U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: US court upholds ban on gun sales to marijuana card holders
Source:
From The Trenches/ABC
URL Source: http://www.fromthetrenchesworldrepo ... -marijuana-card-holders/169305
Published: Sep 1, 2016
Author: ABC News
Post Date: 2016-09-01 10:13:01 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 20781
Comments: 88
A federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday. The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court’s jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon. It came in a lawsuit filed by S. Rowan Wilson, a Nevada woman who said she tried to buy a firearm for self-defense in 2011 after obtaining a medical marijuana card. The gun store refused, citing the federal rule banning the sale of firearms to illegal drug users. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has told gun sellers they can assume a person with a medical marijuana card uses the drug. The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision said Congress reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.” The court also concluded that it’s reasonable for federal regulators to assume a medical marijuana card holder was more likely to use the drug. Wilson’s attorney, Chaz Rainey, said there needs to be more consistency in the application of the Second Amendment. He planned to appeal. “We live in a world where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don’t get a gun, but if you’re on the no fly list your constitutional right is still protected,” he said. The 9th Circuit also rejected other constitutional challenges to the ban that were raised by Wilson, including her argument that her gun rights were being stripped without due process. Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the idea that marijuana users were more prone to violence is a fallacy. “Responsible adults who use cannabis in a manner that is compliant with the laws of their states ought to receive the same legal rights and protections as other citizens,” he said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
And this is from the 9th Circuit. Never thought they'd get it right.
Figures that you'd side with a liberal court. No doubt you are in favor of infringing on the second amendment rights of alcohol users as well, or maybe anyone who has a prescription for any kind of pharmaceutical pain medications. The federal law bans the sale of firearms to illegal drug users. It says nothing about alcohol or prescription drugs.
But the court did: 'The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision said Congress reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”' A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users" It says nothing about alcohol or prescription drugs. Yet there are thousands of firearms "incidents" committed by those under the influence of alcohol and/or prescription drugs. Good on the 9th Circuit. The irrational and unpredictable behavior by marijuana smokers is something that needs to be dealt with. Florida has a way of dealing with the problem, the Baker Act. It is in the name of “public safety” that they are involuntarily committed due to their recent display of irrational behavior. Many young people are being institutionalized after smoking marijuana, due to adverse effects. It has been found that marijuana can be laced with phencyclidine, otherwise known as PCP. With low doses one can expect a change in body awareness, numbness of the extremities and poor muscular coordination. However, higher doses can produce hallucinations, seizures, paranoia, disordered thinking and garbled speech. At the extreme, catatonia and death are possible. Imagine smoking marijuana and being unaware it is laced with PCP and experiencing one of the schizophrenic-type symptoms mentioned above. Even worse, imagine being picked up by the police and taken to a psychiatric hospital because of your schizophrenic-like behavior. What would happen to you next? Upon arrival at a psychiatric hospital, staff will observe your irrational behavior and will admit you. Once committed and depending on how much PCP was ingested, it is possible that one could become violent or suicidal in such a restricted environment. In any case, by law you can be detained for seventy-two hours whether you like it or not. As a Florida resident you have legal rights and should be informed of those rights upon arrival, but those may be conveniently overlooked due to the incoherent irrational behavior. Immediate treatment would be the top priority instead. That could mean mind-altering drugs with potentially catastrophic side effects just to calm you down. Or perhaps ECT, otherwise known as electroshock, would be deemed necessary. In either case, unnecessary psychiatric treatment would result because it was never known that PCP was the cause of all the patient’s symptoms of “mental illness.” Another thing to be aware of is that marijuana joints can be dipped in embalming fluid for the purpose of making the joint last longer. Again, one may or may not know about this additive, but more than likely one would not know about its side effects which are similar to those of PCP. Embalming fluid is made up of formaldehyde and ethyl alcohol. If it is sold on the street it could contain PCP as well. Its short-term side effects are anger, frustration, depression, hallucinations or delusions, paranoia, impaired vision and violence to name a few. Clearly, a marijuana user exhibiting these side effects out in public could be a candidate for the Baker Act. A person could wind up in a psychiatric hospital for the wrong reasons and be detained there under the seventy-two hour rule. A young man was brought to a psychiatric emergency room that was naked, disoriented, psychotic, confused, hearing voices and hallucinating. He wasn’t coherent enough to say that he had smoked marijuana combined with tea leaves soaked in embalming fluid. Luckily he was re-evaluated the following morning and all his “psychiatric” symptoms were gone because the side effects of the embalming fluid had worn off. This is just one example of marijuana use resulting in an unnecessary situation that could have had dangerous and damaging consequences. Psychiatrists will tell you that your brain needs to be balanced with psychotropic drugs to control that undesirable behavior but that has not been proven by any valid medical test. Such things as toxins, allergens and even sugar in children can cause non- optimum behavior, all which have nothing to do with the brain. One only needs to find that external cause, not the theoretical non-scientific internal one. Every seventy-five seconds someone in the United States is involuntarily committed, so it would be smart to do your homework so that you don’t wind up becoming part of that statistic. The more informed you are, the less likely you will wind up under psychiatric care for no reason. http://www.cchrflorida.org/how-the-baker-act-affects-marijuana- users/.
Gatlin, --- Good on the 9th Circuit. The irrational and unpredictable behavior by marijuana smokers is something that needs to be dealt with. But the court did: 'The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision said Congress reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”' ---- ConservingFreedom Anyone that supports this court OPINION is engaging in an anti-constitutional activity, and should be treated as an enemy of our republic. Gatlin and misterwhite have finally outed themselves as 'domestic enemies'.
But the court did: 'The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision said Congress reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”' I don’t find that quote in the 9th CoA 29-page decision: Perhaps the author used quotation marks to convey emphasis. In any case, the 9th CoA held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms. Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint challenging the federal statutes, regulations, and guidance that prevented plaintiff from buying a gun because she possesses a Nevada medical marijuana registry card. The panel preliminarily held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which criminalizes possession or receipt of a firearm by an unlawful drug user or a person addicted to a controlled substance. Plaintiff had not alleged that she was an unlawful drug user or that she was addicted to any controlled substance. Nor had she alleged that she possessed or received a firearm. The panel further held that plaintiff’s remaining claims were not moot because she represented that she has routinely renewed her registry card. The panel held that plaintiff’s Second Amendment claims did not fall within the direct scope of United States v. Dugan, 657 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2011), which held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms. Taking plaintiff’s allegations in her first amended complaint as true – that she chose not to use medical marijuana – the panel concluded that plaintiff was not actually an unlawful drug user. The panel held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to federal firearms licensees, which prevented plaintiff from purchasing a firearm, directly burdened plaintiff’s core Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel nevertheless held that the fit between the challenged provisions and the Government’s substantial interest of violence prevention was reasonable, and therefore the district court did not err by dismissing the Second Amendment claim. The panel rejected plaintiff’s claims that the challenged laws and Open Letter violated the First Amendment. The panel held that any burden the Government’s anti-marijuana and anti-gun-violence efforts placed on plaintiff’s expressive conduct was incidental, and that the Open Letter survived intermediate scrutiny. The panel held that the challenged laws and Open Letter neither violated plaintiff’s procedural due process rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nor violated the Equal Protection Clause as incorporated into the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in simultaneously 4 WILSON V. LYNCH holding a registry card and purchasing a firearm, nor was she a part of suspect or quasi-suspect class. Finally, rejecting the claim brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, the panel agreed with the district court that the Open Letter was a textbook interpretative rule and that it was exempt from the Act’s notice-and-comment procedures.
Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users". Furthermore, those who consume marijuana recreationally in a state where such activity is legal are not breaking the law. You and the other statist clown here supporting this infringement of second amendment rights are indeed traitors, as tpaine has noted above. old ... druggies dirty love If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
I found it in about 5 seconds, on page 17: "Cong ress’s reasonable conclusion that the use of such drugs raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Gatlin's coffee can be laced with LSD. Stay tuned. A lot of things are possible, but what's real? Not Gatlin's posts, that's for sure! Former Governor of Florida, on the lookout for weed smokers They are to the federal government, and the federal government does the background check. Obviously, smoking dope is more important to these people than owning a gun. Their choice. "Furthermore, those who consume marijuana recreationally in a state where such activity is legal are not breaking the law." They're breaking federal law -- which is currently not being enforced by Obama.
Anyone that supports this court OPINION is engaging in an anti- constitutional activity, and should be treated as an enemy of our republic. Gatlin and misterwhite have finally outed themselves as 'domestic enemies'....
The simple solution is to buy your weed on the black market. Nobody needs to know your business and it's not illegal for weed smokers to own guns anyway. Fuck those ninny nannies.
Our forefathers never figured we needed unlimited amounts of weed to protect us from government tyranny. In fact, they knew, the higher the populace gets, the easier they are to force into servitude. But by all means, keep pushing your drug loving agenda you filthy asshole.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Yeah, but they loved to get drunk with rum and whiskey!
But the court did: 'The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision said Congress reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”' Nope, the court did not. The decision states nothing about alcohol or prescription drugs. It only addresses “marijuana” users and other “illegal drug” users. Alcohol and prescription drugs are not “illegal drugs. Read it again:
They are "illegal drug users" when talking about a federal law and a federal restriction on the purchase of a gun. You can't spin the law to fit your personal agenda....no matter how hard you try.
There are none, you're imagining things. The Second Amendment prohibits any infringements whatsoever on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Are you drunk and high, or what? If you think that you've got enough of a buzz going on, COME AND TAKE THEM! It is ironic and absurd that you recite Molon Labe as some kind of call to action you wish to use to represent freedom to bear arms. Sport, you need to pick a better motto to use since this one was taken from the King of the Spartans who allowed virtually no freedoms for his people and he believed in enslaving huge numbers of men. He ruled over one of the most rigidly controlled military states of ancient times. Your use of the phrase represents anything but freedom. But then you Paultards have never let things like facts get in the way of your agenda. So, continue to spout out Molon Labe a phrase actually used by a ruler of a state where the individual had almost no rights and all able-bodied men were completely subject to the will of the leaders.
There are none, you're imagining things. The Second Amendment prohibits any infringements whatsoever on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. " Since the Second Amendment prohibits infringements, I have to wonder why they ( The Fed's & their cheerleaders ) think they can infringe? Is it simply because " We say so " ? Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
Molon Labe. When the Persian armies demanded that the Greeks surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae, King Leonidas I responded with this phrase. The Greek contingent held out for three days and then the Persian army TOOK THEIR WEAPONS. “COME AND GET THEM!” So much for that shitty motto….eh? You really should try to understand what you copy and paste before you just copy and paste because it “looks or sounds good.”.
Deckard --- Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users". They are "illegal drug users" when talking about a federal law and a federal restriction on the purchase of a gun. --- gatlin Says gatlin, spinning the facts of 'the law' to suit his anti- constitutional agenda. He should be ashamed, -- IF HE WAS AN AIR FORCE OFFICER. Obviously, he was not....
Wilson v. Lynch, 14-15700 (9th Cir. 31 Aug 2016) serves to directly repudiate the drunk and stoned patriot claim to an inalienable right to drive and to keep and bear arms while drunk and/or stoned.
The First Amendment does not protect one who shouts FIRE! in a crowded theater. The Second Amendment does not protect one who is a registered doper and user of illegal psychoactive drugs. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).
Unfortunately some folks become so Second Amendment radicalized that they are unable to understand laws rationally.
An apt description of the 9th Circuit Court. Probably drunk too! Since the Second Amendment prohibits infringements, I have to wonder why they ( The Fed's & their cheerleaders ) think they can infringe? ----! Is it simply because " We say so " --- Stoner The Second Amendment does not protect one who is a registered doper and user of illegal psychoactive drugs. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). --- nolu chan Nolu Chants "WE SAY SO". "WE" comprising all the majority rule socialists like him.
Unfortunately some folks become so Second Amendment radicalized that they are unable to understand laws rationally. Gatlin Unfortunately some folks become so Second Amendment pussywhipped that they are unable to understand the supreme law of the land rationally.
And some have warped brains to where they are unable to comprehend the meaning of " Shall not be infringed ".
Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. if you look around, we have gone so far down the the rat hole, the almighty is going to have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah, if we don't have a judgement come down on us. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
What's ironic is the so-called conservatives here siding with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguably the most liberal body of judges in America. You and the other clowns here fail to realize that this court is NOT concerned about marijuana users - this is a blatant end-run around the constitution. Apparently "shall not be infringed" is just a punchline for you and the other statist gun-grabbers here. Please try to make it clear that I am not among the "YOU" clowns that you're posting about.. But thanks for the ping...
It is no punchline. But it is also not an unlimited right. Justice Scalia wrote on the Second Amendment not being an unlimited right: “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose…” Gun laws in the United States regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition. Federal law prohibits possession of firearms by any “unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance,” You can stamp your little feet, scream, cry and roll around the floor all you want to….but that will not change the laws.
Was not my intention to include you among the statists. I hope you know that by now. Those here who claim that federal law trumps state law are out of their minds, or worse - unwitting dupes for a liberal court. On every other ruling by this particular court, the same three or four posters would decry the decision as liberal. Now the court comes out with an obvious second amendment infringement and all of a sudden the 9th is making a constitutional ruling - at least according to the shrill, shrieking canary clan. They fail to realize that this is simply another attempt to ban guns. Backdoor Disarmament: “Banning Sale of Firearms To Medical Marijuana Card Holders” Editor’s Comment: I have often wondered if/when the softening on the War on Drugs would be used as a weapon of disarmament. This is an interesting ploy by the feds to use the move towards decriminalizing marijuana as a means of barring Second Amendment lovers from purchasing guns – since it will be argued that marijuana introduces a dangerous or ‘irrational and unpredictable’ element. Of course, they don’t ban alcoholics or prescription pill poppers from purchasing weapons, but I’m sure that many people would be interested in doing so if they could. The rise of Obamacare has also institutionalized medical snitching on patients. Whereas their data and personal information were once held sacred, today they are precious fragments in the age of data analysis, and federal reporting. If/when mental health patients confess to certain trigger words (i.e. feeling angry, violent, suicidal, anti-government, depressed, etc), doctors will flag patients as potentially dangerous. Felons are barred from purchasing, and that category is likely to expand – in the name of Sandy Hook, the Pulse nightclub and whatever else they roll out on the table. Doctors have been encouraged by executive order to ask patients about guns… and no doubt keep records on this special category of patients. Likewise, admitting to drug use (as one does by signing up for a medical marijuana list-database) will be used to flag patients as potentially unstable, dangerous and/or otherwise unfit for owning a gun. Put those altogether, and there is some pretty ripe potential for abuse, and broad platform to keep a wide gulf between the 2nd Amendment and the world that the U.S. population lives in – one that government sees as sick and needy, and in need of stern supervision and social intervention. This is the beginning of the bureaucratic end of our freedoms. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to that. But your opinion is just that….your opinion. Your opinion does not do diddly squat to let S. Rowan Wilson purchase a gun, while the 9th Circuit’s ruling does prevent her for purchasing a gun. That is the way it is….the law is the law. And you can do nothing about it except continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you. Have at it ...
That is the way it is….the law is the law. The point is - you are supporting a liberal court ruling that gun grabbers agree with. What does that say about you? You and the other clowns here fail to realize that this court is NOT concerned about marijuana users - this is a blatant end-run around the constitution. Apparently "shall not be infringed" is just a punchline for you and the other statist gun-grabbers here. Wilson v. Holder, DCNV 2-11-cv-1679 (ORDER) At 24: In her opposition brief, Plaintiff first asserts that “[t]he United States Constitution requires that whenever a governmental body acts to injure an individual, that act must be consonant with due process of law.” (Resp. 30:17–18, ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff concludes that Defendants’ determination that those persons that possess a registry card fit the definition of an “unlawful user of a controlled substance” deprives her of a right without adequate procedure. (Id. at 31:14–22.) However, Plaintiff fails to recognize that she must articulate a “constitutionally protected liberty or property interest” before her procedural due process claim may proceed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s discussion of any procedural inadequacies is insufficient to defeat Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Because Plaintiff cannot identify a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, she cannot state a procedural due process claim and the Court must dismiss her claim with prejudice. At 26: Dang, and she was just that close to legalizing pot for menstrual cramps. Imaginary patriot law fails again. It looks like Deckard, Stoner and tpaine will just have to put up with their menstrual cramps.
The law is the law. If you don't like it, then work to get it changed. Pissing and moaning on LF is only pissing and moaning on LF....it will do nothing to change the situation. Use Medical Marijuana or Own a Gun? Americans Can't Do Both.
The law is a method of creating/extracting revenue streams. For government, revenue streams are called taxation or borrowing. Laws do little else; as an example: laws do not modify "common sense" or morality or ethical behaviour. But, you knew that.
That is the way it is….the law is the law. And you can do nothing about it except continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you. S. Rowan Wilson cannot purchase a gun, --- that is the 9th Circuit’s OPINION, -- which is NOT A LAW. Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS, as it will be comprised of conservatives nominated by TRUMP. And you can do nothing about it except continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you. However, if Hillary wins, you may get your socialistic wish, and gun control will become more strict. -- Be proud of your anti-constitutionalism, you pitiful boot licker.
This so-called man is bat-shit crazy. (and I have never used medical marijuana, -- never will)
Bat shit crazy? His head is a potatoe.
Say what you will. But the fact remains that Americans can either use medical marijuana or own a gun....Americans can't legally do both.
That's very likely. You are so full of HORSESHIT, you should get the fuck outta here and go back to the farm picking potatoes.
I bet had you been around in the 1800's, you would have supported slavery. After all - "The Law is The Law". Putz! Our bat shit potato head thinks the 9th circuit makes laws, an obvious symptom of his insanity. And as usual, he's too chickenshit to defend himself. -- Whatta mensch.
That's very likely. That's NOT very likely. Federal law labels marijuana an illegal "controlled substance." And in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the high court ruled that patients with debilitating diseases who take the drug to relieve their pain would be doing so illegally. "Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.
It is not horseshit. It is a fact that Americans can either use medical marijuana or own a gun. Americans can't legally do both.
Dang, and she was just that close to legalizing pot for menstrual cramps. Imaginary patriot law fails again. It looks like Deckard, Stoner and tpaine will just have to put up with their menstrual cramps. Poor nolu sham, up to his old spamming tricks. As if anyone here gives a shit about "ATF Open Letters".
Who filled your head with SHIT? Yourself?
You mean own slaves like the founding fathers Charles Carroll, Samuel Chase, Benjamin Franklin, Button Gwinnett, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, James Madison, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Benjamin Rush, Edward Rutledge and George Washing did? Asshole!
This is not horseshit:
What was wrong with explicitly owning slaves based on the US Constitution? Today we are implicitly owned as slaves to the US government; we are ALL tax slaves as a ruthless US government attempts a fascist government to create some sort of equality concept. So, your leftist argument is meaningless.
So what? Court rulings do not modify human behaviour in the USA. Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA. Citizens will use marijuana any way they want.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that in an opinion, but his opinion did not change the 2nd Amendment, -- nor did it change any reasonable regulations regarding the use or possession of firearms by 'mentally challenged' individuals. -- If you have any pride left, you'll stop pretending you have me on bozo, and defend your anti-constitutionalism like a man. -- But I'll bet you can't. Under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize any damn thing they want to, --- and to see a so- called conservative accept that unconstitutional opinion makes me sick. Your socialistic slips are sure showing tonite, princess.
Nah, I would have supported laws like this:
Yep, and they can pay the consequences for unlawful use thereof.
I made no argument. I was merely asking a question. And if you want to consider yourself a slave to the U.S. government, then I make no argument against that.
Americans can't legally do both. McCain Republican Gatlin, ready for ISIS, ready to lick Hillary's boots. So what? You are arguing HORSESHIT because court rulings do not modify human behaviour in the USA. Please don't SHIT all over yourself, sarge; as an opinion, yukon won't find you as attractive in the bed.
Are you sure you are up to an all nighter argument? 'Cause you don't know SHIT about the cultivation of God's green acres for FREE. Wanna play w/me?
You are totally correct in this one case, Bucky....there is absolutely nothing that will ever modify your atrocious behavior.
Nah, you can continue to PLAY with YOURSELF! Are you still using that old picture of Hillary?
Sarge ... err, mr. potatoehead, of course you will backdown. You can't backup your own opinions. I have often argued that yukon made you a coward ... of course, you remember the "good ol' days" with that guy, correct?
No, I don't remember. But you have an eternal fascination with them. You constantly have him on your mind.
Not true. You do. Remember, you are the President of the Kanary Klub now that yukon has been isolated into oblivion.
Not true. You do. Check your posts to see how many times you have made reference to Yukon....and then check my posts. You constantly mention Yukon....you let me know if you find that I did one time. Get real...
You took up his banner. You act as though you have emulated his entire fascist agenda. you have emulated yukon well, with your bearing AND weak-kneeded bravadoe to make the claim of being in the Kanary Klub Klan.
Mother Jones - another bastion of conservatism. Save the planet Al Gore! As if anyone here gives a shit about "ATF Open Letters". The Court did in 2011 in Dugan. You would know if you read the Opinions of the real courts. But why bother wen you can just make up your own. In actual application, those imaginary patriot laws will get you every time. http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nac/NAC-453.html In Nevada, Marijuana is a state Schedule I controlled substance, found in part 4 between Lysergic acid diethylamide; and Mescaline. United States v. Dugan, 08-15079 (9th Cir. 20 Sept 2011) stated, "we uphold the statute against this Second Amendment challenge." The ATF stated that "if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have 'reasonable cause to believe' that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance," meaning "you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person." Perhaps she could have argued that she has cramps and goes crazy once a month unless she gets stoned. In Wilson, the 9th Circuit stated that, "in Dugan, we held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms, id.. at 999-1000, in the same way that it does not protect the rights of 'felons and the mentally ill,' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27." In light of the existing holding in Dugan, that violating Federal marijuana law by possessession/use made one ineligible to possess firearms, Ms. Wilson argued on appeal that she obtained a Medical Marijuana Card but did not use it. The question in Wilson became whether mere possession of a Medical Marijuana Card was sufficient to make one ineligible to possess firearms. The court said that it was. Wilson at 18-19: Because the degree of fit between 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter and their purpose of preventing gun violence is reasonable but not airtight, these laws will sometimes burden albeit minimally and only incidentally the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are reasonably, but erroneously, suspected of being unlawful drug users. However, the Constitution tolerates these modest collateral burdens in various contexts, and does so here as well. For instance, the Fourth Amendment allows an officer to burden an individual’s right to be free from searches when the officer has “reason to believe” the person is armed and dangerous, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 believe” standard of § 922(d). Moreover, as previously noted, there are various ways for individuals in Wilson’s position to minimize or eliminate altogether the burdens that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter place on their Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter survive intermediate scrutiny, and the district court did not err in dismissing Wilson’s Second Amendment claims.
Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS, as it will be comprised of conservatives nominated by TRUMP. And you can do nothing about it except continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is a LAW. It has been upheld as constitutional within the Second Amendment in five (5) circuits. United States v. Carter, 4th Cir. 12-5045, 750 F.3d 462, 470 (2014) That's the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits that agree and say your patriotic nonsense is just bullshit, so continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you.
S. Rowan Wilson cannot purchase a gun, --- that is the 9th Circuit’s OPINION, -- which is NOT A LAW. Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS, as it will be comprised of conservatives nominated by TRUMP. And you can do nothing about it except continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you. Well, at least your admit that my position on this issue is patriotic... ---- Which makes your position anti-constitutional and UNPATRIOTIC. And as you know, the opinions of ALL those circuit courts are reversible by a conservative SCOTUS, which Trump will nominate.
Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS, as it will be comprised of conservatives nominated by TRUMP. And as you know, a case is not ripe for SCOTUS to grant cert when all the courts below are in agreement and there is no dispute. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is a LAW. It has been upheld as constitutional within the Second Amendment in five (5) circuits. United States v. Carter, 4th Cir. 12-5045, 750 F.3d 462, 470 (2014) That's the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits that agree and say your patriotic nonsense is just bullshit, so continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you. In Wilson, the 9th Circuit stated that, "in Dugan, we held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms, id.. at 999-1000, in the same way that it does not protect the rights of 'felons and the mentally ill,' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27." The court seems to have had you in mind when it considered the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.
For the last several months, your posts have become increasingly erratic, probably due to your realization that Hillary will not win. Do us all a favor, and seek help, before you have a major hissy fit.
I guess that means that you are in favor of those who seek treatment for mental issues such as depression having their second amendment rights stripped away and their guns confiscated. Attaboy Hillary! Does that extend to Veterans with PTSD or just anyone who has sought help from a physician? Get help with your legal arguments and your MPD.
I am in favor of you getting all the help you can get. You have demonstrated your dire need.
Hillary Fun Camps, for those who don't agree with Nolu Scam You WILL be assimilated, comrade! 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is a LAW. It has been upheld as constitutional within the Second Amendment in five (5) circuits by every reviewing court. United States v. Carter, 4th Cir. 12-5045, 750 F.3d 462, 470 (2014) That's the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits that agree and say your patriotic nonsense is just bullshit, so continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you. In Wilson, the 9th Circuit stated that, "in Dugan, we held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms, id.. at 999-1000, in the same way that it does not protect the rights of 'felons and the mentally ill,' Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27." That's the 9th Circuit and SCOTUS. Wingnuts, faux patriots, and dopers naturally conclude that every court in five circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court are all wrong. Read imaginary patriot law, rely upon imaginary patriot law, act upon imaginary patriot law regarding the inalienable right to get stoned, and then complain about what the real court does to you. It's the faux patriot way.
The very obstinacy and egoism of you losers as you fail in your argument for a lost cause have not enabled S. Rowan Wilson in any way as a registered illegal drug user to become a weapon owner. Yet you losers will not admit and yield to the obvious as you continue to piss into the wind arguing to no avail. You have proven only one thing while you argued from ignorance….that is that if you continue to piss into the wind, you will continue to get wet.
Owning firearms in the USA is only a "lost cause" to clowns like gatlin. --We will nor allow govt to arbitrarily prohibit gun ownership to those who use 'drugs', -- seeing that nearly ALL of our citizens use one form of drugs or another. Gatlin claims that prohibitive gun control is obvious, and we must yield. -- He is a fool.
#2. To: misterwhite, tpaine, ConservingFreedom (#1)
And this is from the 9th Circuit. Never thought they'd get it right.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#3. To: Deckard (#2)
"No doubt you are in favor of infringing on the second amendment rights of alcohol users as well, or maybe anyone who has a prescription for any kind of pharmaceutical pain medications."
#4. To: misterwhite, Deckard (#3)
The federal law bans the sale of firearms to illegal drug users. It says nothing about alcohol or prescription drugs.
#5. To: misterwhite (#3)
The federal law bans the sale of firearms to illegal drug users.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#6. To: Deckard (#0)
The 9th Circuit in its 3-0 decision said Congress reasonably concluded that marijuana and other drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”
The Baker Act is a Florida state law where people who appear to be “mentally ill” are are forced to go to a psychiatric hospital because they, apparently, pose a danger to themselves and/or others.
Get the marijuana smokers with irrational and unpredictable behavior off the streets and into a place where they can get help to return to a normal life.
#7. To: Gatlin, misterwhite, --- Deckard, conservingfreedom (#6)
misterwhite, gatlin, claim: -- The federal law bans the sale of firearms to illegal drug users. It says nothing about alcohol or prescription drugs.
#8. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite, Deckard (#4)
The federal law bans the sale of firearms to illegal drug users. It says nothing about alcohol or prescription drugs.
S. ROWAN WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General; BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES; B. TODD JONES, as Acting Director of U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; ARTHUR HERBERT, as Assistant Director of U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants- Appellees.
WILSON V. LYNCH SUMMARY
The suit and the decision was all about unlawful drug users. It was not about lawful and legal alcohol and prescription drug users.
#9. To: Gatlin (#8)
(Edited)
The suit and the decision was all about unlawful drug users. It was not about lawful and legal alcohol and prescription drug users.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#10. To: Deckard (#0)
clothes
underwear
boris
#11. To: Gatlin, misterwhite, Deckard (#8)
I don’t find that quote in the 9th CoA 29-page decision
#12. To: tpaine, gatlin, PCP kool-aid, LSD, deckard (#7)
It has been found that marijuana can be laced with phencyclidine, otherwise known as PCP.
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#13. To: Deckard (#9)
"Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users".
#14. To: Gatlin, misterwhite, --- ADMIT BY DEFAULT THAT THEY ARE DOMESTIC ENEMIES (#7)
#15. To: Deckard (#0)
#16. To: Deckard (#2)
#17. To: GrandIsland (#16)
Our forefathers never figured we needed unlimited amounts of weed to protect us from government tyranny.
#18. To: ConservingFreedom (#11)
The federal law bans the sale of firearms to illegal drug users. It says nothing about alcohol or prescription drugs.
It may be argued that medical marijuana users are less likely to commit violent crimes, as they often suffer from debilitating illnesses, for which marijuana may be an effective palliative. They also may be less likely than other illegal drug users to interact with law enforcement officers or make purchases through illicit channels. But those hypotheses are not sufficient to overcome Congress’s reasonable conclusion that the use of such drugs raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.
#19. To: Deckard (#9)
Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users".
#20. To: Gatlin, buckeroo, tpaine, Deckard, *Bang List* (#19)
federal law and a federal restriction on the purchase of a gun
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#21. To: hondo68 (#20)
#22. To: hondo68 (#20)
(Edited)
" federal law and a federal restriction on the purchase of a gun
#23. To: hondo68 (#20)
#24. To: Gatlin, outed as an anti-constitutionalist (#19)
Alcohol and prescription drugs are not “illegal drugs. --- Gatlin posted
#25. To: Deckard, Gatlin (#9)
Legitimate card-carrying medical marijuana users in a state where medical marijuana is legal are not "illegal drug users".
#26. To: Stoner, hondo68, Gatlin (#22)
Since the Second Amendment prohibits infringements, I have to wonder why they ( The Fed's & their cheerleaders ) think they can infringe?
#27. To: nolu chan (#26)
#28. To: nolu chan, 9th Rehab Clinic (#26)
doper[s] and user[s] of illegal psychoactive drugs
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#29. To: nolu chan joins the anti-constitutionalists, Y'ALL (#26)
The Second Amendment prohibits any infringements whatsoever on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
#30. To: Gatlin, grandisland, nolu Chan, misterwhite, -- pussywhipped anti-constitutionalists (#27)
To: nolu chan (#26)
#31. To: tpaine (#30)
#32. To: Gatlin, nolu chan, misterwhite, tpaine (#27)
Unfortunately some folks become so Second Amendment radicalized that they are unable to understand laws rationally.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#33. To: Deckard (#32)
#34. To: Deckard (#32)
Apparently "shall not be infringed" is just a punchline …
#35. To: tpaine (#33)
(Edited)
Please try to make it clear that I am not among the "YOU" clowns that you're posting about..
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#36. To: Gatlin (#34)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#37. To: Deckard (#35)
Now the court comes out with an obvious second amendment infringement ...
#38. To: Gatlin (#37)
Your opinion does not do diddly squat to let S. Rowan Wilson purchase a gun, while the 9th Circuit’s ruling does prevent her for purchasing a gun.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#39. To: Deckard, Gatlin, misterwhite, tpaine, Stoner (#32)
What's ironic is the so-called conservatives here siding with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguably the most liberal body of judges in America.
The relevant portion of the Fifth Amendment provides that “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. V. To successfully allege a procedural due process claim, plaintiffs must provide sufficient facts establishing the plausible existence of two elements: “(1) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate procedural protections.” Brewster v. Bd. of Educ. of Lynwood Unified Sch. Dist., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998). The Court need not reach the second element because Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants deprived her of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 (holding that adequate procedural protections are required only when the plaintiff has been deprived of a liberty or property interest).
However, although the use of marijuana for medical purposes may not violate Nevada state law, this same use is still prohibited under federal law. See e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (prohibiting possession of controlled substances); see also ATF Open Letter (stating that “[t]he Federal government does not recognize marijuana as a medicine”). The fact remains that, by "follow[ing] state laws for the obtainment of treatment for her medical condition," (Resp. 33:12-16), she is pursuing a course of treatment that violates federal law.
#40. To: Deckard (#38)
(Edited)
#41. To: Gatlin (#40)
The law is the law.
#42. To: Gatlin, Y'ALL, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#37)
(Edited)
Your opinion does not do diddly squat to let S. Rowan Wilson purchase a gun, while the 9th Circuit’s ruling does prevent her for purchasing a gun.
#43. To: Gatlin claims, Use Medical Marijuana or Own a Gun? Americans Can't Do Both (#40)
Use Medical Marijuana or Own a Gun? Americans Can't Do Both
#44. To: tpaine (#43)
#45. To: buckeroo (#41)
#46. To: tpaine (#42)
Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#47. To: Gatlin (#45)
But the fact remains that Americans can either use medical marijuana or own a gun....Americans can't legally do both.
#48. To: Gatlin (#40)
The law is the law.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#49. To: Gatlin no (#45)
Bat shit crazy? His head is a potatoe. --- buckeroo
Say what you will. -- But the fact remains that Americans can either use medical marijuana or own a gun....Americans can't legally do both.---- Gatlin
#50. To: Deckard (#46)
Their opinion will be appealed, and odds are it will be rejected by the SCOTUS
The Supreme Court declined to make an exception that would legalize the medical use of marijuana under federal law.
#51. To: buckeroo (#47)
You are so full of HORSESHIT ...
#52. To: nolu chump (#39)
see also ATF Open Letter (stating that “[t]he Federal government does not recognize marijuana as a medicine”). The fact remains that, by "follow[ing] state laws for the obtainment of treatment for her medical condition," (Resp. 33:12-16), she is pursuing a course of treatment that violates federal law.
#53. To: Gatlin (#51)
It is a fact that Americans can either use medical marijuana or own a gun.
#54. To: Deckard (#48)
#55. To: buckeroo (#53)
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the US Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
#56. To: Gatlin (#54)
You mean own slaves like the founding fathers Charles Carroll, Samuel Chase, Benjamin Franklin, Button Gwinnett, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, Richard Henry Lee, James Madison, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Benjamin Rush, Edward Rutledge and George Washing did?
#57. To: Gatlin (#55)
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the US Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
#58. To: Gatlin, any pride left, 'major'? (#50)
(Edited)
Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion.
This is not horseshit: ---- Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the US Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
#59. To: Deckard (#48)
I bet had you been around in the 1800's, you would have supported slavery.
Act May 10, 1800, 2 Stat. 70 (prohibits the voluntary service of an American citizen on board of an American or foreign vessel on a voyage commenced with the intent of carrying slaves from one foreign country to another, though no slaves have been received on board.)
#60. To: buckeroo (#57)
Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA. Citizens will use marijuana any way they want.
#61. To: buckeroo (#56)
So, your leftist argument is meaningless.
#62. To: Gatlin, Fineswine Sharia Republican (#51)
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#63. To: Gatlin (#60)
Yep, and they can pay the consequences for unlawful use thereof.
#64. To: buckeroo (#57)
Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.
#65. To: buckeroo (#57)
Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.
#66. To: buckeroo (#57)
Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.
#67. To: buckeroo (#57)
Marijuana is a weed that thrives in the USA.
#68. To: Gatlin (#67)
#69. To: buckeroo (#63)
... because court rulings do not modify human behaviour in the USA.
#70. To: buckeroo (#68)
(Edited)
Wanna play w/me?
#71. To: Gatlin (#70)
#72. To: buckeroo (#71)
of course, you remember the "good ol' days" with that guy, correct?
#73. To: Gatlin (#72)
You constantly have him on your mind.
#74. To: buckeroo (#73)
(Edited)
You constantly have him on your mind.
#75. To: Gatlin (#74)
#76. To: Gatlin (#67)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#77. To: tpaine, Chief Justice of the Imaginary Patriot Court, misterwhite, Gatlin (#52)
Poor nolu sham, up to his old spamming tricks.
Nonetheless, the degree of fit between 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter and the aim of preventing gun violence is still reasonable, which is sufficient to survive intermediate scrutiny. The connection between these laws and that aim requires only one additional logical step: individuals who firearms dealers have reasonable cause to believe are illegal drug users are more likely actually to be illegal drug users (who, in turn, are more likely to be involved with violent crimes). With respect to marijuana registry cards, there may be some small population of individuals who although obtaining a marijuana registry card for medicinal purposes instead hold marijuana registry cards only for expressive purposes. But it is eminently reasonable for federal regulators to assume that a registry cardholder is much more likely to be a marijuana user than an individual who does not hold a registry card.
#78. To: tpaine, Gatlin (#42)
S. Rowan Wilson cannot purchase a gun, --- that is the 9th Circuit’s OPINION, -- which is NOT A LAW.
Finally, we observe that every court to have considered the issue has affirmed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 682 (7th Cir.2010) (per curiam); United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919, 925 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. 252, 260 (10th Cir.2009). Indeed, the majority of these courts found the statute constitutional without relying on any empirical studies. See Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; Seay, 620 F.3d at 925; Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. at 260.
#79. To: nolu chan, y'all (#78)
nolu sham, --- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is a LAW. It has been upheld as constitutional within the Second Amendment in five (5) circuits. ----- "United States v. Carter, 4th Cir. 12-5045, 750 F.3d 462, 470 (2014) --- Finally, we observe that every court to have considered the issue has affirmed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment." ---- That's the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Circuits that agree and say your patriotic nonsense is just bullshit, so continue to stamp your feet, scream, cry and roll on the floor like a little spoiled child….for whatever good it will do you.
#80. To: tpaine (#79)
S. Rowan Wilson cannot purchase a gun, --- that is the 9th Circuit’s OPINION, -- which is NOT A LAW.
Finally, we observe that every court to have considered the issue has affirmed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 682 (7th Cir.2010) (per curiam); United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919, 925 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. 252, 260 (10th Cir.2009). Indeed, the majority of these courts found the statute constitutional without relying on any empirical studies. See Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; Seay, 620 F.3d at 925; Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. at 260.
#81. To: nolu sham is severely disturbed, as evidenced by his anti-constitutional postings (#80)
The court seems to have had you in mind when it considered the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.
#82. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#80)
(Edited)
The court seems to have had you in mind when it considered the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#83. To: yukon (#81)
#84. To: Deckard (#82)
I guess that means that you are in favor of those who seek treatment for mental issues
#85. To: Deckard, tpaine, nolu chan, Concentration Camps, no guns 4 u (#82)
The court seems to have had you in mind when it considered the 2nd Amendment rights of the mentally ill.
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#86. To: hondo68 (#85)
Finally, we observe that every court to have considered the issue has affirmed the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 682 (7th Cir.2010) (per curiam); United States v. Seay, 620 F.3d 919, 925 (8th Cir.2010); United States v. Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. 252, 260 (10th Cir.2009). Indeed, the majority of these courts found the statute constitutional without relying on any empirical studies. See Dugan, 657 F.3d at 999; Seay, 620 F.3d at 925; Richard, 350 Fed.Appx. at 260.
#87. To: ALL (#86)
#88. To: Gatlin, a loser pretending to be a major (#87)
The very obstinacy and egoism of you losers as you fail in your argument for a lost cause have not enabled S. Rowan Wilson in any way as a registered illegal drug user to become a weapon owner.
Yet you losers will not admit and yield to the obvious as you continue to piss into the wind arguing to no avail. You have proven only one thing while you argued from ignorance….that is that if you continue to piss into the wind, you will continue to get wet.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]