close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Pot, Concealed carry and the Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by HerrGlock, Jul 29, 2011.

  1. HerrGlock

    HerrGlock Scouts Out CLM

    23,791
    183
    Dec 28, 2000

  2. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    42,041
    8,874
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    It would have to be a wildly activist, left-wing court to decide in favor of the applicant/felon. The statute clearly makes him a prohibited person and the constitution doesn't give him a right to smoke dope. Seems like they should have just gone ahead and sent him to prison, when he admitted he owned a gun.

    I can't think of any serious legal basis for deciding in his favor. Not even close. They say the argument is that Oregon law superseded the federal statute.

    Really? :rofl: A high school kid, or even a high school-kid, should know better than that.:rofl:
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011
  3. HerrGlock

    HerrGlock Scouts Out CLM

    23,791
    183
    Dec 28, 2000
    State law allows for medical pot. This is, to me, literally a state Vs federal debate.

    My guess is that this one will be the state winning if for state issued prescription for pot only. That's just my guess, though.
     
  4. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    42,041
    8,874
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    How can the state EVER win a state law vs. federal law issue, when the constitution that the Supreme Court interprets has clearly said federal law is superior, since before Oregon existed? There is simply no valid state vs. federal argument in favor of the state.

    This is literally equal to the state claiming that their law against rap music is superior to the 1st amendment or their ban on all guns is superior to the 2nd amendment.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011
  5. HerrGlock

    HerrGlock Scouts Out CLM

    23,791
    183
    Dec 28, 2000
    I know all that and I don't see how anyone could justify it either. That doesn't change my opinion that if/when some years from now a similar case ever gets accepted by the S.C. that it's going to be decided in favor of the State law.
     
  6. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    42,041
    8,874
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    If I was going to bring a futile marijuana legalization case to the supreme court, I would at least argue that the government lacks sufficient interest in controlling marijuana to overcome the right to privacy (on which birth control was legalized) and that criminalizing intra-state drugs use exceeds Congress's commerce clause jurisdiction (like nearly all federal criminal law).
     
  7. HerrGlock

    HerrGlock Scouts Out CLM

    23,791
    183
    Dec 28, 2000
    That might very well be the arguments. I don't know.

    As I said, this one needs to get decided one way or another.
     
  8. At least when they enacted the prohibition of alcohol they had the decency and intelligence to make it a constitutional amendment..

    Last time I checked the constitution says nothing about pot.. But it does say that all powers not listed in the constitution go to the states to decide (ie drug laws)

    So the government should have the decency to put all their zany, confusing "drug" laws right there in the constitution.. Or admit that what they are doing is unconstitutional and therefore should be left to individual states to decide.

    Of course, that's never going to happen. Because the beast known as Fedzilla is a difficult animal to kill..
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2011
  9. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    42,041
    8,874
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    That's because, as recently as the 1920's, even Congress thought that making criminal laws about things going on within a state exceeded federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court later convinced them they could do anything they want.
     
  10. MrsKitty

    MrsKitty

    18,802
    31
    Mar 23, 2003
    >^..^<
  11. MrsKitty

    MrsKitty

    18,802
    31
    Mar 23, 2003
    >^..^<
    Wrong thread. Oops. :embarassed:
     
  12. HerrGlock

    HerrGlock Scouts Out CLM

    23,791
    183
    Dec 28, 2000
    Wow, had me confused for a minute there :supergrin:
     
  13. jhoagland

    jhoagland That's right! Lifetime Member

    8,151
    4
    May 4, 2007
    south carolina
    Pot should be treated just like booze. Period.
     
  14. unit1069

    unit1069

    8,157
    186
    Oct 10, 2007
    So. Central US
    Federal law preempts state law, if the feds decide to challenge the ruling and the USSC takes the case.

    Interesting, isn't it, that blue state judges invariably rule that federal law preempts state law whenever the issue is illegal immigration; yet when Leftist causes/issues like medical marijuana --- as in this case --- prompt the same judges to declare state law supreme to federal law?

    This case is further evidence of why everyone who cares about personal freedom needs to vote in the 2012 elections. America is only one Stephen Breyer-like US Supreme Court justice away from having all individual Second Amendment rights struck down. Jurists like Breyer think the constitution means anything they say it does, without regard to precedent or the written historic record of the Founding Fathers themselves. America needs to ensure that the next president will appoint a learned and principled jurist to a vacant seat on the Court, not an ideologue whose guiding principle is extending State control over everyone and everything.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2011