patient, he did have a card but was able to prove he wasn't using it, and won his case.
Dr. Bob
Michiganja Meduana
Active Member
The reasoning behind such an imagined prohibition against a pre-existing and inalienable right, is that the person who is using marijuana is presumed insane due to the use of the drug. Under the fifth amendment, the INDIVIDUAL is protected from being denied life liberty or property without due process of law.
Also, the second Amendment is not considered a collective right, but an individual one. This has been reflected in case law at the supreme court level.
I could have my cases confused, but I believe that it was Heller vs DC that set precedent of this being a collective, or an individual right.
If, they move forward with the presumption that the user is incapable of exercising his or her second amendment rights only by use of the drug, then it will be illogical to argue against the right as being a collective one.
Also, the second Amendment is not considered a collective right, but an individual one. This has been reflected in case law at the supreme court level.
I could have my cases confused, but I believe that it was Heller vs DC that set precedent of this being a collective, or an individual right.
If, they move forward with the presumption that the user is incapable of exercising his or her second amendment rights only by use of the drug, then it will be illogical to argue against the right as being a collective one.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
The Heller case, if I recall correctly, said membership in the National Guard was not a prerequisite, because in general the 'people' themselves had a right. The rest of the ruling DID allow for individual and groups of individuals to be denied (felons for example are a group).
The ruling also allowed specific requirements to be place- for example a special license/stamp for automatic weapons or silencers.
As for the insanity issue as being the basis for the denial for marijuana, I suspect you are right. So is the illegal activity of using controlled substances (especially schedule 1 drugs). It isn't right, and it sounds like they are trying to do something about it in the courts and in congress, so hopefully it will not be an issue in a few years.
Recall that it becomes an issue when you come to the attention of the police, or your card status comes to the attention of the gun board. You can always take the approach of my patient by proving non-use. Obviously don't have them both on you at the same time. The main use of the law, besides denying CPL's, is to give added leverage to the prosecutors to force a plea bargain. Having a firearm puts a 2 year mandatory sentence on the table as a bargaining chip for the prosecutor.
Dr. Bob
The ruling also allowed specific requirements to be place- for example a special license/stamp for automatic weapons or silencers.
As for the insanity issue as being the basis for the denial for marijuana, I suspect you are right. So is the illegal activity of using controlled substances (especially schedule 1 drugs). It isn't right, and it sounds like they are trying to do something about it in the courts and in congress, so hopefully it will not be an issue in a few years.
Recall that it becomes an issue when you come to the attention of the police, or your card status comes to the attention of the gun board. You can always take the approach of my patient by proving non-use. Obviously don't have them both on you at the same time. The main use of the law, besides denying CPL's, is to give added leverage to the prosecutors to force a plea bargain. Having a firearm puts a 2 year mandatory sentence on the table as a bargaining chip for the prosecutor.
Dr. Bob
Dr.Pecker
Well-Known Member
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome. under the influence is not the same as being insane.
