Owning assault gun, growing pot are immoral, California court says

[DonovanJay]

Laws like these are clearly not designed to target dangerous criminals, however. Another unconstitutional attempt to further limit the gun rights of relatively normal people. These letters are bullying tactics sent directly from the federal government. Don't worry they'll come for your gun rights too, eventually.

 

[Kevatc]

A hypothtical based on fact: I have guns. I also have cancer. I would like to get my MJ card to treat the issues that go along with cancer treatment. So the ATF can tell me I have to get rid of the guns if I want medical MJ?

Yes, unfortunately.

Personally, I think the legalization of marijuana might be a double edged sword. Legalization could solve some problems but could also have some unintended consequences. That said, it amazes me I could be prescribed all kinds of very potent narcotics and the ATF is good with that and me having guns. Guess it comes down to what is and isn't legal at the moment.

Oh - FYI all - a friend was telling me the other day that CA is trying to pass another law that would make possession of a firearm with a bullet button or even the bullet button parts a felony. No grace period or option to legally register your "assault weapon".

What is a bullet button?

 

[deen_ad]

Article in the OP says "Assault Weapon", which is a legal term and is unrelated to the actual firepower

And just what is the "legal" definition of an "Assault Weapon"?

If it's not select fire or full auto then it can't be an "Assault Weapon" as it's just a semi-auto "sporting rifle".

 

[fd15k]

Personally, I think the legalization of marijuana might be a double edged sword. Legalization could solve some problems but could also have some unintended consequences. That said, it amazes me I could be prescribed all kinds of very potent narcotics and the ATF is good with that and me having guns. Guess it comes down to what is and isn't legal at the moment.

I'm really curious what those consequences could be, as at least half of Americans at some point used MJ. Reason why feds don't want to make it a prescription drug is they are not satisfied with the available research showing therapeutic effects of MJ.

What is a bullet button?

BB is a modified version of AR15 type magazine release that doesn't allow for magazine to be detached with a press of a finger. Instead a bullet tip or any other thin tool needs to be used to press on the center of the button. Later other similar devices were invented for various weapon systems. Basically it allows to bypass a lot of restrictions of CA Assault Weapons law which restricts rifles with detachable magazines and certain other features.

<broken link removed>

 

[fd15k]

And just what is the "legal" definition of an "Assault Weapon"?

Whatever the law defines as such. For example, in California any center fire semi-automatic rifle that has a pistol grip and a detachable magazine is an Assault Weapon. Semi-automatic pistol with threaded barrel. Yugo SKS. M1A with standard flash hider as opposed to compensator. Check the statute for full list. Also check statutes of several other states for similar definitions.

If it's not select fire or full auto then it can't be an "Assault Weapon" as it's just a semi-auto "sporting rifle".

You are confusing "Assault Weapon" with "Assault Rifle".

 

[chemist]

I've read this entire thread with great fascination and mounting rage -
Yes, fd15k is absolutely right in that the simplest little detail, like the grip on my pump shotgun, could mean that it's banned in CA and I'm instantly a criminal if I drive South from Medford on I-5 with it in my car. And this is supposed to be America?

How is any reasonable citizen supposed to stay on top of all these complicated, confusing, nonsensical, and constantly changing weapons laws, like those in CA? The answer, obviously, is that we're NOT - it's impossible - they're only intended to keep you looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life, and to give the Feds the tool they need to hammer down the nail that sticks up.
The nail that sticks up will be hammered down

This disgusts me - that's the best word - because it's a cheap and dishonest ploy to keep the citizens in shackles, when in fact it's our elected representatives who ought to be kept in compliance with the laws and responsibilities that they so routinely shirk. It's cowardice, pure and simple, when these representatives attempt to "back-door" prohibitions onto us that the electorate would never go for.

One other staggeringly simple and obvious point needs to be made here: It's nobody's damn business what I smoke or what guns I own unless and until I commit a crime. Defining crimes as smoking those prohibited materials or owning those prohibited guns is circular, non sequitur illogic that's the height of hypocrisy for Federal law enforcement officers who are complicit in running guns to Mexican and Chicago gangs. Oh, and who are also at this moment conspiring to prevent their boss Holder from facing prosecution for these gun-running crimes!

/rant off

 

[Sincere]

Regardless of what law, or being in posession of something that may be legal here, the guy is a friggin career criminal, plain and simple. I won't even feel sorry for him when bubba repeatedly romanticaly rips him while he is picking up the powdered soap.

Kudos for the DA throwing the book at him.

What is wrong with you?

Are you seriously an adult human being who advocates for the sexual assault of NONVIOLENT human beings?

You are sick and depraved. God have mercy on your unforgiving soul.

Do you have equal disdain and hopes of RAPE for industrialists in California who repeatedly break environmental laws on logging and hazardous materials dumping? What about the businessman who cheats on his taxes? Should he be violently sexually assaulted too?

I bet you've NEVER been a mile per hour over the speed limit. I bet you've NEVER rolled a stop sign. I bet you NEVER had a sip of the sauce before you were 21. These are moral equivalents to the "laws" that the man broke.

Check yourself, you just called for the rape of another human being.

 

[Page.k]

[FONT=&quot]

Personally, I think the legalization of marijuana might be a double edged sword. Legalization could solve some problems but could also have some unintended consequences. That said, it amazes me I could be prescribed all kinds of very potent narcotics and the ATF is good with that and me having guns. Guess it comes down to what is and isn't legal at the moment.
What is a bullet button?

Kevatc I don't know what type of cancer you have or the way they are treating it. But my buddy that had it some of the treatments and drugs made him from time to time not himself. At one point it was bad, very bad and we had to keep an eye on him. And if what they gave you is like some of the ones they gave him you have a mix of Schedule II and below controlled drugs. The "or addicted to any controlled substance" is where you may have to worry about due to the Schedule II and below meds you may have because they have a level of "Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence". Then someone can play that you need X drug to function. But more of a worry is that someone can use the side-affects of the drugs you may be given as a reason not to have any guns. [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So 18 usc 922(g)(3) says (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now we look at 21 U.S.C. 802 and it's a long one that can be seen in many ways. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Pot or fake pot or whatever you like to call it is a:[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Schedule I substances are those that have the following findings:[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

1. [FONT=&quot]The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
2. [FONT=&quot]The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
3. [FONT=&quot]There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas by the DEA.
So by Fed law you cannot have any prescriptions written for pot or fake pot or whatever you like to call it. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
This the way I see it and it may not be the same for others.
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[jdubl]

OSP has no problem with the last 2 guns I bought. If you are legal for both then there is nothing illegal.
Two rights don't make a wrong!

OSP might not have a problem with it, but i bet the feds do, and as far as i know from middle school government class, feds trump states. Don't get me wrong, i'm pro-legalization of marijuana (or prohibit alcohol and tobacco, another topic), but i don't think mixing gun rights with pot legalization is the wisest way to promote either one.

 

[Page.k]

OSP might not have a problem with it, but i bet the feds do, and as far as i know from middle school government class, feds trump states. Don't get me wrong, i'm pro-legalization of marijuana (or prohibit alcohol and tobacco, another topic), but i don't think mixing gun rights with pot legalization is the wisest way to promote either one.

+1
I'm with you on this one.

 

[Varmit]

If immorality were illegal, there would not be enough politicians left to run the government! :

 

[revjen45]

"If immorality were illegal, there would not be enough politicians left to run the government."

Wouldn't that be a beautiful world?

 

[97321]

I don't need any more reasons to avoid CA, but they just keep providing them.

 

[fd15k]

I don't need any more reasons to avoid CA, but they just keep providing them.

Oh noes! Out of 2 million Oregonians that never travel to CA you are one that will not do so for firearms-related reasons... I guess their economy will totally collapse now!