Pot, Concealed carry and the Supreme Court [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Pot, Concealed carry and the Supreme Court


HerrGlock
07-29-2011, 04:44
http://www.oregonlive.com/argus/index.ssf/2011/07/high_court_could_hear_countys.html

This one basically must go before the Supreme Court before too long.

Cop turned down CC permit because applicant uses medically prescribed pot. Federal law states no one who uses controlled substances is allowed to possess a firearm (or ammo for that matter).

This needs decided one way or another.

Just1More
07-29-2011, 04:49
Pot is evil. Everybody knows that!

Bren
07-29-2011, 04:54
http://www.oregonlive.com/argus/index.ssf/2011/07/high_court_could_hear_countys.html

This one basically must go before the Supreme Court before too long.

Cop turned down CC permit because applicant uses medically prescribed pot. Federal law states no one who uses controlled substances is allowed to possess a firearm (or ammo for that matter).

This needs decided one way or another.

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 They say the argument is that Oregon law superseded the federal statute.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:

HerrGlock
07-29-2011, 04:56
It would have to be a wildly activist, left-wing court to decide in favor of the applicant/felon. 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.

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.

Bren
07-29-2011, 05:00
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.

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 Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

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.

HerrGlock
07-29-2011, 05:07
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.

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.

Bren
07-29-2011, 05:17
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.

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).

HerrGlock
07-29-2011, 05:20
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).

That might very well be the arguments. I don't know.

As I said, this one needs to get decided one way or another.

RyanBDawg
07-29-2011, 05:21
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..

Bren
07-29-2011, 05:24
At least when they enacted the prohibition of alcohol they had the decency and intelligence to make it a constitutional amendment..


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.

MrsKitty
07-29-2011, 07:37
No quotes. See the copyright sticky.

MrsKitty
07-29-2011, 07:47
No quotes. See the copyright sticky.

Wrong thread. Oops. :embarassed:

HerrGlock
07-29-2011, 07:48
Wrong thread. Oops. :embarassed:

Wow, had me confused for a minute there :supergrin:

jhoagland
07-29-2011, 15:31
Pot should be treated just like booze. Period.

unit1069
07-30-2011, 07:41
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.