Ammo For Sale

« « What happened to Colin Goddard? | Home | Philly Gun Buyback Corrupt » »

Get sick, lose your right to gun ownership

In Illinois, the proposed medical marijuana rules include a prohibition on gun ownership:

Patients who want to qualify for medical marijuana in Illinois would have to be fingerprinted for a background check and pay $150 a year — and give up their right to own a gun, state officials proposed Tuesday.

The plan outlines how adults who have any of 41 specified medical conditions, such as cancer, AIDS or complex regional pain syndrome, may apply to get a patient registry identification card to purchase medical pot.

So, get cancer and lose your right to defend yourself with the best tool available.

9 Responses to “Get sick, lose your right to gun ownership”

  1. Sigivald Says:

    We shouldn’t overstate, though.

    It’s not “get cancer and lose your rights”, it’s “get cancer, get a pot card, and lose your rights”.

    Medical marijuana can be very nice for cancer patients, but even people who could often don’t, as I understand it, from places where the programs are around.

    Further, in this case we should really blame the Feds, not strictly Illinois, since 18USC922(g)(3) makes it illegal for such a person – who is Federally an “unlawful user” of marijuana, to possess a firearm.

    (Yes, this is by any sensible standard unconstitutional in multiple ways – but the Courts are never going to throw it out on those grounds, not after Raich made Everything Interstate Commerce.

    But all Illinois is doing is using the Federal law as a [sadly, perfectly good] excuse – “enforcing existing Federal law” sells pretty good, and is in fact exactly what we have been demanding be done for years now: “enforce existing laws”.

    This just points out how bad some of the existing laws are. End the War on Drugs, repeal the Controlled Substances Act, rewrite [since Repeal won’t sell] the Gun Control Act.)

  2. Bryan S. Says:

    A re-write of the GCA would screw us over, be twice as long, and somehow make bull terriers illegal in the process.

  3. Rivrdog Says:

    State of WA did a study, found that almost ALL medical cannabis users were legally under the influence of THC and should not operate a motor vehicle.

    As far as I have read, the WA study has no serious medical challengers, only whiners who say that the MEDICAL THC limit should be higher than the RECREATIONAL THC limit, just because its MEDICAL.

    This provides a powerful argument for Illinois, which hates the 2A anyway.

    The only way this will be resolved in favor of the stoners, both medical snd recreational, is if the Feds do a complete about-face on cannabis. The Left needs the stoners, so that might happen, but if it does, it will be tied up in court for years.

  4. Paul Says:

    The 2nd Amendment, the ONLY ONE, states.. “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

    It is my understanding the word ‘infringed’ means you can’t touch it, change it, or deny anyone it’s benefits.

    No other Amendment says this and thus it is my feeling unless you are truly bonzo and in the nuthouse or in jail you have the right to own guns.

    Yes even criminals that have served their sentence should have their rights restored least it be a perpetual punishment.

    And people who a doctor as adjudged they are sane and cured should have their rights restored to.

    Used to be there was a mechanism just for that but Congress defunded it and that, to me, is WRONG.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED should mean something.

  5. Paul Kisling Says:

    I am betting this will do nothing to change the status quo. Own a gun and buy weed or grow it yourself legal or not.

  6. Josh Says:

    Being from Michigan, a state with a 5 year old med law, this really does affect people.

    We’ve got a large hunting population, about 1.5-2% of the State are registered with the program. The State lost the driving case and now have to actually prove impairment, not just mere presence in the blood. No new laws have been introduce to “correct” what the Supreme Court in Michigan ruled.

    People have been seriously ran through the ringer dealing with a new law, that directly flies in the face of Federal law. Nice to see times are changing, but people are still being prosecuted.

  7. Lyle Says:

    This is clearly a consipracy in deprivation of rights, and deprivation of rights under color of law, either of which carries criminal penalties. See 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242.

  8. muzzleblast Says:

    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro –HST

    Even in pot legal CO, the state statues reference the fed definition of “illegal” for CCW …

    “*** NOTICE ***

    By Colorado State Statute, the use of illegal drugs is a disqualifier for issuance of a concealed handgun permit. While the limited possession and conditional use of marijuana is no longer a violation of Colorado Statute, it is still a violation of United States Code. If you use, possess, cultivate or distribute marijuana, we cannot issue you a concealed handgun permit.

    If you provide false information on your permit application regarding illegal drug use or any other requested information, you can be charged with perjury pursuant to CRS 18-8-503.”

    where the Constitutional amendment clearly states that pot is to be regulated just like alcohol. Everybody is wrapped around the axle on this …

  9. Tom Servo Says:

    Here’s the thing: Illinois doesn’t even have to pass this law. Federal law already makes it a crime for an “unlawful” user of marijuana to possess firearms.

    Federal law does not recognize a legitimate use for marijuana, so any use is “unlawful” by their yardstick. While states like Colorado and Illinois can pass laws exempting their citizens from prosecution from state authorities, they are not making marijuana legal.

    Given the current misinterpretation and overzealous application of the Commerce Clause, Federal overrides any state laws on this matter. That has to change before anything else really can.