Farnam Quips: Political ‘Law’ and Marijuana, I Call BS

Comments on the latest 9th Circuit decision on marijuana and firearms purchases, paraphrased from several lawyer friends, and me:

I’ll preface comments by saying that I’ve personally never used marijuana, nor any other illegal drug, at any time in my life. In addition, I have never consumed ethyl alcohol.

Nor, do I have the benefit of a law-school education.

Accordingly, some may find fault with the following:

The notorious Federal Appeals Court, 9th Circuit, has just ruled that the mere possession of a medical marijuana authorization card, properly issued by a state government, can be used by ATF to disqualify an otherwise legal firearms purchase and thus disenfranchise an, in all other ways law-abiding citizen, denying him his Second Amendment rights. Actual marijuana use by the individual is not even the issue.

Your Constitutional rights are now withdrawn, simply because you MIGHT use marijuana, legally (at least according to state law)!

When state permission to use any particular medication becomes a legal basis for denying a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, why not universally apply the same restriction to anyone who has in his possession a “normal” prescription for an opioid, diazepam, or any other potentially impairing, or consciousness-altering, drug?

What about ethyl alcohol? Its consciousness-altering/impairing properties are beyond dispute. Yet, every American over the age of twenty-one has an “implied prescription” to consume ethyl alcohol, in any amount, and for any reason. Should all potential ethyl-alcohol consumers (which includes nearly all adults) be automatically denied a driver’s license? The fact that you don’t drink doesn’t matter. It only matters that your are AUTHORIZED to drink!

Between:

“You may fill this prescription,” and “You are in possession of a firearm while significantly chemically impaired,” there is a chasm!

Let’s not lose track of the real issue. Let’s not open a can or worms by drawing “lines in the sand,” based solely on prejudice against a single substance [in this case marijuana].

Why would the mere possession of a prescription for any medicine, absent any other disqualifying evidence, in and of itself, represent a legitimate basis for denial of Second Amendment rights, or of any right? If that is Constitutional, it will predictably be used as a convenient pretext to permanently disarmed all of us!

On ATF forms, putting a check-mark in the box that asks if you are “addicted to a drug” has for decades represented an automatic veto for legal gun purchases.

However, “addiction” is a slippery term, with no universally-agreed-upon definition, and until now, no particular drug has ever been singled-put for presumed association with villainy. In fact, the form never even asks if the “drug” involved is legal or illegal!

A chronic pain patient may be on prescribed opiates for years, developing a tolerance that permits normal functioning. Unmedicated, he would be overcome with pain and thus “impaired.”

Should they all be automatically disenfranchised? Technically, they are “addicted” to opiates, but not impaired.

Addiction? Yes. Impairment? Likely not for the chronic pain patient. Addiction is a “side-effect” of the drug which, while regrettable, cannot be avoided. Nor can it be ignored, but it has little bearing on whether or not the person can safely possess a firearm.

Some people, owing to demonstrated criminal behavior, are identifiable as unfit to possess firearms. No dispute there! However, the classification must have a credible factual bases.

This decision has no factual basis, and simply does not make sense.

Too much government? I’m shocked!

How about: “Responsible, adult behavior is legal. Irresponsible, adult behavior is illegal?”

We need to rely upon logic, credible evidence, and our Constitution, not emotional hysteria, unsupportable fads, and agenda-driven politics.

Legally, there is a word for all this. The Latin is “bullshit!”

/John

 

Reprinted with Permission from John Farnam

Read the Original Article at Defense Training International

 

Want To See How Evil Socialism Really Is? Check Out Venezuela (Again)

STARVING SOCIALIST COUNTRY WITH FOOD RIOTS LAUNCHES GUN CONTROL EFFORT TO DISARM POPULATION

(click on link above to be re-directed to Source page)

Well first Venezuela gave all us Preppers a first hand glimpse into what it is going to be like when food shortages eventually come to this country. Now they are giving us a glimpse into another possibility:  INVOLUNTARY DISARMAMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT AND A MANDATORY REGISTERING OF BULLETS!

Take notes guys. First thing the Govt. is going to do when shit gets REALLY bad is a full court press on DISARMING THE POPULATION. Not more “Gun Control Laws” or “Registries” just MANDATORY DISARMAMENT. Why? Look at it this way:

Why do people de-claw house cats? So they are not so dangerous to handle and so they will not tear up the furniture, right? Problem is although you now have a nice, cuddly little house cat you have permanently taken away that cat’s NATURAL ABILITY to defend itself and to hunt. So in the event that poor cat ever get’s outside, in his NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, he is SCREWED both in his ability to DEFEND HIMSELF and exercise his NATURAL ABILITY TO HUNT SO HE CAN EAT!

You have now made that cat DEPENDENT ON YOU for it’s VERY SURVIVAL and WELL BEING.

That is exactly what Socialism aims to do folks…And to ENSURE it is successful, the GOVT. takes away BOTH your GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND THE ARMS THEMSELVES SO YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOURSELF AGAINST THE VERY TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT SCREWING YOU WITH NO LUBE.

Stay Vigilant it is Going to Happen Here.

Stay Alert, Stay Armed, Never Surrender Your GOD Given Right to be ARMED and Stay Dangerous!

RKBA News: Louder with Crowder on “A Well Regulated Militia” Only??

I am a fan of Steven Crowder, the guy makes me laugh really hard in the morning and makes lib-tards look silly on National TV.

Great 2nd Amendment Lesson.

Know Your Rights, Stay Alert, Stay Armed and Stay Dangerous!

The Armed Citizen Corner: Why the 2nd Amendment is Worth Protecting

By Hammerhead

In a recent blog post in the Times of Israel, Ron Kampeas, the Washington Bureau Chief for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, writes about how Israel stays so well armed and protected as a country but yet has no Second Amendment or gun violence to speak of. The reason? Only 4% of the weapons in Israel are owned by Civilians. That means 96% of the weapons in Israel are Issued to Military Personnel. Now at first this may seem like a disproportionate ratio of the population, but what the author neglects to tell you in this article is that Israel has MANDATORY 2 year Military Service period for ALL 18 year olds, thus you basically have a revolving door of young people constantly replenishing  the military ranks.

The author goes on to say that one of the reasons for such little gun violence in Israel is that all of the armed military personnel are answerable “to the Military Tribunal” for their actions while armed and that they have had training to know how to handle their weapons and respond to a crisis situation. He goes on to say that when 96% of the people who own weapons in your country fit in this category, it is a good thing and further expresses the pompous ideal that the United States would do well to copy this model because of our record with gun violence.

Oh Boy, where do I start on this one!

First off, The Second Amendment was created so that CIVILIANS, not MILITARY PERSONNEL could protect themselves from their OWN GOVERNMENT. Our forefathers were well aware that a tyrant most likely would take hold of the military very early on and thus use it as his “muscle” (much like Hitler did in Germany  beginning in 1933) so it is very important that the civilian population be as EQUALLY ARMED as the Military in the most practical respects, namely, small arms and training (the militia). This is one of the many unique “Checks and Balances” within the framework of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Secondly, it seems the author wants to imply from the heavily biased and pompous Bloomberg article he cites that in Israel “necessity” drives the need for Israeli civilians to own firearms (because Israel is so dangerous due to terrorist attacks), while in America is appears that people just want to “exercise” their rights” when it comes to owning firearms (for the hell of it I suppose, not because we too have had some of the worst terrorist attacks in the world). This argument is actually self-defeating. If “necessity” is what truly drives firearm ownership in Israel and there have been to date over 150 stabbing attacks on Israel military and civilians by Palestinian Terrorist, some of them fatal, then why are not more civilians armed? Because the people applying for the licenses were not in the military and you cannot trust them not to shoot themselves or each other? I would argue that in America, necessity also drives firearm ownership. Why? Because people do NOT want to be Victims, just like In Israel I would Imagine. The difference being in America, owning a Firearm is a Right AND a Privilege and it was decided long ago that it was a Right the State could not take away because of some STATE defined “necessity”. Bottom line, in America, the Right to PROTECT ONESELF is INNATE and GOD GIVEN, NOT STATE GIVEN. 

The underlying problem here is a gross misunderstanding of True American Democracy versus the ideal of Socialism and a Military State in my opinion. To prove my point I pose this question.

If 96% of the weapons owned in Israel are owned by Military personnel, what is to stop some General in the Military from staging a coup and taking over your Country? The Civilians?  They only have 4% of the guns. The Government? Accordingly, any armed personnel within the govt would most likely fall within the framework of the Military, so that is also a big NO. As best as I can tell, Israel has had no real “checks and balances” to keep it from becoming a  Military State, which by all intensive purposes, it already is.

The problem is really two-fold in Israel:  Too Much Power has been put in the hands of one group (Military) And TOO MUCH FAITH has been placed in the Military and Police (which by percentage are the largest force that are armed) to “protect” Civilians. The author by and large is pushing the socialist, liberal ideal of “The State knows what is Best For ALL OF US“  which is  exactly where AMERICA is headed with this current round of gun control “hysteria” that has emerged since the Orlando shooting.

So ultimately this is why the American Second Amendment is so precious to any FREEDOM Loving American and must be KEPT INTACT and PROTECTED, It guarantees that no one group, not the Government, Not the Military and Not the Police have too much POWER. It keep the phrase “A Government Of the People, By The People and For The People” Honest and True.

Lastly, I want to address the authors ridiculous implication that civilians who are armed in the United States with Concealed or Open Carry Permits do not have “enough” training. Here is a direct quote from the article that I take issue with the most:

“The training Israeli soldiers receive also helps keep gun violence down. When Gabby Giffords, the Jewish congresswoman from Arizona, was shot in 2011, an armed passerby recalled later to his own horror that he nearly opened fire on the folks who were restraining the gunman.”

Firstly, the author is deceptively using an incident that never PHYSICALLY Happened. Notice the word “nearly” in bold. So by the author’s rationale here, because some guy who was armed at the Gabby Gifford rally (where she was shot by a mentally ill man) “nearly” opened fire on a group of guys restraining the actual gunmen, that makes armed Americans “untrained” with firearms? Huh? Did we all fall down a rabbit hole here?

How about instead of dealing in “Nearly’s” we deal in some ABSOLUTES that show a civilian armed with a firearm more times than not will STOP the BAD GUY and SAVE INNOCENT LIVES. Like this incident that happened early this year, where a Concealed Carry Permit Holder stops the Robbery of a Barber Shop.

Why is the Second Amendment Worth protecting? Because it is a foundational cornerstone of American Democracy that ensures no ONE group has too much power. The Communist leader Mao said it best when he said “Political Power Grows out the BARREL of a gun.” An Armed People is a People that retains POWER to not be pushed around and to be self-sufficient when it comes to their own personal security.

To put it simply, the Second Amendment is a “guarantor” of ALL the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. When it falls, America and this Experiment called Democracy will most assuredly fall also.

Stay Alert, Stay Armed and Stay Dangerous!

 

Texas News: Open Carry Texas Statement on Gun Control Amendments in Congress

For more than 15 hours yesterday, Democrats took to the Senate floor to filibuster in an effort to force votes on amendments designed to restrict the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.

Open Carry Texas (OCT) vehemently, categorically, and whole-heartedly opposes every proposed measure, including the NRA-backed amendment sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) requiring a mandatory wait period.

When the People give the government the ability to determine who is “eligible” to exercise a right, what’s to stop the government from determining no one is “eligible?” While we also oppose the current background check (BGC) system, broadening it will do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. Extended BGCs do nothing more than inconvenience and interfere with the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in the manner protected by the constitution: uninfringed. We oppose the so-called “universal BGC” proposals as infringements upon our rights.

The terrorist watchlist and “no-fly” list are both objective, arbitrary lists that also do nothing to ensure the safety or security of the American people. As a gun rights organization who is dedicated to the safe and legal carry of firearms, we do not want killers having the ability to take the lives of innocent people.

However, we also recognize, as Benjamin Franklin did, that, “those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

The process by which the government determines one to be ineligible to fly is a secret. There is no notification process to an individual placed on the no-fly list, meaning that Americans frequently don’t find out until they’re already trying to board a plane. There is no appeals process for being removed from the list and – other than politically connected individuals – it is nearly impossible to do so. Due to the complete lack of due process involved in the “no-fly” list, OCT condemns and opposes any effort to prevent law abiding citizens who have not been adjudicated by a court from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, including the right to purchase them, based on such a list.

The terrorist watchlist is an even more egregious and constitutionally offensive strategy to undermining our civil rights. While the word “terrorist” is surely intended to conjure up images of body counts, grotesque violence, Muslim extremists, and wholesale fear. The problem is in who gets to decide what constitutes a “terrorist.” The suggested amendment to deny gun rights to individuals on the terrorist watchlist does not seek to deny guns to terrorists, but to people suspected of being terrorists. Anti-liberty politicians want to use this broad and ominous term to deny rights to a category of people that has no baseline definition other than “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” Once the government is given permission to bar individuals deemed to be potentially engaging in or planning to engage in “terrorist” activities, there is no stopping the government from deeming anyone a “terrorist” that opposes its will. In fact, both Open Carry Texas and the National Rifle Association have been accused of being terrorist organizations and its members “domestic terrorists.” The Founding Fathers would have been labeled terrorists in the late 18th Century.

Due to the lack of due process involved in every amendment being proposed, we cannot support, endorse, or accept any of them. We will not condone the destruction of any aspect of our constitution under the guise of public safety. Senator Cornyn’s bill would treat people adjudicated without due process as criminals just for being placed a list without warrant, affidavit or cause. “Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have” and we can’t allow fear-mongering to alter, abolish or infringe upon it no matter how feel-good it may sound. The shooting in Orlando was a government failure, not a failure of our constitution.

OCT is an organization dedicated to the safe and legal carry of firearms in the State of Texas in accordance with the United States and Texas Constitution and applicable laws.

About Open Carry Texas:

Our purpose is to 1) educate all Texans about their right to carry in a safe Page | 2 manner; 2) to condition Texans to feel safe around law-abiding citizens that choose to carry them; 3) encourage our elected officials to pass constitutional carry legislation for all firearms; and (4) foster a cooperative relationship with local law enforcement in the furtherance of these goals with an eye towards preventing negative encounters.

For more information, contact CJ Grisham at cj@opencarrytexas.org 254-383-8238.

Read the Original Article at Ammo-Land