MARIJUANA LAWS NEW TOOL TO BAN GUN OWNERSHIP Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/marijuana-laws

[ANADRILL]

http://www.revereradionetwork.com/#post/2073

I replied to a thread here a year ago making the same argument...With all the scanning of IDs at local pot shops, how long before the feds come in and start denying people the right to bear arms? To me it seems like the perfect tool for disarming unknowing people. Buya sack, its crosschecked next time you buy a gun, tada no more guns for you...

[Dave_L]

I didn't think they were scanning IDs at pot shops? :shrugs: Don't do it and you don't have to worry about this. Are the risks worth the rewards?

[ANADRILL]

I am just saying my reply was laughed at a year ago as not possible, but now it could be a reality.

[jackthewall81]

I'm not to concerned. Seeing as I will never step foot in a shop because I don't have a need for marijuana.

[Gman]

I'm not to concerned. Seeing as I will never step foot in a shop because I don't have a need for marijuana.
Problem solved.

[ANADRILL]

Plenty of gun owners unknowingly will though, which will decrease the numbers of gun owners in the state...The problem is that its another tool of disarmament. Sure it doesnt affect us directly, but when our ranks begin to decrease, then we loose our power. Time will tell how this will all turn out,but I honestly think this was a calculated move to disarm the masses in Colorado..

[Dave_L]

I honestly think this was a calculated move to disarm the masses in Colorado..

I agree with that part of it. It gets more dems to move here (generally speaking), will give them a very easy way to take away people's guns, and people were excited for it. Win/win/win for politicians.

People already knowingly answer "yes" to the marijuana question on firearm applications, get denied and then act surprised when it happens. Any person with a brain would understand that going into a pot shop is probably a bad idea if you want to retain your guns. At least until it's federally approved but that's a ways off, if ever. Why make it federally legal when it *could* be the quickest way to remove guns from people? I feel that between this and obamacare, a lot of "mental health" concerns will be used for the removal of guns from people.

Tread lightly.

[Zundfolge]

It gets more dems to move here.

This is why even though I support mj legalization in principal, I voted against it for CO before a lot of other states legalized it (or better yet it started at the Federal level by removing it from Schedule I of the CSA).

More Democrats means more gun control. Period.

[BlasterBob]

4473 asks, "are you an UNLAWFUL user, blah, blah, blah". Might be legal in Colorado but apparently still ILLEGAL to the Feds.

[merl]

So have you asked your rep to support the bill Polis has been talking about (has he even submitted it?)

[ANADRILL]

I don't support it, just worried about the ramifications of the shit storm that could take place...

[Zundfolge]

Honestly I think its the Colorado Pot Shop owners that have the most to worry about, all the DEA has to do one day is decide to start seizing homes, bank accounts and businesses from legal pot shop owners and there's not a damn thing that can be done to stop it.

[Bailey Guns]

http://www.revereradionetwork.com/#post/2073

I replied to a thread here a year ago making the same argument...With all the scanning of IDs at local pot shops, how long before the feds come in and start denying people the right to bear arms? To me it seems like the perfect tool for disarming unknowing people. Buya sack, its crosschecked next time you buy a gun, tada no more guns for you...

Hate to bust your bubble but nothing has changed. If you were a user of marijuana before this law went into effect it was illegal for you to own, transfer, purchase or possess firearms or ammunition. Period.

If you're using marijuana now, even in Colorado, it's still illegal for you to own, transfer, purchase or possess firearms or ammunition. Period.

Nothing has changed. And if you're not familiar with the laws regarding gun ownership or the laws (and consequences) regarding using drugs, it's nobody's fault but your own.

And I've only heard rumors of ID scanning at pot shops. From what I understand, they're not doing that. They're looking at IDs to verify age/residency. It's my understanding there's no database that gets crosschecked for buying MJ when someone buys a gun. They have to do that checking on an individual, case by case basis. Not saying it couldn't be done, but I don't think it is.

ETA: And if they are maintaining a database of MJ users/buyers? Well...at least that's one federal database my name won't be found in.

[Great-Kazoo]

I am just saying my reply was laughed at a year ago as not possible, but now it could be a reality.

If you search you'd see my post , regarding the feds and viewing MMJ permits. Which are NOT HIPA protected.

[jackthewall81]

I honestly don't think most concerned gun owners (like the users on this site) will be going into pot shops regularly purchasing weed. 2A>weed. Not worth breaking federal law and losing your 2A rights.

[nynco]

For those who think this does not matter:

The more people that the gov finds excuses to take away their constitutional 2nd Amendment rights = less gun owners. Less gun owners = the end of the 2nd Amendment.

First they came for the medical pot users. I was not a pot user so I did not speak up.
Then they came for the.... but I did not speak up because I was not one too.
Then they came for my gun rights and no one cared because next to no one had that right anymore.

[Kraven251]

For those who think this does not matter:

The more people that the gov finds excuses to take away their constitutional 2nd Amendment rights = less gun owners. Less gun owners = the end of the 2nd Amendment.

First they came for the medical pot users. I was not a pot user so I did not speak up.
Then they came for the.... but I did not speak up because I was not one too.
Then they came for my gun rights and no one cared because next to no one had that right anymore.

Except if they came for the pot users, pretty sure my vote would have more weight as there would be less of those that vote against my interests in general...and a joint typically doesn't move at 3000 fps.

[Great-Kazoo]

Honestly I think its the Colorado Pot Shop owners that have the most to worry about, all the DEA has to do one day is decide to start seizing homes, bank accounts and businesses from legal pot shop owners and there's not a damn thing that can be done to stop it.

The IRS does the seizing, under Ill-gotten Gains . Same way they did in CA. i don't "think" we will see this happen as long as Hick & dems are in control. Colorado is / will be a major battleground this and next year for the elections. The D/L/ MAIG money took a beating in 13 and wants to regain the advantage / dominance in the legislature to keep the anti gun agenda moving forward.
A loss of one battle does not mean you've lost the war.

[Bailey Guns]

For those who think this does not matter:

The more people that the gov finds excuses to take away their constitutional 2nd Amendment rights = less gun owners. Less gun owners = the end of the 2nd Amendment.

I don't think anyone has said "it doesn't matter".

[T-Giv]

I'm not to concerned. Seeing as I will never step foot in a shop because I don't have a need for marijuana.

There is no "need" for Marijuana. Bunch of hyped up bullshit that that society has created as an excuse to be a limp-docked piece of shit couch potato and smoke doobies all day for healing of your "chronic ailments". I don't feel strongly about it at all though.

[Skip]

Hate to bust your bubble but nothing has changed. If you were a user of marijuana before this law went into effect it was illegal for you to own, transfer, purchase or possess firearms or ammunition. Period.

If you're using marijuana now, even in Colorado, it's still illegal for you to own, transfer, purchase or possess firearms or ammunition. Period.

Nothing has changed. And if you're not familiar with the laws regarding gun ownership or the laws (and consequences) regarding using drugs, it's nobody's fault but your own.

And I've only heard rumors of ID scanning at pot shops. From what I understand, they're not doing that. They're looking at IDs to verify age/residency. It's my understanding there's no database that gets crosschecked for buying MJ when someone buys a gun. They have to do that checking on an individual, case by case basis. Not saying it couldn't be done, but I don't think it is.

ETA: And if they are maintaining a database of MJ users/buyers? Well...at least that's one federal database my name won't be found in.

+1

But here's something that worries me...

What if your name is in that database. How can you prove that you didn't buy/use? It's a cash business so it's not like the absence of a $400 credit card charge works in your favor. And how many of us take more than $400 out of the bank in cash to avoid the ATMs (that are unsafe and generally inconvenient)?

Then there's those of us with addresses one digit off from a LE target. If you, who are an upstanding, law-abiding citizen, hears your door crash in at 3:00AM, what do you do? I know what I do and it means one or more persons (probably myself included) is leaving my home in a bag.

And now there are blood draws for DUI suspects. PC for which is highly subjective. Yeah, I know, don't be out driving late but sometimes that can't be avoided. What do they do with this blood? Are they going to take DNA and now there is another whole database we have to worry about? Liberals have been pushing for DNA collection from suspects for a couple of years now.

I'm not opposed to legalization in principal, just a lot of stuff here that has me scratching my head. Colorado was a test state for a lot of things; mainly turning a red state blue through change. Liberals signaled that by putting their convention here. Ironically, I don't see Amendment 64 being on the side of Liberty and believe it will work more against us.

I also just see things lining up to the point that "government" can remove inconvenient people from society. I know that sounds tin foilish but it's wholly consistent with history. They have the authority (legitimate or not), tools, and knowledge (data). I don't see the Obama Regime being responsible with this power (IRS, NSA, etc...). I don't even see Hickenlooper being responsible with this power.

[ANADRILL]

For those who think this does not matter:

The more people that the gov finds excuses to take away their constitutional 2nd Amendment rights = less gun owners. Less gun owners = the end of the 2nd Amendment.

First they came for the medical pot users. I was not a pot user so I did not speak up.
Then they came for the.... but I did not speak up because I was not one too.
Then they came for my gun rights and no one cared because next to no one had that right anymore.

The point I was trying to make.

[Ronin13]

And now there are blood draws for DUI suspects. PC for which is highly subjective. Yeah, I know, don't be out driving late but sometimes that can't be avoided. What do they do with this blood? Are they going to take DNA and now there is another whole database we have to worry about? Liberals have been pushing for DNA collection from suspects for a couple of years now.
Apples and oranges here... look up "Expressed consent," I've said this before, by getting a CO driver's license, you consent to chemical testing to prove you are safe to operate a vehicle... driving is still a privilege, not a right. Can't really argue against the DNA thing, though, as they've been really pushing for that the past few years... get convicted, get your DNA put on file so it's harder for you to get away with a future crime. I see the good, but there are also plenty of cons to go with it. The whole MJ legalization is just another way they padded the 2012 election with blue votes. I fear Colorado may not be as bad as CA, yet (see Morse, Giron and Hudak recalls), but we're slowly making our way in that direction. I know if Brophy wins the gubernatorial race this year he probably won't touch 64, but will he stand between CO residents and the feds? I can't say. I also can't say if the democrat administration will push for their agents to go after their own voting base- remember, most people (not all) who support MJ legalization tend to vote democrat. Best advice I can give: You can own guns, you can smoke weed in CO, but you can't have both... which is more important to you?

[Skip]

Apples and oranges here... look up "Expressed consent," I've said this before, by getting a CO driver's license, you consent to chemical testing to prove you are safe to operate a vehicle... driving is still a privilege, not a right. Can't really argue against the DNA thing, though, as they've been really pushing for that the past few years... get convicted, get your DNA put on file so it's harder for you to get away with a future crime. I see the good, but there are also plenty of cons to go with it. The whole MJ legalization is just another way they padded the 2012 election with blue votes. I fear Colorado may not be as bad as CA, yet (see Morse, Giron and Hudak recalls), but we're slowly making our way in that direction. I know if Brophy wins the gubernatorial race this year he probably won't touch 64, but will he stand between CO residents and the feds? I can't say. I also can't say if the democrat administration will push for their agents to go after their own voting base- remember, most people (not all) who support MJ legalization tend to vote democrat. Best advice I can give: You can own guns, you can smoke weed in CO, but you can't have both... which is more important to you?

I've never touched the stuff, never will. That question is easy for me to answer.

The ability to move around and travel is indeed a right. Automobiles are simply the modern way we exercise this right and modern life is impossible for 90%+ of Americans without it--specifically in the state of CO. Were folks required to a get a license to ride a horse or drive a carriage? Did folks die in accidents? Did folks "drive" drunk?

But this doesn't matter because at no point is seizing DNA data a reasonable search/seizure for a person suspected of a crime for which DNA data does not aid in the investigation of the crime. I'm not talking conviction, I'm talking suspicion/arrest. And invading a person's body to determine if they are under the influence takes it to a new level.

Yes, the slippery slope of "implied consent." Where in order to live our lives we are forced to consent and forfeit our rights. I believe the same is being done with health care, right? If we live in this country we are forced to purchase health insurance, or pay a tax penalty to which we also consent because the government declares it so.

Oh, and refuse consent and... Well, then you lose your privilege to go to work, get your kids to school, go to the grocery store, get to a doctor, etc, etc, etc.

While you have a good point on the legality of such things, I would always argue the morality. They will make everything they want legal, as every abusive government has done in history. And there will always be people who justify it, "it's the law" they will say and they'll have perfectly reasonable explanations for such things.

I'm not saying drunk drivers get a pass because I want the Fourth Amendment left intact--these things are not in conflict with reasonable searches and PC. I'm simply reflecting on the concerns that Amendment 64 has created. Where now a person is forced to get a needle in his arm because he was driving home late from a family emergency or got called into work and had "red eyes." Where our gun rights are even more fragile, not by due process, but by entries made in a database that we can neither review or dispute.

I don't think these things are as clear-cut as some of you would believe. And like I said, I have zero interest in ever doing pot (or any other illicit drug).

[Ronin13]

Where our gun rights are even more fragile, not by due process, but by entries made in a database that we can neither review or dispute.
I can't really disagree with the good points you made there- true, freedom of movement around this country is a right, the means however has been bastardized (no license, no driving- kinda shameful how our history has hamstrung the people there, but it is the way it is). As for the quoted part- that is so scary I can't begin to tell you how insane the thought of losing my RTKABA without due process is... that alone is something that goes against everything this nation was founded upon. Even more frightening, there are Americans who actually find no fault in one losing their right to bear arms without due process... [Mad]

[ANADRILL]

Damn...I didn't realize I actually agreed with NYNCO....The world must be coming to an end...

[Great-Kazoo]

Damn...I didn't realize I actually agreed with NYNCO....The world must be coming to an end...

There's no solar eclipse or locust, YET

[sellersm]

There's no solar eclipse or locust, YET

Just an asteroid... NASA says so: http://science.time.com/2014/01/09/nasa-finds-new-asteroid-headed-in-our-direction/

[ANADRILL]

ahaha

[rockhound]

And I've only heard rumors of ID scanning at pot shops. From what I understand, they're not doing that. They're looking at IDs to verify age/residency. It's my understanding there's no database that gets crosschecked for buying MJ when someone buys a gun. They have to do that checking on an individual, case by case basis. Not saying it couldn't be done, but I don't think it is.

ETA: And if they are maintaining a database of MJ users/buyers? Well...at least that's one federal database my name won't be found in.

My name wont be found on one either, although this is also a rumor, my buddy John stopped at the shop in Alma on the way home from Breck the other day, just out of curiosity.(No really he doesn't smoke) They told him they woudl swipe his driver's license and set him up with a frequent buyers plan that would save him money.

[DavieD55]

I've never touched the stuff, never will. That question is easy for me to answer.

The ability to move around and travel is indeed a right. Automobiles are simply the modern way we exercise this right and modern life is impossible for 90%+ of Americans without it--specifically in the state of CO. Were folks required to a get a license to ride a horse or drive a carriage? Did folks die in accidents? Did folks "drive" drunk?

But this doesn't matter because at no point is seizing DNA data a reasonable search/seizure for a person suspected of a crime for which DNA data does not aid in the investigation of the crime. I'm not talking conviction, I'm talking suspicion/arrest. And invading a person's body to determine if they are under the influence takes it to a new level.

Yes, the slippery slope of "implied consent." Where in order to live our lives we are forced to consent and forfeit our rights. I believe the same is being done with health care, right? If we live in this country we are forced to purchase health insurance, or pay a tax penalty to which we also consent because the government declares it so.

Oh, and refuse consent and... Well, then you lose your privilege to go to work, get your kids to school, go to the grocery store, get to a doctor, etc, etc, etc.

While you have a good point on the legality of such things, I would always argue the morality. They will make everything they want legal, as every abusive government has done in history. And there will always be people who justify it, "it's the law" they will say and they'll have perfectly reasonable explanations for such things.

I'm not saying drunk drivers get a pass because I want the Fourth Amendment left intact--these things are not in conflict with reasonable searches and PC. I'm simply reflecting on the concerns that Amendment 64 has created. Where now a person is forced to get a needle in his arm because he was driving home late from a family emergency or got called into work and had "red eyes." Where our gun rights are even more fragile, not by due process, but by entries made in a database that we can neither review or dispute.

I don't think these things are as clear-cut as some of you would believe. And like I said, I have zero interest in ever doing pot (or any other illicit drug).

You're absolutely right. X1