Gun Laws - Change Is Coming

[HomeLessBeans]

i was so sad to give up my guns to not be in pain. some days i regret it, then i remember the giant full melt hash hit im bout to destroy . hopefully if enough of us complain to our governors, someday soon we can carry again and be treated like normal law abiding citizens. untill then, lets cloud this mitten up!

why did you give up your guns?

 

[vapor85]

The second amendment was intended not just for hunting but to make our government fearful of braking the rules and trampling on the rights of the people. If we really followed it's intent then we'd have a lot of militias that would have the exact same guns as the military.

This fight is just leading up to the fight over how important the constitution is, and should it be majorly modified like changing the second amendment to allow civilians to own nothing but hunting and sporting guns that don't look scary and don't hold more than 7 bullets... As well as outlawing all militias, even if they have hunting guns.

More gun laws will not be an effective solution to this problem IMO.

 

[mrbungle79]

Huge momentum building for gun control. Should be interesting.

Hard to take seriously the discussion of arming teachers. I predict change is coming.

http://www.ksfy.com/story/20797270/state-house-approves-bill-allowing-armed-teachers-in-schools
there are certain counties across the u.s. that allow teachers to carry concealed weapons in the classroom already. i know of one for sure in texas. the thought is that some of these schools are in such a remote area help is too far away. i say kudos

 

[mushead]

why did you give up your guns?

i watched my buddy go to jail for having his guns and his card. i thought that was the law? he's doing time for concealing, not sure if thats different than just owning guns in your home. i have a 1 year old now tho i couldnt take the chance. there deffinately not gone either, just not in my name or house now.

 

[Michiganja Meduana]

If he got convicted for concealing, it was the government that overstepped its bounds, not him. That didnt have anything to do with him having guns and a card.

The law in michigan says that you can't be denied any right because you have the card.

 

[941mick]

If he got convicted for concealing, it was the government that overstepped its bounds, not him. That didnt have anything to do with him having guns and a card.

The law in michigan says that you can't be denied any right because you have the card.

when you apply for cwp in MI it states you cant be a user of schedule 1 narcotic...

 

[Michiganja Meduana]

Just because you have a card, doesnt mean you use.

Its a states rights issue, schedule one, and 4473 are both federal.

But far more importantly is the law itself which states : (snip)

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (EXCERPT)
Initiated Law 1 of 2008

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, blah blah blah provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana,blah blah blah,


in other words, you are protected by statutory law from being forced to relinquish any constitutional rights because you have this card, or the legal amounts of this medication.

including guns

 

[Stompromper]

The feds don't give a fuck.. this shit above means nothing to them and when your locals come knocking, or no knocking... They bring a fed with them.

 

[TheMan13]

Whom enforces a state agents violation of your rights? Does that enforcement agency have the discretion to simply not give a fuck if it doesn't meet their political agenda or end game? Let these state agents try requiring identification at a polling booth and watch how this "justice system" works ...

^^^ FBI quote

 

[941mick]

Just because you have a card, doesnt mean you use.

Its a states rights issue, schedule one, and 4473 are both federal.

But far more importantly is the law itself which states : (snip)

MICHIGAN MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACT (EXCERPT)
Initiated Law 1 of 2008

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, blah blah blah provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana,blah blah blah,


in other words, you are protected by statutory law from being forced to relinquish any constitutional rights because you have this card, or the legal amounts of this medication.

including guns

wrong. We just discussed this same topic two weeks ago...

 

[941mick]

http://sheriffconnect.com/files/applications/CPL Application.pdf

This is from the state requirements...

"B. Federal Requirements
Pursuant to MCL 28.426, a Concealed Pistol License may not be issued to a person prohibited under federal law from
possessing or transporting a firearm. The federal requirements to possess or transport a firearm include that the applicant:
1. Not have been convicted in any court of, or under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year (e.g. felony or misdemeanor punishable by 2 years).
2. Not be a fugitive of justice.
3. Not be 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). "

 

[CashCrops]

http://sheriffconnect.com/files/applications/CPL Application.pdf

This is from the state requirements...

"B. Federal Requirements
Pursuant to MCL 28.426, a Concealed Pistol License may not be issued to a person prohibited under federal law from
possessing or transporting a firearm. The federal requirements to possess or transport a firearm include that the applicant:
1. Not have been convicted in any court of, or under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year (e.g. felony or misdemeanor punishable by 2 years).
2. Not be a fugitive of justice.
3. Not be 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). "

I guess section 3 rules out any and all people in american. Controlled means pills to.

 

[941mick]

I guess section 3 rules out any and all people in american. Controlled means pills to.

You are a lawful user if you have a prescription. There is no such thing as a prescription for cannabis, only recommendations.

 

[Michiganja Meduana]

wrong. We just discussed this same topic two weeks ago...

I'd suggest that you give up walking, assuming that you have a drivers license. the first card in Michigan was issued to a non user.

+1 to cashcrops

 

[CashCrops]

You are a lawful user if you have a prescription. There is no such thing as a prescription for cannabis, only recommendations.

I know, I was kinda pointing out the fact we all already know that you can carry and take any and all pills available but a harmless plant and your hosed.

 

[941mick]

I'd suggest that you give up walking, assuming that you have a drivers license. the first card in Michigan was issued to a non user.

+1 to cashcrops

If you are not a user of cannabis why have a patient card and pay the money to attain it? I understand if you are a registered caregiver who does not use cannabis.

I guess you would have to argue that your use of cannabis is irregular and not "continued use", and provide evidence to support that argument.

 

[Michiganja Meduana]

If you are not a user of cannabis why have a patient card and pay the money to attain it? I understand if you are a registered caregiver who does not use cannabis.

I guess you would have to argue that your use of cannabis is irregular and not "continued use", and provide evidence to support that argument.

Common sense has no place here, we're talking about the letter of the law.

What you have to create in order to deal with this situation, is a case, a person charged as a criminal, then the legal processes can be applied. The first of all legal processes is that the person must be charged, and that has to be preceded by witness to a crime, or probable cause to investigate, and eventually charge a person. At that point, the second of our legal processes comes into play in that a person charged is innocent until proven guilty. A persons card could possibly be construed as "affirmation" as used under the Fourth Amendment, but would only give them the ability to go around some of your privacy rights.

Therefore, the argument would have to be made that the person was using, it's up to the prosecution to prove not only that, but defend its position against precedent, constitutional l;aw, and statutory law. Throw in a jury, and nullification is always an option.

 

[Michiganja Meduana]

Added to above. The defense is still going to bring in not only the Second Amendment, but the Americans With Disabilities Act, Article one, Section Six of the Michigan State Constitution, precedent, and the Medical Marijuana Act itself, pointing out sections like the one cited, MCL 333. 26424, which expressly protects the patients from this type of prosecution.

 

[941mick]

If they can prove you are a cannabis user, which will happen if you are arrested with cannabis in your system then your fucked when it comes to carrying a concealed weapon.

Your allowed to own firearms as a cannabis patient, just not allowed to carry them concealed. Open carry though like mentioned in a previous thread may be a legal option.

 

[Michiganja Meduana]

now you're talking about a different section of the law. If a person is charged with concealing a firearm is its own thing, a licensing issue apart from weed. Owning, and carrying, whether concealed or otherwise is another matter.

Our disagreement is in the application of the laws that exist, and contradict.

"B. Federal Requirements
Pursuant to MCL 28.426, a Concealed Pistol License may not be issued to a person prohibited under federal law from
possessing or transporting a firearm. The federal requirements to possess or transport a firearm include that the applicant:
1. Not have been convicted in any court of, or under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year (e.g. felony or misdemeanor punishable by 2 years).
2. Not be a fugitive of justice.
3. Not be 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). "

I disagree with you in this cite because not only is the use is not unlawful, but the Tenth Amendment argues against this section, in that it allows for states to make up their own regulations and laws.