« John Milius | Main | Washington Court of Appeals finds for a constitutional right to self-defend »
Colorado initiative on CCW permits and medical pot licensing
Story here. Apparently some sheriffs are denying CCW permits to people with medicinal pot permits. The one problem I foresee is that, even with it, Federal law still makes it a felony for a user of marihuana to possess a firearm. Getting a medicinal marihuana permit and a CCW permit is like painting a target on your back, if the Federales want to get unpleasant.
Hat tip to Southern Rockies Nature Blog, which I notice today has a lead article on deer's vision and how it should govern choice of clothing while hunting.
UPDATE: I do find it interesting that... well, throughout my early years, "states' rights" (OK, States do not have rights, per se, but that was the term used) was portrayed (back then, usually accurately) as synonymous with "States can restrict liberty all they want." Today, the situation is reversed. States are quite often defending the individual liberties of their citizens against Federal restriction and injustice. Personally, I'd like to see the Federal government returned to its constitutional role as the controller (and if you want to be really originalist, protector of) interstate commerce, leaving affairs that have no actual interstate effect to the people of a State, subject to constitutional limits (establishing a church just goes too far, as does impairing the right to arms, that manner of thing).
If Colorado wants to legalize something, as a citizen of Arizona, and a citizen of the US, it should be none of my business. If a State legalizes something to which I have a profound objection, if it decides that armed robbery and murder are OK, my remedy is simple: don't move there.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
I have to wonder if Tony Fabian, president of the Colorado State Shooting Association, felt any cognitive dissonance or even noticed the irony of supporting one federal law that limits an individual's rights while heading up an organization supposedly dedicated to reducing the governments interference with exercising that right?
It's not just the concealed carry permit that can get one in trouble with legal pot. Buying a gun from an FFL requires that you state that you do not use illegal drugs. In this case, that would be pot.
The Feds could get even nastier if they decide to reconcile the forms each gun buyer fills out and signs with those who have medical pot Rx's or those in WA or CO who buy it for recreational purposes.
Ironically, the recent effort threatening banks with sanctions for doing business with pot stores hinders the Fed's ability to track down users via credit/debit card receipts. Cash transactions have their benefits.
The "if you don't like it, live somewhere else" argument is problematic, as it assumes there is a good "elsewhere" to which one could move. If the proper role of government is to ensure the freedom and security of the citizens, then your example is doubly problematic.
If you got your insurance under Obamacare, they already have the info.
Mr. Hardy,
How are your opinions altered, if at all, given the language in the recent 'cromnibus' passed by Congress?
Specifically, section 538, which states:
"SEC. 538. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana."
Given that BATFE is a subsidiary agency of DoJ, wouldn't the language in Sec. 538 prevent BATFE enforcement of 18 USC 922(g) when it involves medical marijuana?
Thank you in advance!
Shawn
"Co voters kicked out the majority of non-2A politicians in their state" then promptly elected new non-2A politicians to take the place of Moore, Giron, and what's-her-name.
Fully undone. The only pro-2A new officeholder in Colorado is Gardner for US Senate.
1. Colorado law says that marijuana is legal for adults to purchase without a prescription, just like Alcohol and Tobacco. The state treating it any other way is illegal.
2. Colorado, or all states should be embracing their "screw the feds" states rights ideas. They have passed the nation's first law legalizing pot and have raked in millions upon millions of dollars in the process, even without all the crime spikes that were suggested would happen.
3. At the same time, Co voters kicked out the majority of non-2A politicians in their state, making it clear that while they want liberal drug laws, they also want the protection that only firearms bring to the table. Sherrifs are elected officials in many states, and they should walk carefully when disarming the very people they need to vote for their next term.
4. It's about time "shall not be infringed" stops being read as "can usually be infringed in small ways." We're the side with guns, why do we keep caving in to the side that's unarmed?