Washington State Guns and Marijuana

[jefe]

does obama not comprehend the ramifications of his rhetoric and actions? while our anger stems from obama's making it illegal to couple marijuana and firearms, those of the marijuana community are ticked off now because they (a) have a firearm to protect their crop/supply or (b) they do not own a firearms, but are angered because obama/holder are attacking their civil liberties. i cannot wait to see how all of this plays out.

 

[mancat]

The "marijuana community" is mostly angry because Obama and AG Holder have basically turned out to have about the same drug policy as Reagan.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[RickD427]

There are many people that will disagree with you on this. It IS legal in WA and CO. Look carefully at the wording of the NFA and the GCA..and you will find the infamous "commerce" clause. The same goes with what goes on in state. If it has not been in interstate commerce, the feds have no say, it is strictly a state thing.

As MJ cannot be traded interstate, it cannot influence interstate trade, and therefore the feds can just butt out. Ever wonder why the Feds did not directly attack CO and WA on this question? Because there was a good chance they would loose in court is why.

You might have been correct in your position regarding the "Commerce Clause" prior to Gonzales v. Raich. That decision pretty much exploded your view of the commerce clause. Following Gonzales, purely intrastate activity can be regulated under the commerce clause. That was one of the key points of Justice Thomas' dissent.

 

[hermannr]

You might have been correct in your position regarding the "Commerce Clause" prior to Gonzales v. Raich. That decision pretty much exploded your view of the commerce clause. Following Gonzales, purely intrastate activity can be regulated under the commerce clause. That was one of the key points of Justice Thomas' dissent.

There should be more SCJs like Thomas. The best one there. I still say you can argue the case to the point the feds will loose. I reiterate... if Holder and Co thought it was such a slam dunk, and did not think they could loose...why did they not try?

 

[jefe]

The question on the 4473 specifically asks whether or not you are an unlawful user. Given that the Federal policy drug policy is in violation of the 10th amendment, it is possible to honestly awnser "no" on the 4473 in Washington.

Of course, 4473s and the ATF are blatantly unconstitutional as well so take it with a grain of salt...

didn't the civil war gut the 10th amendment, making it (de facto) insolvent; or was it "officially" (de jure) gutted?

 

[rur862]

You might have been correct in your position regarding the "Commerce Clause" prior to Gonzales v. Raich. That decision pretty much exploded your view of the commerce clause. Following Gonzales, purely intrastate activity can be regulated under the commerce clause. That was one of the key points of Justice Thomas' dissent.

That ruling was incorrect.

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[RickD427]

That ruling was incorrect.

Sir,

Where exactly is the ruling incorrect? The decision remains published and unchanged by subsequent rulings.

You and I may not like the decision, but under our Constitution, you and I are not the arbiters of what is legally correct. The Supreme Court is.