Hawaii Disqualfies Due to Use of Medical Marijauna

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • j_h_smith

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 28, 2007
    28,516
    Actually, Hawaii's legal monarchy should never have been overthrown by a cabal of US business interests.

    If Pluto can lose it's status as a planet, then Hawaii can lose it's status as a state of the United States. I say we give it a shot........

    After all, Hawaii receives 20% of their budget from Federal funds. This doesn't include the tax revenue they receive from military operations within the state.
     

    Chauchat

    Active Member
    Jan 16, 2014
    113
    In the free States
    Why do people think that if their state eliminates its laws prohibiting MJ possession and use, that it somehow means federal laws regarding MJ don't apply? Heck, I don't think any states have laws regarding treason, but the feds sure do. Haven't they looked at the 4473? The feds still ask question 11(e).

    Could it be that The States and the People are the creators of the document that constituted the second government of the union of independent States?

    Could it be The Creators dicated in the constituting document that the body representing their Union were to have limited delegated powers and authorities

    Could it be the supreme law, created by the states in general Congress assembled, solidly and without any quibbling the Congress has exclusive legislative authority over a specific area and circumstances?

    "17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings: And,

    18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

    Could it be the States reserved everything not listed in the documet to themselves or the people, too?

    So. The Congress created, oh let's pick one, the GCA of 1968 (which is an update of an earlier 1938 Act) which they can do but the supreme law says it can only have effect where the congress has been given exclusive legislative authority. Let us look at the codified version of the congress' Statute at Large. The devil as the say is in the details. And the details are in the definitions.

    §921. Definitions

    (a) As used in this chapter—

    (2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

    Could it be the congress of the Union of American States defined "State" to be the before mentioned district and the places under the congress' delegated and limited authority? Could be.

    The legal term "State" on form 4473 has the meaning of the statute that created the form. Same goes for interstate or foreign commerce.

    Don't conflate two meanings into one. This all goes back to the run up to the convetion and the Articles of Confederation.


    My question is how does any congressional gun law further the enumerated forgoing powers? (Clause 18)
     

    Chauchat

    Active Member
    Jan 16, 2014
    113
    In the free States
    Article VI Clause 2 ?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    That's correct. The supreme law of the United States states in black and white that the congress of the States only has power to write stautes over areas that are not in the souverign and independent States. And the judges are supposed to uphold the supreme law of the united States.

    The document is to read a whole and not picked apart here and there by self serving fellow citisens who drawing a check from the treasury.

    I can go in to the Articles as further background if needed.
     

    Sirex

    Powered by natural gas
    Oct 30, 2010
    10,380
    Westminster, MD
    I foresee this being a popularity contest. You care more about getting high, or retaining your right to self preservation? Most of the younger generation will choose the legal path to drugs, unaware the future repercussions. They probably aren't even aware it will be a dis qualifier. This is the left's way of enticing people away from firearms by means of making them ineligible in the first place.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,947
    Marylandstan
    I just heard about this. Check this out. If you use medical marijuana
    Hawaii won't let you own a gun. I see this happening in CA within the next year or two and then the rest of the country.

    23722736_2028557847387224_5396671829128035768_n.jpg

    Who is the 'hell' does the police chief think she is?????:mad54:

    She has no authority for making due process law!

    Due Process Clause
    The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.
     

    frozencesium

    BBQ Czar
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 5, 2008
    3,430
    Tampa, FL
    I personally think weed should be legalized. The fact that weed is a Schedule 1 drug and GHB is a schedule 3 drug should tell you how broken the system is. Hell, cocaine is a schedule 2 drug. I don't believe in trying to save people from themselves. Inform them, then let them make the call.

    Be that as it may...There is nothing illegal here. Because weed is still a Schedule 1 drug, a medical weed card squarely falls into the "reasonable suspicion of illegal substance use" on a 4473. Every federal judge so far also agrees. I think even Gorsuch or Scalia (may he R.I.P.) would see this as legal.

    I think the best course of action for those who are outraged by this is to support the removal of weed from the Controlled Substance Schedule, not to bitch about HI, AZ, or the other states where this is happening.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    If Pluto can lose it's status as a planet, then Hawaii can lose it's status as a state of the United States. I say we give it a shot........

    After all, Hawaii receives 20% of their budget from Federal funds. This doesn't include the tax revenue they receive from military operations within the state.

    If that is the criteria, several states need to go before Hawaii:

    Neighboring Louisiana and Mississippi are generally among the top recipients in federal aid year after year. That was true again in 2015: Federal intergovernmental revenues accounted for about 42 percent of their general fund revenues, the top shares nationally.

    Other states whose budgets are most dependent on the feds include Arizona (40 percent), Kentucky (40 percent), New Mexico (39 percent), Montana (39 percent) and Oregon (39 percent). That’s roughly twice as much as the least-reliant state budgets, which include North Dakota (18 percent) and Virginia (22 percent).
     

    WeaponsCollector

    EXTREME GUN OWNER
    Mar 30, 2009
    12,120
    Southern MD
    Self righteous prohibitionist control freaks will never pass up an opportunity for more control over people's lives. If they weren't such hypocrites they would ban alcohol again so we can get some more alcohol gangs to go with all the drug gangs.
     

    THier

    R.I.P.
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 3, 2010
    4,998
    Muscleville
    Every pothead I know has poor judgement and seems to be a legal expert.

    Like the stoner who loaded and aimed
    A shotgun at me, told the cops so, but judge dropped the assault, and left only the W-E, 2 years probation,,, wait, maybe he was right, it was no big deal.
     

    mumfrey

    Active Member
    Nov 16, 2017
    662
    Northern Balt Co
    What I find puzzling is the line in the letter that states if a doctor supplies a clearance letter, you can proceed with acquiring more guns and receive the confiscated guns back. Does that mean they want a letter from the doctor stating you aren't a threat or does it mean that they want a letter showing you're no longer getting the medical hippie lettuce?
     

    Telly

    Member
    Feb 3, 2015
    3
    Been to most states, and many big cities. Rode a lot of public transportation. Never once saw 2 fights in 2 rides, in under a day, except in Hawaii. If I see that as someone just travelling through, imagine what day-to-day life is like.
    Lived on Oahu for 15 years... never seen a fight
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,915
    Messages
    7,258,421
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom