Marijuana.com

MisterDude

While this post really doesn't seem like it's about marijuana, it is interesting to see the Federal Government make what seems to be a radical departure from their current line of thinking, and completely change direction on a subject.

On CNN.com, there is a story about the governments stance reversal regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. It is located here ( http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/05/09/sc....ap/index.html ) if you would like to read it.

Basically, my two questions are:

1) Considering a topic as tough as gun control is for the government, and the fact that they reversed their position in such a heated subject, is there any possibility for the government to do the same with the War On Drugs?

2) This one is more gun related. Does this ruling bring forth the possibility of gun laws being restricted, and maybe even a repeal of the "1994 Assault Weapons Act"?

Please don't comment on this thread unless you have done your homework, and read the story.

 

Niteshift

Actually, the article is a bit misleading.

The Supreme Court has never actually ruled that the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) was a state right rather than an individual right. A few lower courts have, the the SC has really remained mute on the issue. Some pro-gun control types point to US v. Miller, but they misconstrue the actual findings and the case was never argued, since Miller did not appear to contest the arrest.

So, since they've never really ruled on it, they can't very well be reversing themselves.

Certain Presidents have tried to force gun control on the US populice, but policy changes with elections.

Fortunately, the draconian and ill-concieved "crime bill" has a sunset clause, which will set while Bush is in office. I highly doubt he will renew it, as he has a pretty good record of supporting the RKBA. The "crime bill" is a JOKE. It doesn't stop crime, it bans guns on appearence instead of actual facts and it is overly broad.

Also, a huge number of legal scholars have opined that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual right to defend themselves. Most liberal media outlets refused to publish the opinion, so the scholars collectively paid for a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal to publish their opinion.

Frankly, I don't think the CNN reporter did a lot of homework on the topic.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

MisterDude

Nite, somehow I knew I'd get an informative answer out of you...

That's what I get for reading/listening to CNN. I searched around for more information on the subject, but really didn't run across any. I'd have to agree with you on the "did his homework" comment. I thought it odd that nobody else carried this "story".

I find it really interesting that SCOTUS hasn't ever had (or taken) the opportunity to rule on that. It seems like as heavy and broad of a topic as gun control is, they would have had some ruling on it at some point.

Also, I didn't know the crime bill (said without quotes, as it has gone well past joke) had a sunset clause written in it. I can't see Bush, especially in the wake of 9/11 (with "the people" allegedly stoping aircraft #4 from hitting a target) keeping the law alive. Does this mean Butler Creek will start reproducing large capacity clips for my 10-22 again? I really hate reloading...

"Most liberal media outlets refused to publish the opinion, so the scholars collectively paid for a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal to publish their opinion. " <<< God, that is so cool. Why haven't the experts done this with marijuana?

Nite, thanks for your comments on this.

Niteshift

"I find it really interesting that SCOTUS hasn't ever had (or taken) the opportunity to rule on that. It seems like as heavy and broad of a topic as gun control is, they would have had some ruling on it at some point. "

I'm actually not that suprised. Mainly because most cases involving the issue don't make it to their level.

Actually, one aspect of the crime bill I AM suprised hasn't made it to the SCOTUS is the prohibition of gun ownership by people convicted of domestic violence BEFORE the law was passed. That is CLEARLY and ex post facto law and the Constitution CLEARLY states that they can't pass ex post facto laws.


"Does this mean Butler Creek will start reproducing large capacity clips for my 10-22 again?"

I certainly hope that the magazine capacity limit goes by the wayside.

mylobean

I'm glad to see a thread about the RKBA arms here. I advocate it in other posts.

I'd like to point out something about the militia. If you're an able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age, you're in it. We have an obligation to ourselves, our communities, and our country to keep arms and be ready to bear them at the appropriate time.

Furthermore, in the BOR when "the people" are referenced, the term refers to individuals, not the collective. Why do liberals have no problem seeing that in the the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc but refuse to see it in the 2nd? Why is it ok that the government has policy that runs contrary to the Constitution?

In regards to the original second question (is there any possibility for the government to do the same with the War On Drugs):

I think we will see that when the next generation of leaders comes into power. I do not think the current administration or our representatives, or even the next couple of batches after that has or will have the will to reverse the government's position on the WOD. It's really not a federal issue according to the 10th amendment. I think our best bet will come through the states. We need our state legislatures to legalize marijuana and other drugs. Then let the SCOTUS rule that it is a state's decision.

 

StonedBrad

All guns should be banned.

No gun saves lives, don't feed me that fighting crime bullsh*t. If you shoot someone who robbed you that's a good thing? Its a good thing that that stupid criminal had to die? The person may be a criminal, and that makes them less than a great person, but they shouldn't be killed over it.

Nobody NEEDS a gun anymore. No one NEEDS to hunt anymore. Not in this country, at least. You want to hunt? Do what I did, learn to bow hunt. That takes skill. Any moron can point a gun at something, learning how to shoot a bow perfectly is very difficult.

Not even the police should have guns. Seems to me that this kind of policy is working quite well in England.

Stop the violence, ban all guns!

__________________
Nothin' left to do but smile, smile, smile...

Niteshift

"All guns should be banned."

The only people that will obey the law are the ones we shouldn't be concered with in the first place.

Has a ban on marijuana stopped you from using it?

"No gun saves lives"

BULL****! Guns have saved my life.

"Nobody NEEDS a gun anymore. No one NEEDS to hunt anymore."

Oh, I'm glad you said that! First, the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting and nothing about "needing". It is about your inherent right as a human being to protect yourself.

Second, let's do some editing: "Nobody NEEDS to get high." I bet you'll argue about that. Why is it ok to ban guns because you say nobody "needs" them, but banning pot is wrong?

"Not even the police should have guns. Seems to me that this kind of policy is working quite well in England."

You need to get out more Brad. There is an INCREASE in gun violence in the UK. Cops are getting shot and killed. For the first time, they're wearing body armor. Do you suppose that is to protect them from water balloons?

"Stop the violence, ban all guns!"

That's absurd.

Violence existed before gun powder, so obviously guns aren't the cause.

Second, look at the ban on mj......that certainly eliminated it, now didn't it?

StonedBrad

Has a ban on marijuana stopped you from using it?

Apples and oranges. Pot is illegal, it harms no one so I use it. Guns are legal, they harm many people so I don't use them. It's not the same situation.

Second, let's do some editing: "Nobody NEEDS to get high." I bet you'll argue about that. Why is it ok to ban guns because you say nobody "needs" them, but banning pot is wrong?

Nobody needs to get high. We both agree there. It's a means of recreation. Owning a handgun can in no way be made out to be recreation. You want to skeet(sp?) shoot, go ahead. You want to go down to the range and fire at paper targets, go ahead. Its when the guns come out of those designated areas and into the same places I am that I have a problem with them.


You need to get out more Brad. There is an INCREASE in gun violence in the UK. Cops are getting shot and killed. For the first time, they're wearing body armor. Do you suppose that is to protect them from water balloons?

It's still much, much lower, per capita, than it is here.

That's absurd.

Violence existed before gun powder, so obviously guns aren't the cause.

Ok, perhaps I should have said "Stop Gun Violence".

Second, look at the ban on mj......that certainly eliminated it, now didn't it?

Again, not quite the same thing. A ban on guns, which kill many people, would be quite justified. A ban on a harmless plant(or nearly harmless) can never be justified.

Your argument there would make more sense if it were, say, guns and knives. Both are deadly weapons, pot is not a deadly weapon.

Niteshift

"Apples and oranges. Pot is illegal, it harms no one so I use it. Guns are legal, they harm many people so I don't use them. It's not the same situation."

Not apples and oranges. First, your use of pot CAN hurt someone if you use it iresponsibly.

Second, the point I was making is that there is a whole forum full of people that will tell you that banning something doesn't make it disappear. THAT is the point. You're trying to close the barn door after the horse is out.

"Owning a handgun can in no way be made out to be recreation."

It most certainly can be. Personally, I find shooting very relaxing.

Further, the hunting you say nobody needs to do is, in fact, recreation. Now you want to choose what my recreation can or can't be, but you complain when the government outlaws your choice for recreation.

"Its when the guns come out of those designated areas and into the same places I am that I have a problem with them."

What you should have a problem with is the criminal misuse of firearms. If I am carrying a gun in a public place, the only time you will know it is when I have to use it, and it may be YOUR life that gets saved Brad.

"It's still much, much lower, per capita, than it is here."

But that's not what you said. I can cite other countries that have experienced increases in violent crime when gun ownership was banned.

Likewise, I can show you city after city in the US that has experienced a drop in violent crime when gun laws were relaxed. Florida is a perfect example, watching their violent crime rate drop after years of climbing, as soon as the passed a statewide carry license system.

Some of the cities in the US with the most restrictive gun laws are the ones with the highest violent crime rates. NYC and Chicago are prime examples.


"Again, not quite the same thing. A ban on guns, which kill many people, would be quite justified. A ban on a harmless plant(or nearly harmless) can never be justified."

My point was that just banning something isn't the solution.

Cars kill many more people than guns do, yet I doubt you'd support a ban on them.

"Your argument there would make more sense if it were, say, guns and knives. Both are deadly weapons, pot is not a deadly weapon."

Again, my comparison was not gun and pot, my example was how banning something doesn't make it magically disappear.

If you banned guns tomorrow, there will still be millions of them in criminal hands. Further, there will be a HUGE black market for them and smuggling will increase.

Under the 1994 "Crime Bill", magazines holding over 10 rounds were banned from further production and importation for everyone except the military and police. Guess what? There probably isn't a gun magazine I can't find in less than 24 hours. Most I can find in less than 2 hours........and not because I'm a cop either. They are still out there and just command higher prices now.

Same thing happened with so-called "assault rifles".

Brad, the most serious injury I ever sustained on duty was from a filet knife, one that could be purchased at any Wal-Mart for less than $10, without a background check or a waiting period. It damn near killed me. What saved my live was a .357 and some really good paramedics. Don't tell me that guns don't save lives.


BTW, I forgot to mention earlier, there ARE still people in the US that do NEED to hunt. It's sad, but true.

caliskunk1

When owning a gun is a crime, only criminals will have guns. Do you want a bunch of gun-toting criminals around with no defence?

__________________
-(A)- INSERT ANARCHIST CLICHE HERE -(A)-