The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

highrolls · December 7, 2017, 01:14 AM

"A very colorful analogy John" - 5whiskey

Yes. I enjoyed the humor but found it very helpful. At the risk of self-embarrassment, I know the iconic "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but the leap from ignorance to "understanding" can be large for me since I am completely naive when the legal convolutions show up. The real shazam moment was when I realized what a prohibited person legally is and then it all starts to fall in place. The puzzle pieces were placed in the beginning of JohnKSa's post starting with "A person need not be a felon to be a prohibited person." Wow.

"This may be beating a dead horse here." - Metal god
Not yet but I think we are getting close. Frank Ettin provides a link to the Schedule I stuff in the Drug Control Act. If my research is accurate, this Act (and updates) by congress provides the basis of law enforcement by the DEA. The Attorney General has the authority under the act to designate what goes where in the schedules, and while some may argue the medical use for Marijuana, the "Medical" part of the card being the most misleading of all, under the Drug Control Act, marijuana has NO acceptable medicinal use. If somehow a scientific medical use were proven, the Attorney General following his guidelines can move it from schedule I to one of the other areas, thus not requiring an act of congress but removing the "prohibited person" aspect of the drug. Oh, for Metal god, in Frank Ettin's schedule I reference, it is not marijuana or THC, it is:
"any quantity of cannabimimetic agents, or which contains their salts, isomers, and salts of ..... within the specific chemical designation."

(Also I stumbled across a medical discussion about whether the Drug Control Act becomes an immediate problem for a Prescribing Doctor the instant he makes a Medical Marijuana prescription. Similar prohibited person arguments but otherwise way off the original topic here, hence the parens.)

So to begin closure (last kicks to be sure the horse is dead):

Concern 1. Is this type of state enforcement an end run around the 2nd amendment ?

The wording reminds me that I wrote that before I was aware of the multiple call-outs and JohnKSa version
of : "Hawaii law explicitly states..."

The answer is NO. (Yep, does sound harsh after all)

Concern 2. Can other states which have recently passed similar laws simply jump on board this bandwagon?

Looks like the Wilson case has paved the way. My research shows 29 states are considering or can issue medical cards. Seems the Hawaii goat confiscation letter can be used by any of those states directly ?

Anyone know if any state besides Hawaii is doing this confiscation/medical card letter combination ?

December 7, 2017, 01:14 AM	#34
highrolls Senior Member Join Date: January 20, 2009 Location: already given Posts: 115	"A very colorful analogy John" - 5whiskey Yes. I enjoyed the humor but found it very helpful. At the risk of self-embarrassment, I know the iconic "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but the leap from ignorance to "understanding" can be large for me since I am completely naive when the legal convolutions show up. The real shazam moment was when I realized what a prohibited person legally is and then it all starts to fall in place. The puzzle pieces were placed in the beginning of JohnKSa's post starting with "A person need not be a felon to be a prohibited person." Wow. "This may be beating a dead horse here." - Metal god Not yet but I think we are getting close. Frank Ettin provides a link to the Schedule I stuff in the Drug Control Act. If my research is accurate, this Act (and updates) by congress provides the basis of law enforcement by the DEA. The Attorney General has the authority under the act to designate what goes where in the schedules, and while some may argue the medical use for Marijuana, the "Medical" part of the card being the most misleading of all, under the Drug Control Act, marijuana has NO acceptable medicinal use. If somehow a scientific medical use were proven, the Attorney General following his guidelines can move it from schedule I to one of the other areas, thus not requiring an act of congress but removing the "prohibited person" aspect of the drug. Oh, for Metal god, in Frank Ettin's schedule I reference, it is not marijuana or THC, it is: "any quantity of cannabimimetic agents, or which contains their salts, isomers, and salts of ..... within the specific chemical designation." (Also I stumbled across a medical discussion about whether the Drug Control Act becomes an immediate problem for a Prescribing Doctor the instant he makes a Medical Marijuana prescription. Similar prohibited person arguments but otherwise way off the original topic here, hence the parens.) So to begin closure (last kicks to be sure the horse is dead): Concern 1. Is this type of state enforcement an end run around the 2nd amendment ? The wording reminds me that I wrote that before I was aware of the multiple call-outs and JohnKSa version of : "Hawaii law explicitly states..." The answer is NO. (Yep, does sound harsh after all) Concern 2. Can other states which have recently passed similar laws simply jump on board this bandwagon? Looks like the Wilson case has paved the way. My research shows 29 states are considering or can issue medical cards. Seems the Hawaii goat confiscation letter can be used by any of those states directly ? Anyone know if any state besides Hawaii is doing this confiscation/medical card letter combination ?