|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 10, 2013, 02:16 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: September 3, 2012
Location: S. Pittsburg, TN
Posts: 15
|
Firearm Owner Protection
I was thinking about the possible impending gun control laws. Being that I am not a lawyer, I did see a parallel to the marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington state. Would it be possible for the states to pass laws keeping the right to "assault weapons"? Even if the federal government outlaws them, the state could allow them. Just like marijuana is still illegal federally, but some states allow it. It is that the Feds choose not to "pursue" marijuana busts in legal states. I think this adds an encouraging precedent for firearm enthusiasts.
|
January 10, 2013, 02:25 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
For the most part the current administration likes Pot, and participates in their own version of don't-ask-don't-tell. There are a few hiccups and gray areas that have already been reported from the medical marijuana dispensaries, let alone what will happen when the recreational use dispensaries are up and running (Whatever method that takes)... All of that leads to the Feds having more than enough tools to really dink with people doing what they don't want them to do when the state doesn't want to cooperate.
In the case of pot, they at least tacitly approve, and won't butt heads. Guns aren't the same, so they'll pull out all the stops they can. |
January 10, 2013, 02:34 PM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: September 3, 2012
Location: S. Pittsburg, TN
Posts: 15
|
I had thought the same, but in court legally, someone could challenge this I am sure. I figure that if they take certain a guns away there might be a group/person that would find a way to challenge the dopers, I mean if we can't have what we want they can't have what they want. What is good for the goose is good for the gander right?
|
January 10, 2013, 02:46 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Gun ownership in and of itself isn't a protected class that can be discrimintated against as far as I know, so we can't sue they're not dinking with the arguably illegal drug dispensaries while enforcing the law against the theoretically illegal gun salesmen.
|
January 10, 2013, 02:52 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Wbdisco, I would not seek refuge from the force of federal law in a contrary state law. The specific example you use has been addressed in Gonzales v. Raich. The reasoning in that case is that even where the marijuana is not in commerce and where it is not part of an interstate transaction, it still is part of a matter that is in interstate commerce and so is subject to federal control.
I very much prefer the dissent of Clarence Thomas in that case. He noted that "interstate" means between states and "commerce" indicates buying and selling, and that where there is no interstate transaction and no commerce, federal authority cannot stand on the interstate commerce clause. I admire the clarity of his opinion, but recognize that it was a dissent. He lost.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
January 10, 2013, 07:11 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
All I know: I live in WA. It has been suggested that my wife might benifit from medical MJ. Her doctor says, yes, it might help her problem, but with the present legal and political climate he would recommend trying it.
(my doctor and I are both gun owners and we both carry all the time) |
January 10, 2013, 08:01 PM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
The general marijuana issue and conundrum was discussed at some length here. Although that thread was regarding Colorado, the same federal law issue would be presented in Washington State.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
January 10, 2013, 08:35 PM | #8 |
Member
Join Date: September 3, 2012
Location: S. Pittsburg, TN
Posts: 15
|
my basic reasoning for posting this was not to debate the MJ situation, lord knows probably half the people on this board experimented in their younger years.
I was more asking the question of why a state couldn't pass a law allowing "assault weapons" if there were ever a ban. I was thinking that under the current MJ laws, the feds aren't really bothering the states that have it legal under medical or recreation uses. It is still technically a felony but they are not pursuing the people that are breaking federal laws in states that allow it. |
January 10, 2013, 09:05 PM | #9 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
|
|