The Honolulu Police Department has told legal marijuana users who own guns that they must turn in their weapons within 30 days. [More]Nothing less than their birthright is what the cannabis users are trading for a mess of pot when they allow their lives to be ruled by power junkies.
UPDATE:
HPD will not enforce order requiring marijuana card holders to turn in gunsPer George Pace: "They won't require existing card holders to turn in their already registered guns (i.e. ALL guns in Hawaii), but will not issue any future 'permits to acquire' (ALL guns in Hawaii require a 'permit to acquire' prior to acquisition) to anyone holding a medical cannabis card."
7 comments:
I expect to hear reports of several canoe accidents.
Looks like this needs to be addressed at the FED level. As long as the federal law says no pot then I think you will be a prohibited person in ANY state that has legalized it. . . to fix this we will need to see pot legal at the national level. I don't think you can blame the locals since this is really nothing more than enforcing a bad federal law.
And I think that it should be fixed, the Fed needs to get out of the drug war. You are an adult, do what you want as long as you don't do anything that injures others while you use your drug of choice. . . . Treat it like drinking. No guns while impaired. . .
Yes, it's ultimately a fed prohibition,JD. But other states have not taken it on themselves to issue widespread confiscation orders, so we can't absolve HI and just look to selective enforcements on things like "sanctuary" defiance. So yes, I can most certainly blame the state of Hawaii for escalating the infringement to this level.
The feds derive their entire authority to ban mind altering substances from the 18th Amendment, which was repealed by the 21st Amendment.
There can be no such thing as a federal drug ban outside of the time period between the ratification of the 18th and the ratification of the 21st, and during that timeframe, Congress was given the authority to ban one and only one drug. Any law passed without authority is obviously null and void.
Actually, the fed claimed authority to ban drugs from the “treaty power,” same as they control the hunting of migratory birds (Missouri v. Holland). Left unanswered is whether the fedguv has the power to make treaty commitments to other countries that violate the constitutional rights of their citizens. Constitutionalist congressmen during the Eisenhauer administration attempted to clarify that it most certainly did not with the Bricker Amendment, which failed due to intense lobbying from the deep state of the period. Current judicial control on this subject is expressed in Reid v. Covert that says Congress does not have the power to promise in a treaty to exercise a power they are not granted by the constitution. Unfortunately this just reduces the argument down to “everything, including breathing and p*sing, is interstate commere, so we can and will.”
My apologies for writing an egregiously ambiguous sentence. What I meant was:
Left unanswered is whether the fedguv has the power to make international treaties whose conditions would violate the constitutional rights of US citizens.
Henry, I know what they claim, but I'm willing to stand up and declare that they're full of shit, and all the black robed ****suckers in the world can't change the simple fact that much of what the feral government does is flat out illegal.
Same goes for declaring anything within a two hour drive of the edge of the country to be 'the border zone', where the Constitution is null and void. Once they stand up and proclaim out loud that the majority of US citizens live in a country where the US Constitution doesn't protect them, they've openly declared themselves to be enemies of the state who deserve to be hung for treason.
Post a Comment