View Full Version : Firearms Freedom Act Legislation Across the Country
Bailey Guns
10-05-2009, 07:45
I stumbled upon an interesting article about the number of states that have either enacted, introduced or are about to introduce some sort of Firearms Freedom Act legislation similar to that recently signed into law in Montana and Tennessee.
Legislation is scheduled to be introduced in Colorado next year.
Check out the map. Encouraging? I think so. Especially in light of the pending SCOTUS case that may finally incorporate the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/10/04/pennsylvania-%E2%80%98firearms-freedom-act%E2%80%99-legislation-introduced/ (http://www.ammoland.com/2009/10/04/pennsylvania-%E2%80%98firearms-freedom-act%E2%80%99-legislation-introduced/)
As a side-note, the Montana Shooting Sports Assoc and the Second Amendment Foundation have jointly filed suit against Eric Holder (US Atty Gen) to validate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act legislation. The ATF is playing hardball so looks like this is another one going to court.
I'm hopeful the feds will soon get a clue that the states have had enough federal intrusion into their business.
DD977GM2
10-05-2009, 08:11
Just hope the retards in office with Cali leanings will actually pass this here [Rant1]
theGinsue
10-05-2009, 21:52
Just hope the retards in office with Cali leanings will actually pass this here [Rant1]
I'm hopeful too, but I won't be holding my breath for it!
I hope they are seeing what's happening out there and decide to go another route. We don't need the state to be crushed by the weight of its own bloated tax and spend government.
Is this the bill that has to do with interstate trade? If so I'd like more information about it, because I think I have a way to help get it passed.
Is this the bill that has to do with interstate trade? If so I'd like more information about it, because I think I have a way to help get it passed.
Well tell us already Mr. Sturtle!?
Well, basically it's just petitioning to all the medical marijuana dispensaries in the state. They keep having problems from being legal by the state, but then being raided by Federal Agencies. A lot of these places are just trying to be legitimate businesses, pay taxes, contribute to the community, blah, blah, blah, and even self regulate before the state jumps in with stuff that they don't like.
Since this law basically has to do with intrastate commerce, you'd think that anything produced in the state, and sold only to residents, would be both legal, and unregulated by the Feds, just like what Montana is trying to do with guns.
Right now it is difficult to get insurance for marijuana places. I guess the dispensaries can get coverage, but the growers can't due to the high fire risk. Every time I call around looking for policies, I'm either laughed off the phone (by someone who isn't in Colorado and doesn't understand what I'm talking about) or they tell me that there is a policy available, but the minimum premium is $20,000 a year and it doesn't cover ANY products/completed operations, any property, etc so it is basically a $20k a year policy to cover slip and falls. No one is going to by that.
Once the law in MT and TN go into affect next month, then we will all wait and see how the first law suit pans out, and if those states bend to the pressure of having Federal funds removed if they don't comply.
*Usually I wouldn't rely on stoners voting on anything, but since this is legitimate business owners whose livelihoods are at stake, then they are a stronger ally. Plus, they can hand out information about this to all of their customers. Of course there is the other side of them not necessarily wanting weed to take more steps in becoming legal, because then they'll risk losing their cornered market share where they can legally sell far above black market prices.
It is kind of sad when you have to convince many different small groups of people to come together to stand up for the freedoms of EVERYone, but it is what it is I guess.
I find it ironic that weed was legalized about the same time smoking was being thrown under the bus. There is also the problem that stoners are not very progun. Then tend to think left of reality. But guns and drugs were both attack by the feds in the same way taxes and regulations. Its only right that the 2 groups join efforts to fight for the same goal.
I've pointed out to gun grabbers before, that people who stand up for the 2nd Amendment, generally care about ALL the freedoms of EVERY group, while all the other groups feel comfortable picking and choosing which rights they care about. It would be extremely disappointing if the gun people had a problem with banding together with the medical marijuana people.
Plus, I don't know about you guys, but if I had a building jam packed with high grade weed, or was the grower growing that high grade weed, I'd sure be interested in looking to the gun people in showing me the ropes of self defense and security measures.
I've pointed out to gun grabbers before, that people who stand up for the 2nd Amendment, generally care about ALL the freedoms of EVERY group, while all the other groups feel comfortable picking and choosing which rights they care about. It would be extremely disappointing if the gun people had a problem with banding together with the medical marijuana people.
Plus, I don't know about you guys, but if I had a building jam packed with high grade weed, or was the grower growing that high grade weed, I'd sure be interested in looking to the gun people in showing me the ropes of self defense and security measures.
It's funny you should mention that because I have been on the 'legalize it' bandwagon since before it was popular but have never even tried it myself. I grew up around it but never felt the desire to try it. What I can see is how harmless it is aside from the crime aspect which is easily circumvented.... legalize it. Control it to make sure people aren't getting other drugs slipped in and that people aren't having to buy from criminals (criminal element) when they otherwise wouldn't be anywhere near that element. Then tax it to help the country recover from the mess our government along with all their entities to control this and watch over that have created. If someone wants to smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home who am I to care?
I agree mostly with what you said, except for the whole "tax it" BS. That is a total cop out and you know it. Taxing pot wouldn't help the government out any more than taxing Cheetos would, and the government doesn't need any more money from taxes. They need less spending. Every reason to legalize pot has to do with the potential of the private industry. Same thing with prostitution and all other drugs actually. :)
I agree mostly with what you said, except for the whole "tax it" BS. That is a total cop out and you know it. Taxing pot wouldn't help the government out any more than taxing Cheetos would, and the government doesn't need any more money from taxes. They need less spending. Every reason to legalize pot has to do with the potential of the private industry. Same thing with prostitution and all other drugs actually. :)
Good point. I guess I should have elaborated on what I meant by 'tax it' because I would like to see 100% of the $ seen from this taxation to go to education or something that has gotten over looked over the years that we can all benefit from in the long run. And the bottom line is that w/o the ability to government to realize a profit somehow and the people to benefit from it that's going to be a very difficult uphill battle.
GreenScoutII
10-07-2009, 15:56
Yeah guys, I have to agree. I'm not a pot smoker myself, but seriously, its a friggin weed! Why we waste tax dollars on prosecuting and imprisoning people over it is beyond me. Same with the severe restrictions on full-autos, or short barreled rifles, or suppressors (silencers). Its a ridiculous thought process that any of these things are so dangerous as to deserve to be banned. As far as weed is concerned, being in the trades, I know a lot of guys who smoke pot. I've never seen a guy who is stoned out of his gourd develop an attitude and want to fight every guy in the bar. Alchohol seems to have this effect frequently. The stoner just wants Taco Bell and a nap.
GunTroll
10-07-2009, 20:02
You damn hippie sympathizers! Should have known you (Sturtle) would go for this crap!
I'm an inalienable rights sympathizer!
Alcohol is legal, but it's not free.
Here is my deal with legalizing all drugs. Just because they are legal, doesn't mean that the negative social stigma will automatically be lifted from them. I think that social pressures are much stronger at discouraging people from things than laws and legislation are. Not to mention that legalized use, doesn't mean they are completely unregulated.
The more I think about it, I think we could get some good results if we did something along the lines of being able to import and federally regulate certain drugs like cocaine, acid, mushrooms, etc. This way we can require a certain level of quality, while having the local violence associated with such businesses, be located outside of our boarders. Then set up something that basically says you can't manufacture any kind of a list of drugs state side (meth, and other cheap shit made out of cleaning products). This will allow the DEA to still run around like GI Joes and bust up home operations like they do now. Possession would have next to no punishments though (like weed now).
Drugs should be legal, guns should be legal and labels should be removed from chainsaws. Let the dumbasses work themselves out. They are only good for voting democrats anyway.
GunTroll
10-08-2009, 16:42
There is more money in having drugs illegal than ever having them legal so a source of revenue isn't a good argument for the legalization of any drugs. Also having drugs illegal makes the family/church voters happy for the most part.
And drugs aren't mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution to my understanding. So it isn't inalienable right such as firearms are or should be. So, no they should remain as they are....ILLEGAL. Now on the other hand I do feel weed should be decriminalized a bit. I just feel laws are too harsh for such a substance.
I got banned from coptalk over at glocktalk for proving, with results of scientific studies, that alcohol is more addictive and more harmful than cannabis.
I never said that drugs are inalienable. I was suggesting that since firearm rights will be affected by this bill, that canvasing the dispensaries is the right thing to do.
You can't be against big government, and want drugs to stay illegal at the same time without being a hypocrite.
Lastly, illegal drugs only make more money for a select few individuals. Legalized drugs would bring much, much more money into a community than illegal ones would. I can't think of a better economic stimulus than the legalization of drugs.
why not legalize any drug like pot. I think the feds do not want to legalize it as all the money they make from locking folks up and everything else they get like kickback to all the judges uncles and nephews and who ever else give rehab classe sand everything else would be back on wellfare again.
plus smoking pot causes you to eat more and sleep more and it causes you to lose your train o
Bailey Guns
10-08-2009, 19:00
plus smoking pot causes you to eat more and sleep more and it causes you to lose your train o
Dude! I'm gonna put some pot and deep-fried bacon bits in my Dinty Moore...I'll never stop eating it!
Legalize Freedom! Nuff said.
GunTroll
10-08-2009, 21:05
I'm an inalienable rights sympathizer!
Sorry if I am wrong but what should I have taken from this statement? Excuse me if I misunderstood you.
You can't be against big government, and want drugs to stay illegal at the same time without being a hypocrite.
Lastly, illegal drugs only make more money for a select few individuals. Legalized drugs would bring much, much more money into a community than illegal ones would. I can't think of a better economic stimulus than the legalization of drugs.
What the FAQ? Are you serious? Hypocrite??? Come on now! Making drugs legal won't stop big government. Gives them the power to tax and sell permits, etc. I guess I just live in a world (my world) that believes drugs should stay in the shadows. Never out in daylight. Look at Europe. Relaxed drug laws there and their government runs everything! You want that? I know you'll come back with an example of how I'm short sighted but still??? Not to mention my religious views sways my decision in this matter. Anything before God is an idol and there for sinning. Don't have to understand that but I believe it so.
A select few? Like.....? Personel property is confiscated. Fines. You think that lines the pockets of the cops, State elected officals, FED oficials?
I don't blame you for taking my inalienable rights comments the wrong way, I was being unclear on purpose.
You are totally right about Europe having both legalized drugs and too much government.
I never said that drug use should be encouraged though. I personally think that social norms will always keep drug use down. Take......a swingers club for example. It's not illegal, but they don't exactly advertise.
I'm still going to start calling you a collaborator every time you call me a liberal hippy sympathizer though. ;)
theGinsue
10-09-2009, 00:33
I've never done pot or any of the other big bad drugs out there - except alcohol. I must admit that, in college, I abused that drug.
...I guess I should have elaborated on what I meant by 'tax it' because I would like to see 100% of the $ seen from this taxation to go to education or something that has gotten over looked over the years that we can all benefit from in the long run.
That sounds like a good idea on the outside, but there is a serious flaw in that thinking. You've failed to consider the fiscal games that our governments (local, country, state, and federal) like to play. Many years ago, in Missouri, for example, the citizens voted in favor of the lottery and riverboat gambling. The voters were told that all of the revenue generated would (by law) go to education; and it does - lots of money. BUT (there's always a big but; isn't there?!)... the revenue being generated falls far short of the tax dollars that were already going to support education throughout the state. Missouri, seeing all of the new income that was coming in for educ., decided to re-direct those other tax dollars that USED to go to educ, leaving the "children" worse off than they had been before gambling was allowed. Of course, this is the same type of thing that has happened with the Federal Soc Sec dollars but that's another story. I suspect that the same thing would happen if money was generated by pot and designated for education.
...I guess I just live in a world (my world) that believes drugs should stay in the shadows. Never out in daylight... ...Not to mention my religious views sways my decision in this matter. Anything before God is an idol and there for sinning.
GunTroll, these two views are exactly my feelings too.
That sounds like a good idea on the outside, but there is a serious flaw in that thinking. You've failed to consider the fiscal games that our governments (local, country, state, and federal) like to play. Many years ago, in Missouri, for example, the citizens voted in favor of the lottery and riverboat gambling. The voters were told that all of the revenue generated would (by law) go to education; and it does - lots of money. BUT (there's always a big but; isn't there?!)... the revenue being generated falls far short of the tax dollars that were already going to support education throughout the state. Missouri, seeing all of the new income that was coming in for educ., decided to re-direct those other tax dollars that USED to go to educ, leaving the "children" worse off than they had been before gambling was allowed. Of course, this is the same type of thing that has happened with the Federal Soc Sec dollars but that's another story. I suspect that the same thing would happen if money was generated by pot and designated for education.
Sounds like some stupid people in office with bad ideas. Seems like that mistake has already been made and I would hope that others would learn a lesson from that. You can't just make a blanket statement saying that it would probably happen again just because someone else effed it up before. That's no way to make progress.
Not to mention my religious views sways my decision in this matter. Anything before God is an idol and there for sinning. Don't have to understand that but I believe it so.
This is not a good reason IMO. Too much harm has been done to far too many countries in the name of religion. I have my beliefs and views too but who am I to push those onto other people who don't believe the same way? Seems to me that's exactly why this country was founded to begin with.
theGinsue
10-09-2009, 01:20
This is not a good reason IMO. Too much harm has been done to far too many countries in the name of religion. I have my beliefs and views too but who am I to push those onto other people who don't believe the same way? Seems to me that's exactly why this country was founded to begin with.
I believe that you misunderstood me, and possibly GunTroll too. My religious views mean that --> I <-- won't be doing drugs, but (while I may privately disagree with it) I won't tell someone else how they should live their life. I do believe that if if person is doing drugs (including pot) that there is no reason to either make it public knowledge.
I believe that you misunderstood me, and possibly GunTroll too. My religious views mean that --> I <-- won't be doing drugs, but (while I may privately disagree with it) I won't tell someone else how they should live their life. I do believe that if if person is doing drugs (including pot) that there is no reason to either make it public knowledge.
You are correct, I misunderstood someone. Maybe I'm tired. Maybe it's the marijuana cigarettes talking. Who knows....
[ROFL1]
theGinsue
10-09-2009, 02:21
Jer, are you tokin on the reefer son?
(I've always wanted to use that phrase, minus the "Jer" part)
GunTroll
10-09-2009, 10:24
I'm still going to start calling you a collaborator every time you call me a liberal hippy sympathizer though. ;)
Fair enough.[Beer]
Jer, are you tokin on the reefer son?
(I've always wanted to use that phrase, minus the "Jer" part)
No but glad I could help fulfill your wildest dreams.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.