Actually no-- The gun enhancement is for, "Having/Using a Firearm during the commission of a Felony." If there is no Felony, there is no enhancement--
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
2nd Amendment & California Prop. 215
- Thread starter Shcrews
- Start date
Actually no-- The gun enhancement is for, "Having/Using a Firearm during the commission of a Felony." If there is no Felony, there is no enhancement--
Actually no-- The gun enhancement is for, "Having/Using a Firearm during the commission of a Felony." If there is no Felony, there is no enhancement--
Yup, dot your i's an cross your t's.
was arrested once on federal property in Tennessee for possession, had long guns with us. (deer season)they wrote me a ticket & sent me on my way, rifle & all. well, the bastards kept my weed...
Cynthia Willis
New member
The reason three courts sided with me is partly because I was applying for renewal of my Concealed Weapons Permit. Not a handgun permit, therefore the judges found that I was not violating any federal laws on that point. Now, if only "they" would allow me to purchase a firearm!
That is fuckin awesome. Good for her
JamesFarmer
Member
Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms (BATFE) decided to release their own statement in regards to Medical Cannabis and Firearm Possession. In that statement Bureau Assistant Director, Arthur Herbert, writes in the open letter to all gun sellers,
“Any person, who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is … prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by state law.”
JamesFarmer
Member
Please note: Both the Controlled Substance Act and the Gun Control Act are based upon the Federal Government's power to regulate interstate commerce.
If I buy a gun and a cannabis seed, both within Washington State, plant the seed and carry the gun. Never leaving the state. Then I harvest and consume the plant that grew from the seed. No part, piece or bit of any of the above ever crossing a state line.
Where is the "Interstate Commerce"?????????????
If I buy a gun and a cannabis seed, both within Washington State, plant the seed and carry the gun. Never leaving the state. Then I harvest and consume the plant that grew from the seed. No part, piece or bit of any of the above ever crossing a state line.
Where is the "Interstate Commerce"?????????????
"Any law repugnant to the Constitution is VOID."
Marbury v Madison, US Supreme Court
"But whenever the judicial power is called into play, it is responsible directly to the fundamental law and no other authority can intervene to force or authorize the judicial body to disregard it."
Yakus v U.S
JamesFarmer
Member
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
IMHO: THIS DECISION CLEARLY OVERREACHES THE FED'S AUTHORUTY AND VIOLATES THE 10TH AMENDMANT.
The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution say's " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What is it in the 2nd Amendment that is so hard to understand, looks pretty straight forward to me, just because someone passes a two bit law doesn't mean that it gets to suppress a Constitutional provision, the Constitution isn't to be fucked with, that is where the argument starts, the Democrat Progressive Communists had better learn how to read.
What is it in the 2nd Amendment that is so hard to understand, looks pretty straight forward to me, just because someone passes a two bit law doesn't mean that it gets to suppress a Constitutional provision, the Constitution isn't to be fucked with, that is where the argument starts, the Democrat Progressive Communists had better learn how to read.
B
Bob Green
A quick word on the subject.
If you get sent to federal court they will put a gag order on anything mentioning MMJ period. You will not be able to explain you side in any way shape of form or face contempt charges. The jury will have no idea if you are a state legal farmer or not and any marihuana of any kind is 100% illegal under federal law.
The feds know how to play the game better than anybody else by a long shot. They will only ask the jury did this person break the federal law? They will only ask you if you knowingly sold narcotics and possessed firearms in the location. But don't be so naive to think you will make a case against the federal government based on state law. Just not going to happen. At least not yet. Believe me hundreds or even thousands of lawyers have tried and all get the gag order.
Same way they bust shop owners for dealing to minors. They put a gag order on any medical talk and if you sold anything to anyone under 21 you are fucked. Even of it was legal under state law and prescribed by your Dr. The shop goes down for dealing drugs to minors.
Fucked up but exactly how they are getting away with it. Fucking gag orders.
If you get sent to federal court they will put a gag order on anything mentioning MMJ period. You will not be able to explain you side in any way shape of form or face contempt charges. The jury will have no idea if you are a state legal farmer or not and any marihuana of any kind is 100% illegal under federal law.
The feds know how to play the game better than anybody else by a long shot. They will only ask the jury did this person break the federal law? They will only ask you if you knowingly sold narcotics and possessed firearms in the location. But don't be so naive to think you will make a case against the federal government based on state law. Just not going to happen. At least not yet. Believe me hundreds or even thousands of lawyers have tried and all get the gag order.
Same way they bust shop owners for dealing to minors. They put a gag order on any medical talk and if you sold anything to anyone under 21 you are fucked. Even of it was legal under state law and prescribed by your Dr. The shop goes down for dealing drugs to minors.
Fucked up but exactly how they are getting away with it. Fucking gag orders.
If it's the Fed's, any amount of weed/hash/wax and any gun, even a legally owned one, and you're screwed. They call it "User of illegal narcotics in possession of a firearm". 5 year minimum "enhancement" felony charge on top of any other charges. This is assuming that the firearm in question is totally LEGAL in all other respects. If the gun is stolen, altered, or not legally owned, it gets worse. Until the Fed's back off, guns and growing don't mix if you value your freedom. If you really need a gun to defend your crop, you're already doing something seriously wrong anyway.
