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

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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

[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.