User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 12:49:13 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure how I can explain it to you or anyone else who fails to understand American Federalism on such a basic and necessary level. There is no constitutional requirement for any State to pass a law mirroring a Federal law. I don't know where you or anyone else are reading that, but it is in no copy of the Constitution I've ever read. The issue of the Federal government enforcing it's OWN laws has exactly NOTHING to do with whether any particular State has equivalent laws. I don't know how plainer I can say it. If you want to complain about the Feds not enforcing Federal law, fine. But to argue that the States have some kind of duty to ban whatever the Federal government bans is patently idiotic and completely misses the entire POINT of having States or a Federal system in the first place. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I view the Feds not enforcing drug laws the same as not enforcing immigration laws. If we allow the federal government to cherry pick what laws the want to ignore or enforce then the laws and the Constitution will become worthless. Congress needs to change the law, the Administration shouldn't be telling law enforcement to selectively ignore established law as a work around. Wouldn't it be hypocritical for one to be against Obama's actions on immigration yet support his actions on marijuana? It's the same tactic, if he has the power to ignore one law they can ignore any of them. I'm pro-legalization but I also support these states trying to make the Feds do the job they are obligated and funded to do. Well said, that is why this lawsuit is a good idea. It will force the fed govs hand and make the US Supreme court make a ruling. This will set precedent for many other state rights issues. States have been controlled many times by US Supreme Court rulings where they have made laws less strict and the federal government has made rulings to the states that those laws are unconstitutional. The current administration choosing which laws they will and won't enforce is anarchy. I look forward to the ruling on this one. I would think the Supreme Court would have to rule that the states that have legalized Marijuana is unconstitutional since it is illegal federally. If the Supreme Court rules the states marijuana legalization as constitutional, then hold on it is going to be wide open for many, many other things. I quit. Why? This isn't civics, this is basic Constitutional Law 101, though it seems that there are several that do not understand state law vs. federal law. I'm not sure how I can explain it to you or anyone else who fails to understand American Federalism on such a basic and necessary level. There is no constitutional requirement for any State to pass a law mirroring a Federal law. I don't know where you or anyone else are reading that, but it is in no copy of the Constitution I've ever read. The issue of the Federal government enforcing it's OWN laws has exactly NOTHING to do with whether any particular State has equivalent laws. I don't know how plainer I can say it. If you want to complain about the Feds not enforcing Federal law, fine. But to argue that the States have some kind of duty to ban whatever the Federal government bans is patently idiotic and completely misses the entire POINT of having States or a Federal system in the first place. Where did I post that? I have stated that States cannot pass laws that are less restrictive than Federal Law. There is case law after case law that goes over these issues. That is what makes Marijuana legalized by some states so interesting. The states legalized something that is illegal under federal law. Due to past case law that should not stand. The feds choosing to ignore this is setting a very bad precedent. We are a nation of laws. For a President and his AG to choose what laws they want to enforce is as I already stated, Anarchy. What if a state decided to pass legislation that legalized Opium? Would the federal gov. stand by and allow the state to grow/harvest poppy plants? Marijuana is illegal under federal law just as Opium is is. As I posted the federal government is setting a very bad precedent by allowing this. I say good job to Nebraska and Oklahoma for calling out this issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 12:54:17 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 12:55:44 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where did I post that? I have stated that States cannot pass laws that are less restrictive than Federal Law. There is case law after case law that goes over these issues. That is what makes Marijuana legalized by some states so interesting. The states legalized something that is illegal under federal law. Due to past case law that should not stand. The feds choosing to ignore this is setting a very bad precedent. We are a nation of laws. For a President and his AG to choose what laws they want to enforce is as I already stated, Anarchy. What if a state decided to pass legislation that legalized Opium? Would the federal gov. stand by and allow the state to grow/harvest poppy plants? Marijuana is illegal under federal law just as Opium is is. As I posted the federal government is setting a very bad precedent by allowing this. I say good job to Nebraska and Oklahoma for calling out this issue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure how I can explain it to you or anyone else who fails to understand American Federalism on such a basic and necessary level. There is no constitutional requirement for any State to pass a law mirroring a Federal law. I don't know where you or anyone else are reading that, but it is in no copy of the Constitution I've ever read. The issue of the Federal government enforcing it's OWN laws has exactly NOTHING to do with whether any particular State has equivalent laws. I don't know how plainer I can say it. If you want to complain about the Feds not enforcing Federal law, fine. But to argue that the States have some kind of duty to ban whatever the Federal government bans is patently idiotic and completely misses the entire POINT of having States or a Federal system in the first place. Where did I post that? I have stated that States cannot pass laws that are less restrictive than Federal Law. There is case law after case law that goes over these issues. That is what makes Marijuana legalized by some states so interesting. The states legalized something that is illegal under federal law. Due to past case law that should not stand. The feds choosing to ignore this is setting a very bad precedent. We are a nation of laws. For a President and his AG to choose what laws they want to enforce is as I already stated, Anarchy. What if a state decided to pass legislation that legalized Opium? Would the federal gov. stand by and allow the state to grow/harvest poppy plants? Marijuana is illegal under federal law just as Opium is is. As I posted the federal government is setting a very bad precedent by allowing this. I say good job to Nebraska and Oklahoma for calling out this issue. I may as well have posted a picture of a kitten with a pancake on it's head. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 12:55:44 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where did I post that? I have stated that States cannot pass laws that are less restrictive than Federal Law. There is case law after case law that goes over these issues. That is what makes Marijuana legalized by some states so interesting. The states legalized something that is illegal under federal law. Due to past case law that should not stand. The feds choosing to ignore this is setting a very bad precedent. We are a nation of laws. For a President and his AG to choose what laws they want to enforce is as I already stated, Anarchy. What if a state decided to pass legislation that legalized Opium? Would the federal gov. stand by and allow the state to grow/harvest poppy plants? Marijuana is illegal under federal law just as Opium is is. As I posted the federal government is setting a very bad precedent by allowing this. I say good job to Nebraska and Oklahoma for calling out this issue. What if the states said "Fuck the NFA" and declared it null and void in that state? Would they be setting a bad precedent by allowing the manufacture and possession of NFA items in that state, if they never left the state? If you don't like guns, just insert whatever you find fun in that scenario. I assume you've had fun before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 12:56:25 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess Colorado should keep its pot in Colorado. DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!!!!!!! "Marty, tell our contestant what he's won????" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 12:56:46 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? So now it has to be enumerated in the Constitution or BoR... Barry, is that you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 12:56:58 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Show us in the constitution where having children is a protected right. Oh, were you seriously arguing that the Federal government had the constitutional authority to regulate EVERY HUMAN ACTIVITY that it wasn't explicitly forbidden to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:01:00 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show us in the constitution where having children is a protected right. Oh, were you seriously arguing that the Federal government had the constitutional authority to regulate EVERY HUMAN ACTIVITY that it wasn't explicitly forbidden to? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Show us in the constitution where having children is a protected right. Oh, were you seriously arguing that the Federal government had the constitutional authority to regulate EVERY HUMAN ACTIVITY that it wasn't explicitly forbidden to? People were having children in the 1700's, all willy nilly. It wasn't until the 1900's that the religious right, brewers and distillers, and big cotton informed us of how dangerous children could be. Then only jazz musicians and migrant farmers had children. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:18:58 AM EDT
[#9]
Can't let any extra freedom exist without federal approval.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:22:26 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The sob stories from all the western NE sheriffs have been hilarious guess they can dry their tears with new MRAPs or something Haven't heard anything out of my county. It's not like anyone west of Grand Island has any pull in Lincoln. Unicameral setup sucks. http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/with-pot-legal-in-colorado-western-nebraska-police-appeal-for/article_d8b5a84a-9449-5439-9e25-e953addc72f7.html The "skyrocketing" of the arrests in the map in your link are staggering. How will we ever survive? We're gonna have to close down the schools to fund the drug warriors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:23:31 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So successful country on earth has legal drugs. Fuck Marijuana and libertarians The U.S. does. Specifically, Colorado. A state with a booming economy in oil & gas, software, biotech, and clean tech. 5th in Venture Capital investments and rising fast. I know that you probably picture this whole state like some drug addled back alley full of used marihuana needles and all that, but it's really not any different than it was before legalization. Well, except for a whole shitload of tax revenue and a few plain additional store fronts here and there. Kind of like gun shops and adult bookstores, some people consider them a scourge. The rest of us don't really care, and certainly don't spend our days gnashing our teeth about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:24:30 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I may as well have posted a picture of a kitten with a pancake on it's head. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure how I can explain it to you or anyone else who fails to understand American Federalism on such a basic and necessary level. There is no constitutional requirement for any State to pass a law mirroring a Federal law. I don't know where you or anyone else are reading that, but it is in no copy of the Constitution I've ever read. The issue of the Federal government enforcing it's OWN laws has exactly NOTHING to do with whether any particular State has equivalent laws. I don't know how plainer I can say it. If you want to complain about the Feds not enforcing Federal law, fine. But to argue that the States have some kind of duty to ban whatever the Federal government bans is patently idiotic and completely misses the entire POINT of having States or a Federal system in the first place. Where did I post that? I have stated that States cannot pass laws that are less restrictive than Federal Law. There is case law after case law that goes over these issues. That is what makes Marijuana legalized by some states so interesting. The states legalized something that is illegal under federal law. Due to past case law that should not stand. The feds choosing to ignore this is setting a very bad precedent. We are a nation of laws. For a President and his AG to choose what laws they want to enforce is as I already stated, Anarchy. What if a state decided to pass legislation that legalized Opium? Would the federal gov. stand by and allow the state to grow/harvest poppy plants? Marijuana is illegal under federal law just as Opium is is. As I posted the federal government is setting a very bad precedent by allowing this. I say good job to Nebraska and Oklahoma for calling out this issue. I may as well have posted a picture of a kitten with a pancake on it's head. Post it. I don't think he even understands what the discussion is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:24:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Amendment 9 Amendment 10 See also the Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:26:11 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!!!!!!! "Marty, tell our contestant what he's won????" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I guess Colorado should keep its pot in Colorado. DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!!!!!!! "Marty, tell our contestant what he's won????" Nothing. It's not one state's responsibility to enforce another state's law. See how freedom and a republic can be scary, messy and confusing? Dictatorships are so much more orderly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:27:16 AM EDT
[#15]
WOW! So much for nullification?
I guess the AGs of those states are in the pockets of oxy manufacturers |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:29:16 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is one of those rare instances where the Commerce Clause was actually supposed to be used, to stop trade and economic disputes between state governments. CO MJ is for CO only. So MT has a law saying that federal gun laws are null in their state for "montanna only" marked firearms b/c they are prohibited form leaving the state and not appicable to interstate commerce clause. Do you see what you are giving up in terms of limiting gov power (read freedom) by agreeing to this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:30:19 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a father I'm torn between the legalization of MJ, and the true dangers that exist when it is legalized. I know it is a great drug for many health issues, that dangerous drugs are often prescribed for. But, legalization in its current form is abusive, and does nothing to regulate the drug in a manner which avoids such abuses by those that simply want to avoid the legal consequences of possession. These two states I believe are simply trying to protect their borders from a massive infusion of legalized, illegally obtained marijuana. I've seen how easy it is to get the drug in Colorado, and the increase of school age kids smoking it, because it's easier to obtain now via illegal methods; ie stealing a little of their parents legal weed, legal buyers selling it, etc... I'm truly torn, I love cutting the head off of the cartels (which legalization won't do). I'm for legitimate use for those with health afflictions. I just hate the massive abuses by xbox commando's, thugs, hippies, and the like. I just hate that it's easier for kids to get, which has been proven in California, Washington, and Colorado. Grammar Nazi's be damned, I didn't spell or grammar check it for mistakes. I suspect that our children are more in danger of haing their lives ruined by the WOD than by MJ. Choose: "My son was arrested for possession, got kicked out of college, probably will never get a good paying job now, will always struggle to support a family etc" vs "my son is eating too many cheetos lately" |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:30:28 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WOW! So much for nullification? I guess the AGs of those states are in the pockets of oxy manufacturers Colorado has not nullified Federal law within Colorado. This is not a nullification issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:31:11 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? It doesn't work like that, "if it's not specifically allowed then it's prohibited" is not how our Country runs. Show me where travel is a protected right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:36:05 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It doesn't work like that, "if it's not specifically allowed then it's prohibited" is not how our Country runs. Show me where travel is a protected right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? It doesn't work like that, "if it's not specifically allowed then it's prohibited" is not how our Country runs. Show me where travel is a protected right. sort of the 9th amendment. But your point that "that which is not prohibited is permitted" as you stated as an institution of law in the anglosphere is more to the point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:37:06 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? This guy's vote is worth as much as yours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:40:25 AM EDT
[#22]
MYOB
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:41:42 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Colorado has not nullified Federal law within Colorado. This is not a nullification issue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
WOW! So much for nullification? I guess the AGs of those states are in the pockets of oxy manufacturers Colorado has not nullified Federal law within Colorado. This is not a nullification issue. yes, colarado has sort of nullified fed law in its borders. Of course, a team of out of state feds can still swoop in, raid/sieze/arrest at a whim. Even if CO passed a law making it illegal for the feds to do that, as MO made them enforcing fed gun laws a felony, the feds would just get their cases removed to federal courst at which point the charges would be dimissed by the bench and the feds would walk. My point to KS and NB is that they are shooting themselves in the foot for such a itme as they may want to exercise nullification, and generally ruining it for the rest of us. Sadly, I fear this will go the way of filburn. Ultimately, letting a branch of the federal gov decide its powers is a fatal conflict of interest and there needs to be another way that the states can limit the fed gov's power or all is lost for everyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:46:40 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yes, colarado has sort of nullified fed law in its borders. Of course, a team of out of state feds can still swoop in, raid/sieze/arrest at a whim. Even if CO passed a law making it illegal for the feds to do that, as MO made them enforcing fed gun laws a felony, the feds would just get their cases removed to federal courst at which point the charges would be dimissed by the bench and the feds would walk. My point to KS and NB is that they are shooting themselves in the foot for such a itme as they may want to exercise nullification, and generally ruining it for the rest of us. Sadly, I fear this will go the way of filburn. Ultimately, letting a branch of the federal gov decide its powers is a fatal conflict of interest and there needs to be another way that the states can limit the fed gov's power or all is lost for everyone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WOW! So much for nullification? I guess the AGs of those states are in the pockets of oxy manufacturers Colorado has not nullified Federal law within Colorado. This is not a nullification issue. yes, colarado has sort of nullified fed law in its borders. Of course, a team of out of state feds can still swoop in, raid/sieze/arrest at a whim. Even if CO passed a law making it illegal for the feds to do that, as MO made them enforcing fed gun laws a felony, the feds would just get their cases removed to federal courst at which point the charges would be dimissed by the bench and the feds would walk. My point to KS and NB is that they are shooting themselves in the foot for such a itme as they may want to exercise nullification, and generally ruining it for the rest of us. Sadly, I fear this will go the way of filburn. Ultimately, letting a branch of the federal gov decide its powers is a fatal conflict of interest and there needs to be another way that the states can limit the fed gov's power or all is lost for everyone. The abbreviation for Nebraska is NE, not NB. You typed a whole bunch of words, used semi decent punctuation, and really tried to look smart... All of that fucked up by a stupid fucking abbreviation mistake. Get your fucking shit together. Oh, and try and figure out who runs shit. Does the federal gov't run the states and the people?....Or....Do the people and the states run the federal gov't? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:47:09 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if the states said "Fuck the NFA" and declared it null and void in that state? Would they be setting a bad precedent by allowing the manufacture and possession of NFA items in that state, if they never left the state? If you don't like guns, just insert whatever you find fun in that scenario. I assume you've had fun before. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Where did I post that? I have stated that States cannot pass laws that are less restrictive than Federal Law. There is case law after case law that goes over these issues. That is what makes Marijuana legalized by some states so interesting. The states legalized something that is illegal under federal law. Due to past case law that should not stand. The feds choosing to ignore this is setting a very bad precedent. We are a nation of laws. For a President and his AG to choose what laws they want to enforce is as I already stated, Anarchy. What if a state decided to pass legislation that legalized Opium? Would the federal gov. stand by and allow the state to grow/harvest poppy plants? Marijuana is illegal under federal law just as Opium is is. As I posted the federal government is setting a very bad precedent by allowing this. I say good job to Nebraska and Oklahoma for calling out this issue. What if the states said "Fuck the NFA" and declared it null and void in that state? Would they be setting a bad precedent by allowing the manufacture and possession of NFA items in that state, if they never left the state? If you don't like guns, just insert whatever you find fun in that scenario. I assume you've had fun before. Kansas did exactly that. Guess who came knocking! http://www.khi.org/news/2014/jul/10/brady-group-sues-over-kansas-law-voiding-federal-g/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 1:52:45 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kansas did exactly that. Guess who came knocking! http://www.khi.org/news/2014/jul/10/brady-group-sues-over-kansas-law-voiding-federal-g/ I'd make a smartassed comment about this, but since a number of arfcommers have come out in support of the Brady position in threads about those state laws, I'm just going to have another bourbon instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:14:40 AM EDT
[#27]
A lawsuit isn't really punishment. Sending their cheerleaders across the border, otoh...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:23:27 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? The constitution doesn't grant rights to the people, it restricts the power of the federal government shit for brains. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:35:41 AM EDT
[#29]
how do they have standing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:37:21 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The abbreviation for Nebraska is NE, not NB. You typed a whole bunch of words, used semi decent punctuation, and really tried to look smart... All of that fucked up by a stupid fucking abbreviation mistake. Get your fucking shit together. Oh, and try and figure out who runs shit. Does the federal gov't run the states and the people?....Or....Do the people and the states run the federal gov't? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WOW! So much for nullification? I guess the AGs of those states are in the pockets of oxy manufacturers Colorado has not nullified Federal law within Colorado. This is not a nullification issue. yes, colarado has sort of nullified fed law in its borders. Of course, a team of out of state feds can still swoop in, raid/sieze/arrest at a whim. Even if CO passed a law making it illegal for the feds to do that, as MO made them enforcing fed gun laws a felony, the feds would just get their cases removed to federal courst at which point the charges would be dimissed by the bench and the feds would walk. My point to KS and NB is that they are shooting themselves in the foot for such a itme as they may want to exercise nullification, and generally ruining it for the rest of us. Sadly, I fear this will go the way of filburn. Ultimately, letting a branch of the federal gov decide its powers is a fatal conflict of interest and there needs to be another way that the states can limit the fed gov's power or all is lost for everyone. The abbreviation for Nebraska is NE, not NB. You typed a whole bunch of words, used semi decent punctuation, and really tried to look smart... All of that fucked up by a stupid fucking abbreviation mistake. Get your fucking shit together. Oh, and try and figure out who runs shit. Does the federal gov't run the states and the people?....Or....Do the people and the states run the federal gov't? lol, yes, NE, thanks. filburn, iirc, was the USC case about the farmer groing wheat for his own consumption. Pretty much blew the commerce clause wide fucking open. otherwise I dont' understand the thrust of your post. Who should run things? The states and the people. Who does? The feds. Also, that MO bill making it a felony for feds to enforce the NFA in their state, I don't know if it was ever actually passed. I don't think so. But it is getting at the direction that we need to head by sort acknowledging, if symbolically only, the fact that force will be required to limit other force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:38:07 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a father I'm torn between the legalization of MJ, and the true dangers that exist when it is legalized. I know it is a great drug for many health issues, that dangerous drugs are often prescribed for. But, legalization in its current form is abusive, and does nothing to regulate the drug in a manner which avoids such abuses by those that simply want to avoid the legal consequences of possession. These two states I believe are simply trying to protect their borders from a massive infusion of legalized, illegally obtained marijuana. I've seen how easy it is to get the drug in Colorado, and the increase of school age kids smoking it, because it's easier to obtain now via illegal methods; ie stealing a little of their parents legal weed, legal buyers selling it, etc... I'm truly torn, I love cutting the head off of the cartels (which legalization won't do). I'm for legitimate use for those with health afflictions. I just hate the massive abuses by xbox commando's, thugs, hippies, and the like. I just hate that it's easier for kids to get, which has been proven in California, Washington, and Colorado. Grammar Nazi's be damned, I didn't spell or grammar check it for mistakes. Got it. You had children, so fuck other peoples freedoms. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:38:50 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
how do they have standing? b/c entrepreneurs are...transporting drugs across state lines, in defiance of NE, KS CO and federal laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:39:52 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got it. You had children, so fuck other peoples freedoms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As a father I'm torn between the legalization of MJ, and the true dangers that exist when it is legalized. I know it is a great drug for many health issues, that dangerous drugs are often prescribed for. But, legalization in its current form is abusive, and does nothing to regulate the drug in a manner which avoids such abuses by those that simply want to avoid the legal consequences of possession. These two states I believe are simply trying to protect their borders from a massive infusion of legalized, illegally obtained marijuana. I've seen how easy it is to get the drug in Colorado, and the increase of school age kids smoking it, because it's easier to obtain now via illegal methods; ie stealing a little of their parents legal weed, legal buyers selling it, etc... I'm truly torn, I love cutting the head off of the cartels (which legalization won't do). I'm for legitimate use for those with health afflictions. I just hate the massive abuses by xbox commando's, thugs, hippies, and the like. I just hate that it's easier for kids to get, which has been proven in California, Washington, and Colorado. Grammar Nazi's be damned, I didn't spell or grammar check it for mistakes. Got it. You had children, so fuck other peoples freedoms. hey, he wants freedom, just not for those other people |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:40:37 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As a father I'm torn between the legalization of MJ, and the true dangers that exist when it is legalized. I know it is a great drug for many health issues, that dangerous drugs are often prescribed for. But, legalization in its current form is abusive, and does nothing to regulate the drug in a manner which avoids such abuses by those that simply want to avoid the legal consequences of possession. These two states I believe are simply trying to protect their borders from a massive infusion of legalized, illegally obtained marijuana. I've seen how easy it is to get the drug in Colorado, and the increase of school age kids smoking it, because it's easier to obtain now via illegal methods; ie stealing a little of their parents legal weed, legal buyers selling it, etc... I'm truly torn, I love cutting the head off of the cartels (which legalization won't do). I'm for legitimate use for those with health afflictions. I just hate the massive abuses by xbox commando's, thugs, hippies, and the like. I just hate that it's easier for kids to get, which has been proven in California, Washington, and Colorado. Grammar Nazi's be damned, I didn't spell or grammar check it for mistakes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 2:47:08 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Fail |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:10:54 AM EDT
[#36]
So much anger on here about freedom?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:14:26 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your example would make sense if 30 round mags were illegal under federal law and the ATF and federal prosecutors were turning a blind eye. So, how exactly is the controlled substances act constitutional, when they needed a constitutional amendment to ban intoxicating beverages at the federal level? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe California should sue Arizona to force us to adopt their gun laws. No!No! Arizona's liberal gun laws make trouble for California cops trying to keep 30 round mags out of the state so the Federal government must make Arizona comply with California gun laws! And then New Mexico because New Mexico is next to Arizona and they can just pass through AZ to get to CA, and then Texas and so forth. So, how exactly is the controlled substances act constitutional, when they needed a constitutional amendment to ban intoxicating beverages at the federal level? This is the question that the drug warriors cant or wont even seem to answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:18:05 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apologies from a Nebraskan. Love Nebraska and the people that live there. Nicest people on the planet. I blame any problem in Nebraska on Omaha. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:22:03 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is one of those rare instances where the Commerce Clause was actually supposed to be used, to stop trade and economic disputes between state governments. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:25:55 AM EDT
[#40]
This whole thing makes me ashamed to be such a proponent of the GOP. Damn it. I have lived, been stationed in, and still frequently visit the great state of Colorado and someday hope to retire there. Was just out there last week and ranged from Ft. Collins to Longmont, up to Nederland and over to Estes Park and saw no damage from a law the people voted on. I smuggled a 12 pack of beer back from Odell's brewery and had to pass through a Nebraska State Patrol "registration and license" checkpoint....made it. It was far more annoying than this legal weed in Co. that has the GOP upset. Pretty bad when my wife and I are getting pissed at the GOP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:33:11 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It absolutely amazes me that a lot of the people on here think it would be perfectly fine to throw someone in prison for smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home, but get outraged when someone wants to throw them in prison for having "assault rifles" and "high capacity magazines". I don't think most people in this country (including here) understand freedom anymore. Show us in the constitution where smoking dope is a protected right? Show us in Article I, Section 8 where Congress has any authority over smoking dope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:38:45 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This is one of those rare instances where the Commerce Clause was actually supposed to be used, to stop trade and economic disputes between state governments. This. eh, the purpose of the CC is to make amaerica a free trade zone, not to empower the feds to dicatate a state's laws b/c another state doesn't like smuggling. Its not like CO has an offical state policy to push drugs over their borders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:45:05 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This whole thing makes me ashamed to be such a proponent of the GOP. Damn it. I have lived, been stationed in, and still frequently visit the great state of Colorado and someday hope to retire there. Was just out there last week and ranged from Ft. Collins to Longmont, up to Nederland and over to Estes Park and saw no damage from a law the people voted on. I smuggled a 12 pack of beer back from Odell's brewery and had to pass through a Nebraska State Patrol "registration and license" checkpoint....made it. It was far more annoying than this legal weed in Co. that has the GOP upset. Pretty bad when my wife and I are getting pissed at the GOP. Well, congrats. You're not one of the Colorado taxpayers who are seeing their tax money get spent on EBT cards that are used at ATMs outside of weed shops. Free weed with EBT has brought over such a fine class of hard working people into this state, and I can bet what party they'll vote for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:48:16 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, congrats. You're not one of the Colorado taxpayers who are seeing their tax money get spent on EBT cards that are used at ATMs outside of weed shops. Free weed with EBT has brought over such a fine class of hard working people into this state, and I can bet what party they'll vote for. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This whole thing makes me ashamed to be such a proponent of the GOP. Damn it. I have lived, been stationed in, and still frequently visit the great state of Colorado and someday hope to retire there. Was just out there last week and ranged from Ft. Collins to Longmont, up to Nederland and over to Estes Park and saw no damage from a law the people voted on. I smuggled a 12 pack of beer back from Odell's brewery and had to pass through a Nebraska State Patrol "registration and license" checkpoint....made it. It was far more annoying than this legal weed in Co. that has the GOP upset. Pretty bad when my wife and I are getting pissed at the GOP. Well, congrats. You're not one of the Colorado taxpayers who are seeing their tax money get spent on EBT cards that are used at ATMs outside of weed shops. Free weed with EBT has brought over such a fine class of hard working people into this state, and I can bet what party they'll vote for. Maybe you should focus your efforts on eliminating government handouts, instead of crying about people buying and selling a particular commodity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:50:50 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe you should focus your efforts on eliminating government handouts, instead of crying about people buying and selling a particular commodity. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This whole thing makes me ashamed to be such a proponent of the GOP. Damn it. I have lived, been stationed in, and still frequently visit the great state of Colorado and someday hope to retire there. Was just out there last week and ranged from Ft. Collins to Longmont, up to Nederland and over to Estes Park and saw no damage from a law the people voted on. I smuggled a 12 pack of beer back from Odell's brewery and had to pass through a Nebraska State Patrol "registration and license" checkpoint....made it. It was far more annoying than this legal weed in Co. that has the GOP upset. Pretty bad when my wife and I are getting pissed at the GOP. Well, congrats. You're not one of the Colorado taxpayers who are seeing their tax money get spent on EBT cards that are used at ATMs outside of weed shops. Free weed with EBT has brought over such a fine class of hard working people into this state, and I can bet what party they'll vote for. Maybe you should focus your efforts on eliminating government handouts, instead of crying about people buying and selling a particular commodity. Ain't gonna happen. The entire federal and state government is based on a quid pro quo of handouts for votes. And all the weed did was bring more liberal garbage into this state. At least the Denver libtards are drowning in aggressive homeless that have flooded the city, serves them right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:54:23 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ain't gonna happen. The entire federal and state government is based on a quid pro quo of handouts for votes. And all the weed did was bring more liberal garbage into this state. At least the Denver libtards are drowning in aggressive homeless that have flooded the city, serves them right. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This whole thing makes me ashamed to be such a proponent of the GOP. Damn it. I have lived, been stationed in, and still frequently visit the great state of Colorado and someday hope to retire there. Was just out there last week and ranged from Ft. Collins to Longmont, up to Nederland and over to Estes Park and saw no damage from a law the people voted on. I smuggled a 12 pack of beer back from Odell's brewery and had to pass through a Nebraska State Patrol "registration and license" checkpoint....made it. It was far more annoying than this legal weed in Co. that has the GOP upset. Pretty bad when my wife and I are getting pissed at the GOP. Well, congrats. You're not one of the Colorado taxpayers who are seeing their tax money get spent on EBT cards that are used at ATMs outside of weed shops. Free weed with EBT has brought over such a fine class of hard working people into this state, and I can bet what party they'll vote for. Maybe you should focus your efforts on eliminating government handouts, instead of crying about people buying and selling a particular commodity. Ain't gonna happen. The entire federal and state government is based on a quid pro quo of handouts for votes. And all the weed did was bring more liberal garbage into this state. At least the Denver libtards are drowning in aggressive homeless that have flooded the city, serves them right. Well, enjoy your bigger government. Sorry it didn't grow in the areas you approve of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 3:59:21 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, enjoy your bigger government. Sorry it didn't grown in the areas you approve of. I'm hoping with the federal lawsuits and the republican legislature we can start to chip away at the marijuana industry in this state. We don't need it here. Weed=liberal trash. I've been here for 10 years and have watched the liberals fuck this place over, but honestly it was that idiot Hickenlooper that did the most damage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:03:40 AM EDT
[#48]
These threads always bring out the closet statists, sure as anything having to do with the NSA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:07:12 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Kansas joined, that would the height of hypocrisy. They couldn't make a more retarded move. Pass the Firearms Freedom Act declaring federal firearms laws null and void for any firearms manufactured in the state, including most NFA items, and make it a felony for any LEO to enforce a federal law regarding firearms. Then sue a neighboring state for nullifying a federal law. Brilliant! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Ha Ha I hope Kansas joins in too! If Kansas joined, that would the height of hypocrisy. They couldn't make a more retarded move. Pass the Firearms Freedom Act declaring federal firearms laws null and void for any firearms manufactured in the state, including most NFA items, and make it a felony for any LEO to enforce a federal law regarding firearms. Then sue a neighboring state for nullifying a federal law. Brilliant! Just curious. Is anybody manufacturing machineguns or anything like that under the FFA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2014 4:09:24 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Show us in the constitution where having children is a protected right. It's not. But bearing arms is a protected right. Congress could pass a law restricting your family to one child just like China, and there would be little constitutional grounds to overturn it. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
