National ATF: Until recreational cannabis is federally legalized, pot users cannot own guns

[wired]

I used to be like you. I felt that anyone who disagreed with the courts was wrong. As I grew older, I found that courts are not only not infallible, but that important justices, appointed by politicians, are anything but impartial. They are appointed in hopes that they will render judgements in a particular direction. Take a look at the Supreme Court. These are supposed to be the finest judges in all of America, but over half of them find very predictably along political lines. So when I tell you that the federal government is out of control, I don't care what some court has said about it. I'm telling you that it is out of control.

I dont think theyre wrong . I just think that we have a system of government weve had for a long time . They dont do whats right and theyre not good people. Theyre moderately ambitious people who want to hold onto their pensions. Thats all. It can be out of control all day but that doesn't matter. We still have to abide by their decisions and make the best of the situation we have. Im not aware of anything better. As far as the supreme court goes its not so much along political lines its along ideological lines. I think most of them , if not all, truly believe that what they are doing in in the best interest of the American people and they feel that theyre rulings are constitutional and since there is no higher court theres is the ruling that matters whether we like it or not so I just dont sweat it or get bent out of shape by it. Some things they do I applaud. and some things I am appalled by but to date I haven't been consulted.

 

[Flopsweat]

I dont think theyre wrong . I just think that we have a system of government weve had for a long time . They dont do whats right and theyre not good people. Theyre moderately ambitious people who want to hold onto their pensions. Thats all. It can be out of control all day but that doesn't matter. We still have to abide by their decisions and make the best of the situation we have. Im not aware of anything better.

I'm not advocating breaking laws that you disagree with. I just don't think this is the government that we were intended to have. It's also not sustainable.

 

[wired]

I'm not advocating breaking laws that you disagree with. I just don't think this is the government that we were intended to have. It's also not sustainable.

Name a government in history that was sustainable. This is a blip .

The framers intended for a very different government and no, not at all for the better.

 

[Flopsweat]

Name a government in history that was sustainable. This is a blip .

The framers intended for a very different government and no, not at all for the better.

OK, so that's one point we agree on. Do you agree that it's too big? Out of control?

 

[wired]

OK, so that's one point we agree on. Do you agree that it's too big? Out of control?

No I don't . I don't think it's too big or out of control actually. It's a paper tiger. I think it's unsustainable at the current level of spending and will collapse given a moderate shock because of that. Our debt is out of control.

 

[Flopsweat]

No I don't . I don't think it's too big or out of control actually. It's a paper tiger. I think it's unsustainable at the current level of spending and will collapse given a moderate shock because of that. Our debt is out of control.

I feel like you're disagreeing now just to disagree. You do have a few good points though. Except where you're wrong, of course.

 

[BrentN]

Interesting how this sub-conversation was born out of a desire to not see the Fed expand just so one can legally smoke a joint. I call that too bloated and out of control.

 

[wired]

I feel like you're disagreeing now just to disagree. You do have a few good points though. Except where you're wrong, of course.

I don't think we're disagreeing at all other than our perception of how powerful the central government actually is. I see an ineffective entity on the brink of insolvency.i wouldn't call that powerful.

 

[Flopsweat]

I don't think we're disagreeing at all other than our perception of how powerful the central government actually is. I see an ineffective entity on the brink of insolvency.i wouldn't call that powerful.

You don't have to be tiny and weak to be on the verge of collapse.

 

[billdeserthills]

Not a fan of any of that; more govt agency, taxes, oversight. Schumer and the rest of that list are dirtbags, the words they say are not to be trusted. No way in heck do I believe any of that "Public health, public safety, opportunity and social justice must be at the core...." schtick. Let me guess, the roll-out date will be early November.... These crooks used to at least try to hide the ace up their sleeve. Let's not forget the reasons that decriminalizing drugs failed in Portland; 1) The rosy promises of all the great things that were going to happen with the newly generated taxes did not materialize, and 2) Associated crimes went unchecked.
Imagine Schumer saying something like: "We have decided to take pot of the schedule 1, and will leave any further regulations to the states. Period."

Don't make out like marijuana is a big time drug. I live in a tweeker house and it's not weed keeping these people from working

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I feel like you're disagreeing now just to disagree. You do have a few good points though. Except where you're wrong, of course.

I went to a wedding once at one of the ring the bell, stand up, sit down kind of churches. Bride went to the Casa Grande one and groom went to the one in North Phoenix (think Fairview and Cheery Gove if your one of those 'never been out of Oregon' types). Anyway, same church, different buildings and the kids met at church camp
Wedding was in Casa Grande because she had older relatives that were going dip out early. In deference to the old folks the ring the bell stand up sit down for communion was by row, but the North Phoenix people always all stood the entire time and that little difference was enough of a thorn for some folks that people ended up yelling in the parking lot by the end of the night because they all thought it was the other ones that were being difficult and arguing just for the sake of arguing

 

[wired]

I went to a wedding once at one of the ring the bell, stand up, sit down kind of churches. Bride went to the Casa Grande one and groom went to the one in North Phoenix (think Fairview and Cheery Gove if your one of those 'never been out of Oregon' types). Anyway, same church, different buildings and the kids met at church camp
Wedding was in Casa Grande because she had older relatives that were going dip out early. In deference to the old folks the ring the bell stand up sit down for communion was by row, but the North Phoenix people always all stood the entire time and that little difference was enough of a thorn for some folks that people ended up yelling in the parking lot by the end of the night because they all thought it was the other ones that were being difficult and arguing just for the sake of arguing

After a couple of bad ones I avoid weddings . My ex wives might show up.

 

[OneArgus]

https://www.axios.com/2024/04/30/marijuana-restrictions-regulations-dea

The article is not there now.

 

[The Heretic]

The article is not there now.

I can still see it?

 

[ma96782]

or RE-ELECTED.

Aloha, Mark

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I can still see it?

I can see it as well, maybe he has glaucoma?

Anyone know of any treatment for that?

 

[billdeserthills]

The article is not there now.

Sure it is:

Updated Apr 30, 2024
Biden admin moves to ease U.S. marijuana restrictions



Marijuana plants found growing in Southern California in March 2024. Photo: Robyn Beck/Getty Images
The Biden administration is moving to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug as soon as Tuesday, clearing the last regulatory hurdle for a major policy change, multiple outlets reported and Axios confirmed.
The big picture: The new rule, which has to be approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget, would recognize medical uses of marijuana and that it has less potential for abuse than other drugs.

• It would not legalize cannabis outright for recreational use, the AP first reported.
• The Attorney General will send the rule to OMB for review as soon as Tuesday, administration and congressional sources familiar confirmed to Axios.

Zoom in: The DEA move would reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin, LSD and ecstasy, to a Schedule III drug.

• Other Schedule III drugs, which have "a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence," include Tylenol with codeine, ketamine, anabolic steroids and testosterone, per the DEA.
• Schedule I drugs are considered to have "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

State of play: Dozens of states have legalized or decriminalized marijuana.

• The Drug Enforcement Administration, which is housed within the DOJ, told Congress earlier this year that it was "conducting its review" of whether to soften federal regulation of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act.
• This move could clear obstacles for the cannabis industry to access banking services.

What they're saying: U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland "circulated" the proposed reclassification on Tuesday, Xochitl Hinojosa, DOJ Director of Public Affairs, said in a statement.

• "Once published by the Federal Register, it will initiate a formal rulemaking process as prescribed by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act," the spokesperson said.
• On Thursday, a group of Democratic legislators called on the DEA to remove marijuana from the Schedule I list of controlled substances.
• Marijuana's designation creates "severe penalties for marijuana users and businesses, including for criminal records, immigration statuses, employment, taxation, health care, public housing, social services and more," Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) office said in a statement.

Go deeper: DEA tells Congress it's considering easing marijuana restrictions

 

[The Heretic]

Kansas Man Regains Gun After Year-Long Legal Fight With Police

bearingarms.com

 

[billdeserthills]

This is hilarious--The AZ Supreme Court forced police/the State of AZ to return a medical marijuana user's weed. But since the weed had already been destroyed the police were forced to buy her some more



ARIZONA DUI & CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY BLOG

JULY 16, 2013
AZ Supreme Court Affirms Ruling for Police to Return Seized Marijuana
By James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

State Marijuana Laws Pass Another Test of Strength.
Some see the Arizona Supreme Court's refusal to disturb an Appeals Court ruling in favor of a Medical Marijuana Defendant's rights, as win in the test of strength of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Law (AMMA). This is because the issues inherent in the case, extended well beyond the matter of returning a defendant's Marijuana following dismissal of charges. They compel the state courts to address the conflicting federal laws on the prohibition of Marijuana.

Last week the Arizona Supreme Court, held the lower court's ruling that Medical Marijuana Patients, who have not violated the law, are entitled to the return of the Marijuana seized from them in an arrests. The AZ Supreme Court Justices provided only a brief order, which in essence simply outlined their refusal to overturn the lower Appeals Court's Ruling.

The case involved an out of state driver who was qualified to use Medical Marijuana the state where she resided, California. After police found and seized her Marijuana, she was arrested. The charges were later dismissed after the defendant produced her Medical Marijuana Card, and proof of residency in California. The residual issue, however, was the fact that her Marijuana was never returned to her. An Arizona Superior Court ordered the police to return to her, the Medical Marijuana amounting to nearly an ounce, initially seized in the drug stop.

Here's where it gets more interesting. The State of Arizona appealed that decision arguing that Marijuana seized by police could not be returned to the defendant. They argued that under A.R.S. 13-3413 of criminal code, the law requires forfeiture of Marijuana seized in an arrest; and that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act did not expressly require them to return the Medical Marijuana to the defendant. Further the prosecution argued that the Sheriff would be in violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act, and subject to prosecution, if they returned the defendant's Marijuana, since federal law prohibits the drug in all forms.
The Arizona Appeals Court rejected the State's arguments on the grounds that the driver was a qualified Medical Marijuana user, and not in violation of the law. So since the driver did not commit a crime, then the state was not justified in keeping her Marijuana in holding as part of a criminal offense. The Court ruled that in the alternative, if they wished to continue to keep the drugs they seized in the process of arrest, they could do so only upon prevailing in civil forfeiture proceedings. The AZ Supreme Court determined that that no penalties could be imposed upon the Arizona Sheriff's Department or their personnel since Federal Law grants immunity to law enforcement officials who are acting under court orders.
The Appeals Court's declined to address the argument that Federal Controlled Substances Act prohibition preempted, thereby invalidates AMMA. The court acknowledged the known general principal that when Federal law conflicts with state law, federal law prevails, and the state will be bound to the Federal law. However, in this case, the court recognized that there was no actual or imminent threat of prosecution by the Government in violation of the Federal Control Substances Act of the defendant, only the State of Arizona. The court found the facts of this case similar to Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights, 9th Cir. 2000 holding that "If no enforcement action or prosecution is threatened or imminent, the dispute is premature". In conclusion they affirmed the Arizona Superior Court's order for law enforcement to return the Marijuana, in favor of the defendant. The State Appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court; the Justices rejected the State Prosecutor's arguments; and left the lower court's decision undisturbed.

AZ Supreme Court Affirms Ruling for Police to Return Seized Marijuana

State Marijuana Laws Pass Another Test of Strength. Some see the Arizona Supreme Court’s refusal to disturb an Appeals Court ruling in favor of a Medical Marijuana Defendant’s rights, as win in ...

blog.novakazlaw.com

 

[Flopsweat]

Kansas Man Regains Gun After Year-Long Legal Fight With Police

bearingarms.com

I'm torn on this one. I think the law is unconstitutional, but I also think it's pretty stupid to carry a firearm and a controlled substance in a vehicle at the same time. Counting on holding court at the side of the road is, as demonstrated, not a winning strategy.