• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Honolulu Medical Marijuana Patients Forced To Turn In Guns

azgreg

Chicks dig the long ball
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
25,240
Reaction score
24,034
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
https://hightimes.com/news/honolulu-medical-marijuana-patients-forced-turn-guns/

Susan Ballard, Honolulu’s new police chief, has mailed letters to around 30 medical marijuana patients thus far, stating they have 30 days to surrender all firearms in coherence with state law.

“Your medical marijuana use disqualifies you from ownership of firearms and ammunition,” the letter says. “You have 30 days upon receipt of this letter to voluntarily surrender your firearms.”

The letter cites Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 134-7 (a) as the primary reason for the firearm ban.

“No person who is a fugitive from justice or is a person prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law shall own, possess, or control any firearm or ammunition therefore,” the statute notes.

The Honolulu Police Department also stated that anybody seeking a future gun license would require a medical doctor’s clearance. Additionally, MMJ patients would have to wait an entire calendar year after the expiration of their medical cards to re-apply for a gun permit.

Well, this is a load of horse ****.
 
But if you're a dangerous alcoholic, feel free to toss em back and have a "Hold muh beer" moment!

Oh it might, see question e) on the form 4473.

Forms can be revised. That particular question exists only because of the Federal Prohibition, hence the language in the most recent revision regarding states that have legalized.

Do you truly expect that to be the case when the prohibition is inevitably overturned?
 
9/16
Even in states where medical marijuana is legal, a ruling in the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that illegal drug users (a group, the feds maintain, that still includes weed smokers) cannot legally purchase a firearm. Banning gun sales among tokers doesn’t violate the Second Amendment, the federal appeals court ruled.

Wednesday’s 3–0 ruling applies to nine Western states in the court’s jurisdiction: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Medical marijuana is legal in California, Hawaii, Montana, and Nevada (and recreationally legal in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington). Federally, however, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I substance. And, according to Senior District Judge Jed Rakoff, who wrote the court’s opinion in the ruling, “it is beyond dispute” that weed users are likely “to experience altered or impaired mental states that affect their judgment and that can lead to irrational or unpredictable behavior.”
https://psmag.com/news/medical-marijuana-and-the-right-to-bear-arms

Not sure where this ended up but I gotta run.

This is bad, this country is a wreck but you have all heard my lecture a hundred times..
 
so, the government is banning firearm ownership because someone is prescribed a medical prescription?

I B callin' big ass bull**** on that number ............
 
This is why I don't support the background check requirement.

It can be added to at will by Congress, and already contains prohibitions to purchase/ownership on the basis of things like pot use, dishonorable discharge, criminal record (despite already paying the full penalty for the crime required by law), etc.

I am already on record asserting that the right to keep and bear arms is inherent for every free citizen, and should only be restricted either temporarily or permanently for rational (clear and present danger) reasons individually on a case by case basis.
 
Last edited:
This is why I don't support the background check requirement.

It can be added to at will by Congress, and already contains prohibitions to purchase/ownership on the basis of things like pot use, dishonorable discharge, criminal record (despite already paying the full penalty for the crime required by law), etc.

I am already on record asserting that the right to keep and bear arms is inherent for every free citizen, and should only be restricted either temporarily or permanently for rational (clear and present danger) reasons individually on a case by case basis.

You're a "the 2A is my permit" kinda guy aren't ya?
 
You're a "the 2A is my permit" kinda guy aren't ya?

that is clearly what the founders intended at a federal level

it will be great having pot heads, often on the left, uniting with pro gun voters on the right to get the wickard idiocy flushed. If you grow weed in a weed legal state for use in that state, just as if you make a machine gun or SBR for your own use in your home state, the federal government has no proper power in saying otherwise
 
This is the greatest, Liberals eating Liberals hahahaha

pot heads complaining about overreaching federal idiocy. its great. maybe that Wickard case wasn't all that great. I guarantee if the Court had shown it had some balls 80 years go, and told FDR to stuff his commerce clause nonsense where the light don't shine, the pot heads wouldn't have to deal with this federal fascism
 
Back
Top Bottom