California Could Extend ‘Sanctuary State’ Status to Machine Guns. Sorry. Marijuana.

Rifle, handgun, marijuana (courtesy

“Protecting the state’s burgeoning cannabis industry is the latest front in California’s war with the Trump administration, as state officials work to make California a so-called ‘sanctuary state’ for the marijuana industry,” reports. So a state that blatantly and persistently violates the Second Amendment wants to foot drag on federal drug laws. Specifically . . .

Joes-Sawyer’s bill would prevent state and local agencies from working with federal drug enforcement agencies to arrest and prosecute legal marijuana growers and sellers without a federal court order.

Imagine the hue and cry if Texas adopted the same approach to machine guns. Anyway, no pot dealer left behind!

Last week, Assemblyman Rob Bonta, a Democrat from Oakland, Calif., also took action to try to undercut any federal prosecutions against the state’s marijuana growers, sellers and users.

Bonta introduced a bill that would reclassify or expunge cannabis-related convictions from California residents’ records. In this way, those convicted of marijuana-related crimes would not have to petition the courts to clear their records.

“Long after paying their debt to society, the collateral consequences of having a criminal conviction continues to disrupt their lives in profound ways such as preventing them from gaining employment or finding housing,” Bonta said in a statement.

And yet a Californian convicted of illegal gun possession — an unconstitutional concept in and of itself — can’t “recover” their gun rights. Ever.

Machine gun marijuana (courtesy

If Golden State pols didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all. Oh, and did you know there’s a marijuana strain called machine gun? True story.


  1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    The states have no obligation to enforce Federal law. The Feds can make Federal funds dependent upon following Federal instructions. The Feds cannot order state or local employees to assist them. Texas should do the same with machine guns.

    1. avatar Steve Army says:

      Protect the criminals and take away your freedom.. Sounds like a very good ‘vote-getter’.. Promote mental illness.. Give the state to them.. Time to boycott California produce and other products.. Hollywood, etc..

  2. avatar FedUp says:

    I’d settle for Idaho declaring themselves a 2A sanctuary state and doing as much to prevent the Feds from enforcing unconstitutional laws as CA is with valid laws.

    1. avatar BlazinTheAmazin says:

      There are several states, including AZ, that have passed laws saying they will not enforce any new federal gun control so there is at least that. Unfortunately, none of them have gone full liberty to allow machine guns that were locally produced. All states should fight the enforcement of unconstitutional federal laws.

      Now as far as CA preventing the feds from enforcing “valid laws”, if you are referring to immigration laws then you are right on the money. However, if you are referring to them enforcing our draconian drug laws then I sense some hypocrisy starting to creep in. NOTHING in the Constitution allows the federal government to dictate what a person can put into their own body. The 9th Amendment clearly states that just because a right isn’t enumerated shouldn’t be used as justification for denying rights retained by the people.

      And please don’t give me that 10th Amendment, “this is a states rights issue!” We are talking about powers “retained by the people”. It would be a state issue to decide an acceptable level of intoxication while driving on public roads or walking down a public street, I’ll give you that one. But especially inside of one’s home, the right to decide what substances to ingest is one retained by the people.

      If anyone thinks our drug laws are constitutional then ask yourselves why we had to pass a constitutional amendment for Prohibition.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        We haven’t had a valid federal drug ban since Prohibition was repealed, for that was the only time the Constitution was amended to give the feds the power to prohibit interstate commerce. I think we’re in agreement there.

        I was talking about the various forms of obstruction currently being committed in CA with respect to immigration statutes. I think we’re in agreement there too.

        1. avatar BlazinTheAmazin says:

          Then it appears I have zero problems with your philosophy. Carry on sir!

  3. avatar anonymoose says:

    I’m hoping Cali splits into at least two states here soon.

    1. avatar Amfivena says:

      Why would you wish for two more CA senators?

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        I’d like to see Jefferson have two Senators to offset Hawaii’s.

    2. avatar TexTed says:

      You are aware that they just filed a petition to do exactly that, right?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        The Petition that was filed (supposedly) is a much better idea than the State of Jefferson. The State of Jefferson does not have enough GDP to sustain itself or needed public services such as fire protection, police, and infrastructure, much less schools. But the proposal for New California includes all of the predominantly agricultural areas of the state, excluding the coastal zone from San Francisco to San Diego. The Central Valley is one of the, if not the most productive agricultural area in the world, with many billions in GDP. New California would have the wherewithal to sustain itself. And it is mostly Republican and pro-2A.

        Sadly, it will never happen. The Democrats in the state will never give up the tax income or the power, and the Democrats in the Senate will never allow what would likely be a Republican majority over the long term with 2 new (mostly likely) Republican senators.

        1. avatar Steve Army says:

          That’s a big ’10-4′..

  4. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    Refusing to enforce federal law, or work with federal agencies is one thing, but actively passing laws forbidding local agencies from working with the federal ones seems a step too far.

    It’s crazy times we’re living in, TDS has infected our left wing friends badly!

    1. avatar MDH says:

      Sedition and treason. California is well on its way to inviting a full measure of federal intervention to restore its citizens natural and constitutional rights, and the rule of law.

      1. avatar Fit2BTyed says:

        Yes! Declare Marshall Law and take out these liberal trolls and snowflakes.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          (Ahem. I think that would be “martial” law.)

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      I’m not sure how this works in the US but in Australia the Federal Government strong-armed the states into adopting “uniform national gun laws” (/sarc) by threatening to withhold the state’s allocation of Federal tax revenue.

      Could the US Federal Government withhold California’s allocation of tax revenue until they start complying?

      1. avatar Steve Army says:

        If the Feds withhold their welfare money from any state that state would be bankrupt in one month.. I believe that is exactly what the tax payers of this country should do.. No more bale outs.. That includes foreign countries..

  5. avatar Bob says:

    Problems lay on both sides.

    State independence vs Federal control could go either way depending on how you feel about it.


    States able to make their own laws could result in major problems such as we have now where some drugs are completely legal in one state but a felony in the next.
    Just as you have constitutional carry states next to states that gun ownership or possession is a felony.

    This causes a lot of problems for a country as a whole when things get too far out of hand.

    Say a drivers license.

    You wish to go visit your family in Utah, but you have to pass through 3 states to get there… ok.

    First state says cars cannot be older than 5 years, drivers must have that states drivers license and take a competency course every year and must not be on any prescription drugs.

    Second state allows vehicles of any age but you also need a license from that state as well as a personal insurance policy of up to $1 million and radial tires are illegal.

    State 3 only allows minimum of two people in a car when passing through the state and all cars must meet their emissions criteria and have a visible state sticker renewed every 6 months, cars must be no less than 25MPG rated.

    So now your trip just turned into a nightmare, in order for you to comply, you have an enormous task of making sure every law is followed, which can be done, but greatly restricts what you can own and causes a lot of places for error that can easily transition you from honest citizen to criminal just by crossing state lines.
    All of this and you never left your own country.
    Honest American one day, Criminal the next.

    This is why individual state laws need to stick to individual state needs, such as housing regulations, business locations, tax amounts, etc… things that impact only those who live there.

    Originally the idea of having Federal laws and State laws handled this issue. Federal laws covered every state, state laws dealt with state specific issues…

    But eventually shit got out of hand and states stated just doing whatever the felt like and started treating out of state residents like refugees from 3rd world countries.

    This is why you will often see other countries tell us we are not one country but 50 separate countries that share a checking account.

    1. avatar anarchyst says:

      Your last statement “50 countries sharing a checking account” is the way the founders wanted it. The states were supposed to be “laboratories of experimentation in representative democracy” (I know we are a representative republic).
      There is absolutely no reason for the federal government in the formulation of ANY drug or gun laws. In fact, to get our “first drug war” (prohibition) in 1920 going, it took a Constitutional Amendment to get it started and another Constitutional Amendment in 1933 to end it.
      The second (our current) “drug war” was promulgated with no such Constitutional Amendment, making it blatantly unconstitutional on its face.
      As to the Second Amendment, the federal government has NO authority to make any firearms law.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        Should of also stated, my point was that each state needs to work together as a whole more, rather than as an independent island in of itself in order to make a better union. If this were to happen there would be little need for Federal interference.

  6. avatar Kyle says:

    California is really pushing its luck with the feds.

    I’d not be surprised at all if the feds come in and take over state government in its entirety.

    moonbeam is so far over the line, its not even funny.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Moonbeam isn’t the one proposing these laws. It’s the dingbats in the Legislature, of which there are more than a few.

  7. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    They only want to protect it so they can tax it.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Ding! Ding! Ding! The industry in the past was estimated as greater than $5 billion per annum. Now that it is legal, that will rise substantially. Local agencies (L.A.) have also stepped in, taxing the stuff like cigarettes (meaning “a lot.”)

  8. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    The federal courts are in the process of shattering the republic since they are choosing which individual federal laws can be enforced based on a political leaning without regard to any underlying legal principle.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Not true. The underlying legal principle is that individual rights may be regulated in the “public interest.” It is a statist philosophy to be sure, as it presupposes that the interests of the government (allegedly “the people”) outweigh individual rights whenever something carries a high risk of injury or death. Judges do not want to be the ones to allow “dangerous” behaviors, guns, drugs, dangerous chemicals and pesticides, industrial output, etc. to potentially inflict harm on the public at large. They do not want blood on their hands, so they rule in ways that are contrary to the intent of the Constitution in order to maintain the status quo as established by laws passed by the government(s).

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        It’s true. Richard POSner even admitted it openly (after he retired), and anybody who thinks he is the only one, or even that he’s in the minority, hasn’t been paying attention to the feral court system:

        He called his approach to judging pragmatic. His critics called it lawless. “I pay very little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions,” Judge Posner said. “A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself — forget about the law — what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?”

        The next thing, he said, was to see if a recent Supreme Court precedent or some other legal obstacle stood in the way of ruling in favor of that sensible resolution. “And the answer is that’s actually rarely the case,” he said. “When you have a Supreme Court case or something similar, they’re often extremely easy to get around.”

  9. avatar TwoJohnsonsAreBetterThanOne says:

    The most existential concerns of the Fed govt are its own security and growth, the major threat being disobedient and independent citizens.

    The Fed govt is genuinely interested in enforcing those fed laws that limit citizens’ power/leverage over the govt – firearms, taxation, etc. Any laws that do not threaten the Fed govt or against its own interests will be enforced reluctantly or not enforced at all. For example, illegal immigration is essentially recruiting foreigners to dilute the disobedient population. The only law-enforcement enthusiasm you’ll see here comes from separate individuals, not the govt machine as a whole.

    CA must be Fed’s favorite child – dissenting on the surface, CA is Fed’s dreams coming true.

  10. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Oh, and did you know there’s a marijuana strain called machine gun? True story.

    Well, that can’t be allowed to stand.

    But maybe, if someone started marketing a fully automatic rifle called the “Sparked Fat 1”, that might be good-to-go.

    1. avatar Behind the lines in the PRK says:

      I’ve often wondered why we don’t play the left’s game. Quit calling modern sporting rifles AR-15s and call them Stoner’s or Stoner pattern rifles. Creates a conflict and confusion in nomenclature in California for sure.

      1. avatar rick3 says:

        Ha, took me a second to get that!

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          And require a large cannabis leaf to be embossed on the receiver of each rifle.

          And the caliber markings will read – “Like, a mellow .223 or 5.56mm, dude…”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email