A Pot Conviction Shouldn’t Negate Your Right to Armed Self Defense

Krissy Noble Self Defense Marijuana Conviction

courtesy abcnews.com

“Ten years ago, when the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep guns for self-defense, it said ‘nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.’ Yet if the right to protect oneself against aggressors is “fundamental,” as the Court said it has long been considered, if it is ‘the primary law of nature,’ as William Blackstone called it, and ‘paramount to all positive forms of government,’ as Alexander Hamilton thought, it cannot be treated so lightly that proximity to a bag of dried vegetable matter leaves a young pregnant woman defenseless in her own home.?” – Jacob Sullum in Pot Prohibition Makes Self-Defense Illegal [via reason.com]

comments

  1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I for one believe that a person who was convicted of a non violent felony. And is not a repeat criminal. Should not be denied the use of a gun to defend themselves or family.

    1. avatar Bearpaw says:

      “proximity to a bag of dried vegetable matter leaves”

      and child porn is just paper.

      Perhaps avoiding reductionism would help the cause.

      1. avatar Cz Rider says:

        Child porn is paper containing images created by exploiting a minor. Bit of a difference there…

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Actually, child pornography is usually distributed in the form of ones and zeroes.

        2. avatar Bearpaw says:

          I didn’t know that. I’ll have to take your word for it.

        3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          cat videos=kitty porn.

        4. avatar Nanashi says:

          Yep, that’s the legal theory that makes child porn unprotected. Using it against 17 year olds who take pictures of themselves, people swindled by Traci Lords style fraud, or actress who look young (till they fly to the US to testify that they are an adult) is just rampant abuse of government power though.

        5. avatar James W Crawford says:

          I’m into Puppy Porn myself.
          I can not resist those calenders of photos of dogs underater.

      2. avatar Ed says:

        Thats theSTUPIDEST comparison I’ve ever read…dolt. You must be a cop.

        1. avatar John says:

          Because the “you must be a cop” conclusion is surely the brightest post on this article. Yes I am a cop, and I really don’t care whether you like me or my profession. Your commmet is just laughable.

      3. avatar Pg2 says:

        That’s more than a stretch. Ridiculous statement.

      4. avatar Anonymous says:

        proximity to a bag of dried vegetable matter leaves”

        and child porn is just paper.

        Perhaps avoiding reductionism would help the cause.

        Child porn is not just paper, and being in proximity to a bag of dried vegetable leaves is nothing more than being in proximity to a bag of dried vegetable leaves. So – disagree!

        Had they said, “high as a kite while in a rage killing people with guns” that would have been different.but we both know that pot doesn’t do that.

        Just because a person smokes cigarettes (or weed) doesn’t mean they are going to go insane and kill people.

        Lastly, Kiddie porn has real victims, possessing weed does not have victims.

        It is you who is employing reductionism at the expense of context.

    2. avatar Binder says:

      The solution to all this is simple, unsupervised parole. For example, if you are convicted for a violent felony, you may have another 10 years of unsupervised parole after you are released that ends with your rights fully restored. There should be no requirement for petitioning to have your rights restored. At the same time (unlike some people who comment here), I don’t expect the goverment to have a crystal ball to determine who is a future danger to society.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Really? BS. A lot of stupid there

        A violent felon should even BE paroled? You commit a violent felon against another then someone has failed to correctly dispatch your worthless ass. Sit in prison and rot while counting yourself lucky to be breathing.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Always been a firm believer that if you are too dangerous to be trusted with a gun (or any other dangerous object), it means you should locked up (hospital or prison, depending).

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You guys are failing to understand that you agree. If you’re going to release a criminal from prison, he should immediately have all his civil rights back, voting, guns, whatever. Including child molesters. Might help people understand, you don’t let certain people out. Warehouse them, shoot them, drop them from helicopters, but NEVER let them out.

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          Come on Larry,

          Warehouse them, shoot them, drop them from helicopters, but NEVER let them out.

          We should definitely release them Larry, just air drop them over the UK. “Diversity” and all.

    3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      The bigger issue I have is the proliferation of felonies. Now you’re not going to prison if you’ve been caught with a quarter ounce, but I don’t see why selling a couple pounds of the stuff should be considered a felony. Minor crimes are supposed to be misdemeanors. I also have an issue with the misdemeanor domestic abuse prohibition. If you’re beating our wife or kids you should be charged with a felony.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        if your beating our wife or kids your legal situation may not be your largest problem.

      2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Though, people convicted of misdemeanor abuse may not have beaten anyone. Depends on the state and local definitions.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Usually it’s just some poor schmuck that gets in an argument with his girlfriend who decides to get him good this time by screaming abuse, but then retracts her statement when she realizes he’ll be going to jail and there won’t be anyone around to pay the rent and her ass is getting too big to pick up a new sugar daddy, but the DA won’t drop the charges because he knows the public defender will advise him to take the plea deal and spend the next several years trying to pay off the fines instead of going to jail.

      3. avatar Ed says:

        20 MPH over the speed limit is a felony in my state, and EVERYBODY is 20+ over on the highway…so…state full of waiting felons ready to be plucked by your local revenue agent (cop). Shooting a firework (that you can leagally buy 20 a 20 minute drive away) off that goes over 6′ high is ALSO a felony. Next thing you know, farting in a courthouse will be a felony.

        1. avatar anonymoose says:

          What state is that? I need to know so I can avoid it. :^)

        2. avatar Scott says:

          Just do a google search for “3 felonies a day”.

        3. avatar Call your dentist when you will need the cops says:

          Ed trashing cops, I am shocked! By the way, it seems people were waiting to know what State you are talking about. Being a bit more specific would not hurt. Is speeding 20mph over considered RECKLESS DRIVING, therefore no longer an infraction and simple speeding violation? Is it speeding 20mph over in certain areas (school zone, etc)? Those among us who do not enjoy life in your State will never know. But we get the fact that you really cannot stand cops. And EVERYBODY goes 20mph over on the interstate, lmfao. EVERYBODY folks! You must be living in one of Obama’s imaginary 57 States…

    4. avatar kevin says:

      Why the focus on “violent?” A friend of mine is a “violent felon” because he shot and killed a guy in self-defense, and the jury didn’t buy it, convicting him of involuntary manslaughter. He also “won” a dishonorable discharge from the army for that effort, losing his guns rights and right to vote in the process.

      I’d much rather he regain his gun rights than an identity thief, fraudster, burglar or heavy druggie. The word “violent” is not what you think it is. It’s the word leftists use to seem reasonable when denying gun rights.

    5. avatar Cliff H says:

      No person is or can be denied the use of a firearm to defend themselves or their family.

      They are denied the ability to easily and legally purchase such a firearm. They are denied the legal right to be in or near the presence of a firearm or its ammunition. They are faced with the possibility of prosecution and persecution if they ignore those government restrictions, but the right to self defense, by whatever means, was not bestowed by the government and cannot be taken away by the government, only suppressed.

      And last time I checked there is not a whole lot of difference between the definitions of “suppressed” and “infringed”.

    6. avatar JayInWisconsin says:

      I agree. At the very least, I believe, there should be a way for a non-violent offender who has paid their debt to society (and who remains a citizen of ‘virtue’) to get that right back. Drug laws are ridiculous nonsense – at least marijuana – and a huge waste of taxpayer monies. Now, some of the ‘hard’ drugs? I’m not so sure those should just be ‘unregulated’ but ‘vegetable matter’ should not be regulated as it is right now. (and just for the record, I have not, and do not, ‘use’ vegetable matter or ANY other illegal substances. I just believe what I believe.) Anyways, that’s my two-cents worth. Got change for a .05?

    7. avatar Mikial says:

      Agreed. A lot of the people who have smoked illegal pot are a lot safer carrying a gun than many of the people I’ve known who drink legal alcohol.

    8. avatar LizzieBorden says:

      Guns are not the only weapon available. There are other things that can be used as a weapon to defend oneself. Just gotta think outside the box.

  2. avatar East coast shooter says:

    If you’re not in prison you should be allowed a gun. If someone cannot be trusted with their rights they should not be allowed out of prison.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      In prison or on parole. If you’re granted early release the state has the proper authority to make that conditional.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        According to *current* interpretations of “law”. According to 2A, absolutely wrong. If you’re on the loose, you can carry. Anything else is an infringement. Duh.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Parole is conditional early release from prison. They can demand you stand on your head and fart rubber balls if they want. Or you can sit in your cell and finish your sentence. Either way.

    2. avatar Binder says:

      “If someone cannot be trusted with their rights they should not be allowed out of prison.”
      Cool, can I use your crystal ball for some stock picks?

    3. avatar Salty Bear says:

      This.

  3. avatar Tom Edwards says:

    I have bad problems with sleep. Some nights will not sleep all night. Sleep pills have never done anything. I was sent some CBC oil. 1/4 teaspoon sleep like a lamb. But was told that could loose my conceild carry if found out. I quit. But some say today that I can use it.But I live in Oregon and have not found anybody that has the answer. Even District Attorney.

    1. avatar L says:

      Possession of cannabis is a federal offense. If it’s legal in your state, you will not lose your CWL because that is state-issued. You may still lose your gun rights in general though, and buying any guns while being a user of CBD it is highly illegal as you’re lying on the 4473.

      Not a lawyer BTW.

    2. avatar sanity prevails-maybe says:

      It will take a while for generational brainwashing to purge out with regards to Cannabis. In meantime I would keep your head down and not volunteer any information lest some bureaucrat cross-reference something that gets back to the licensing authority. No medical MJ cards, no clarifying questions, etc. Let the courts play it out and eventually those who think booze is great and MJ is evil will be pushing daisies. you can’t reason with those people.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Yes the worthless babyboomer potheads have managed to widely rationalize their stupid. Defines “dumbing down.

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          Nothing a baby boomer pothead has done is as stupid as the War on (some) Drugs AKA the War on the American People. Only progressives support the drug war.

        2. avatar Ed says:

          Jesus H Christ, you really are an IGNORANT asshole….you MUST be a cop. FFS, listening to you, you’d think pot was actually worse than BOOZE…you know, the legal drug that CAN kill you if you drink too much, as opposed to smoking too much pot and falling asleep. Wake the fuck up, man.

    3. avatar Jay says:

      I thought CBD oil is perfectly legal? I was under the impression it wouldn’t even show positive on a drug test because it’s not THC or whatever else the drug tests are looking for. I don’t know that for a fact, but I would look into the law in your state because I know you can buy CBD oil just at the store here in Florida– it’s not illegal.

      1. avatar Icabod says:

        As with most things it you overdo it, there can be problems.
        “The DEA states, “for practical purposes, all extracts that contain CBD will also contain at least small amounts of other cannabinoids.” (Notice the word “certain”)
        “In order for CBD, or cannabinoid-rich hemp oil products to test positive on a drug test, an individual would have to be using unusually large amounts (above 1000-2000 mg) of the product. Due to the fact that it remains an unregulated drug, some CBD oils have as much as 1/10th the THC concentration as marijuana. Therefore, consuming high quantities of CBD oil will leave enough THC in your system to trigger a positive test result and cause impairment.”
        https://disa.com/blog/will-cbd-oil-result-in-a-positive-drug-test

        At the same time there is CBD oil from hemp that doesn’t contain THC.
        “So is CBD legal? If we’re talking about hemp-derived CBD, then the answer is yes. Now, the keyword here is “hemp-derived.” Because CBD from hemp has no psychoactive effects, the purchase, sales, or possession of hemp CBD products are completely legal in all 50 States. Because hemp is sometimes confused with the marijuana plant, there is still some stigma towards hemp-derived CBD, but from a legal perspective, hemp-derived CBD is completely legal and enjoys the rights of any other legal product.”
        https://medium.com/cbd-origin/is-cbd-legal-legal-status-of-cbd-2018-d1b4a0ed42df

  4. avatar bryan1980 says:

    I have no problems with pot. Now if we can just get the “marijuana for all” so-called libertarians to support our right to keep and bear arms.

    1. avatar arc says:

      I thought libertarians already supported both the end of the war on american civil liberties (War on drugs), and 2A rights? Thats kind of the whole point in being a libertarian right? Liberty for all… at least what I thought…

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        You’re about 30yr out of date. Today “libertarian is just a synonym for “pothead gaggle”. Nothing more that rationalizing their braindead stupid.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          There’s a difference between small l libertarians and the Libertarian Party. The latter are not libertarian in any meaningful way. And many libertarians who are not interested in using drugs are still in favor of legalization. On the flip side, I know a libertarian who is not interested in owning guns who firmly believes “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says.

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          Talk about not having many friends…

          Libertarians are not Democrats. For instance, Ron Paul supporters —
          when he was running for president — were Libertarians rather than Republicans. They wanted the “drug war” to end, the military industrial complex wars to end, less taxes, less government, free market capitalism, right to work, no Federal Reserve, no income tax, no infringements on guns, no police state, freedom of speech and the general “don’t tread on me.” He had to be a Republican because Americans would not vote for liberty over party, which is why his son isn’t as principled as his father (that’s intentional). What you think is a “Libertarian” is more like a Democrat/Liberal.

          Libertarians have to run as Republican to even have a shot at election because Americans are too dumb to progress past tribal affiliations. Republicans will vote for a Democrat in Republican clothing than to vote for anyone that has a “D” next to their name. Republicans talk a big game then line up with the Democrats to oppose Libertarians, Anarchists and Voluntarists. Libertarians are the kind of people who would get rid of departments whereas Republicans would complain about it and call for it to be fixed… The NRA is Republican not Libertarian, which is why they are fine with some laws restricting the 2nd Amendment, Libertarians would call for throwing out those laws.

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      Most Libertarians support the 2nd. It is only a few single issue Libertarian voters(about drugs) that do not support the 2nd.

      1. avatar Jon in CO says:

        As a registered libertarian in CO, I voted for weed to be legalized. However, I am a single issue voter, and that issue is Guns. No guns, no vote. RMGO has a hearing in Appeals today for repeal of the magazine ban. Hopefully things go well.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        In 2016, I watched one (1) interview with pres and VP candidates from Lib party, they espoused great thoughts on more and more gun control. For some reason, I didn’t manage to watch more. Nor will I ever. I have previously voted Lib, I think several times. Not again. In the immortal words of Bill Clinton, “they never forget, and they never forgive”.

  5. avatar burley says:

    there should be no such thing as a “pot conviction”, unless it’s referring to your favorite method of consumption.

  6. avatar el Possum Guapo Herr Standartenfuher" they think we're making pizza"'Oberst von Burn says:

    Anything to get your firearm. I don’t think smoking weed or cigs is a good idea if your pregnant. I’m still fighting to get that DV misdemeanor No Gunz For Life changed. Talk about an unjust punishment. …. It’s a friken weed, that grows out of the ground, it’s not like you’ve got to cook it up synthesis it, add sulfuric acid. It’s not like you’ve got to distill it, brew it up into a nasty drink that’s ruined more lives and families then anything yet to come. I always ask this question,” would you rather take a ride with a drunk whose drank to his satisfaction or would you rather ride with a stoner who’s toked up to his satisfaction”?. I’ve put a lot of metal in the ditch drunk but I’ve never wrecked a car stoned.The only thing I see wrong with weed is it tends to make you lazy

    1. avatar rt66paul says:

      She was riding around in a car where one person had pot. She was charged just as all the others were. Being in the car doesn’t mean she was using pregnant.

  7. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    A bit of weed is nothing like a meth lab polluting the countryside.
    Good grief. Get it off the FDA schedule.
    Get it out of the criminal courts.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      Toxic waste from U.S. pot farms alarms experts

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-marijuana-environment/toxic-waste-from-u-s-pot-farms-alarms-experts-idUSKBN1AM0C3

      https://phys.org/news/2017-02-legal-marijuana-sales-escalating-environment.html

      Illegal Pot Farms Are Poisoning California’s Forests

      https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/backcountry-drug-war/521352/

      https://www.newsweek.com/illegal-marijuana-farms-dump-shocking-amount-toxic-waste-647568

      New research suggests that unlawful marijuana farming is diverting water sources, poisoning animals, and increasing erosion.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/uc_breakthroughs_2014/2014/04/green_but_not_green_how_pot_farms_trash_the_environment.html

      This is not information. I read about the pollution caused by illegal pot farms nearly 20 years ago. But that information was published in conservative news papers. So I guess that does not count as a reliable news source.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        ps. This is not “new” information.

      2. avatar Fed Up says:

        Yep, legalize it then we can have regular farms instead of these cladestine grow spots.

  8. avatar MarkPA says:

    Agreed. Much of the infringement on the 2A is via the Prohibited-Person law(s). Think about it clearly. Imagine if the P-P law were stripped of every one of its elements. (This is a mental exercise; so, don’t get worked-up about the fact that it’s theoretical.) Then, how would the Anti’s encroach on the right of the People? It would be pretty hard, wouldn’t it?

    Now, more realistically, imagine if the P-P law were pared-down to only those elements that would seem to make a lot of sense. Not many of those enabled would represent a public safety risk; not many peaceable people would be a single mis-step away from losing their 2A rights.

    How to make some progress? First thing to recognize is that your’s or my particular hobby-horse is NOT the soft underbelly of the P-P law. We have to find that weak point and attack it so that we create the first fissure.

    One good example is the exemption for certain “financial crime” felonies. If you are convicted of – for example – price fixing, you are a felon but you KEEP your 2A rights. What gives here? What is the principle involved? Why the carve-out for wealthy people to commit felonies against consumers? Either the crime – e.g. price-fixing – is not so severe that it warrants a felony designation; or, the exemption is based on a logical principle that it is just such a crime that does not imply a risk to public safety by misuse of a gun. Which is it?

    If the exemption is well-founded, then there must be some other cases. Which are the reasonable candidates? Pot convictions are a good place to start – while at the same time making it clear that each drug must be considered distinctly. PCP is not the same issue as pot. States are diluting their own laws about pot and there is widespread recognition that pot has been demonized far beyond the scientific evidence. Succeed in getting pot use out of the P-P law and then go back for more exemptions.

    The tactic must be to open one fissure first. Once that has been done successfully, go for just 2 more. Once success on both of those have widened the fissure, go for 3. At all cost, do NOT screw the pooch and fail on the first or second point of attack. E.g., yes, you want to get all those small time pot-dealer convicts relief. But that’s a bridge too far for the first or second increment.

    A second example is the blocking of funding for the DoJ to evaluate applications for restoration of rights. We can see from several successful court cases that judges have found the application of the P-P law to certain felons and 2-year misdemeanants to be unconstitutional “as applied”. It is a denial of Constitutional rights to force each worthy candidate to have to sue. The DoJ restoration program must have its funding restored and be administered with a good faith effort to approve worthy candidates.

    A third example is the mental defect text. There is no good solution to this facet of the problem. But the perfect should not be the enemy of an effort to improve. Mental illness is usually episodic and often diagnosed erroneously. The path to restoration of rights ought to be less steep.

    If an effort in this direction fails in attacks on soft targets there is no reason for optimism that a sweeping reform would see the light of day.

  9. avatar Sora says:

    Constitution law challenges should be made so there will be systems put into place for the heavy burden of the government to prove their point every time fundamental rights of people (Bill of Rights) is to be revoked from each individual.
    Can’t bother to prove it? Don’t try to revoke the rights.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      I don’t think they can revoke your 2A rights without a conviction or guilty plea.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You’re kidding, right? For over 100 years, there effectively were NO 2A rights. EVERYBODY’S rights were revoked, except Vermont. You’re looking at the past 15 years and thinking that is US history? Get real!

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          True, all they need to take away EVERYBODY’S rights is a handful of judges, but I was referring to the taking of an INDIVIDUAL’S rights.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    I certainly sympathize. In my misspent youth I partook of the herb. Got stopped by the po-leece a few times. Had an acquaintance go to prison after they threatened his wife by taking away their kid. If I had been busted what justice would have been served?!? Not a damn thing…and we have a brain dead hillbilly running the justice department going after pot. I’d rather you used pot than heroin!

  11. avatar Gman says:

    If one cannot be trusted with a firearm they should not be among us in the first place. This forces society to take responsibility for itself. To “prohibit” certain people from ownership is stupid. Laws do not prevent, they punish. One who wants a firearm will obtain one.
    On pot…
    I have a problem with a country that prints its currency with In God We Trust and then outlaws a perfectly natrual growing plant put here by God.

  12. avatar Gman says:

    You are a convict felon and a prohibited person. You are attacked by an armed person and take their gun away and use it to defend yourself. Are you then subject to being prosecuted for illegal possesion? If not, then why are you prohibited from owning that very instrument of protection?

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “Are you then subject to being prosecuted for illegal possession?”
      Yes, you are. In the case highlighted in the OP, the pregnant woman had a previous pot conviction (which, if you look at the merits of the case, were really flimsy to start, she pled out).
      A man broke into her home and attacked her and her family. She grabbed her husband (or boyfriend?)’s gun, which he legally owned, and shot the attacker.
      She was then arrested for illegal possession of a firearm and is being prosecuted.

      1. avatar Gman says:

        There is a nuanced difference between taking a gun you had no previous access to and one which is in your home already. That said, as you point out the choice is damned if you do….

  13. avatar Kevin D Moakley says:

    An insidious thing going on in Massachusetts against the Second Amendment (I know, shocker), a few years ago, ‘medical marijuana cards’ were given out. Now the State is looking to purge the rolls of any gun owner that had/has said card. This- after subsequent decriminalization AND subsequent recreational allowance! I am not nor ever have been a pot user, I no longer reside in Massachusetts, but I know of people in this quandry.
    “It’s a trap!”- Admiral Ackbar

  14. avatar rt66paul says:

    Who really needs protection than an ex felon? These guys have to be in a gang in prison for protection. When they get out they “owe” the gang and other active gang members that are out will come looking for you to do crimes to support the gang. If you do, you will eventually get back to prison, if you don’t, you will be assaulted or killed.

    BTW, L.E. doesn’t care about you, except to put you back behind bars. Parole says you can’t leave the area without permission, certainly can’t leave the state. Maybe you need a firearm?

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      The majority of felons never serve a day in prison.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Agree, you and every adult you know have likely committed at least one felony.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          We had a well respected judge, here in Austin, who during an interview announced that he did not believe that *he* could drive from the north city limits to the south city limits without committing at least 3 felonies. Passing all these stupid, unenforceable laws is not an accident. When they want you, they can get you.
          A good question is, why do they want this young woman?

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Which is why they shouldn’t be felons.

        That or they should be in prison, one or the other.

  15. avatar Rokurota says:

    Pot isn’t the issue. Decriminalize it if you want, there will always be another “crime” that we disagree should be one.

    The problem is her husband owned the gun until she used it in a moment of necessity. Then suddenly she had “possession” of it. That’s statutory nonsense. The state legislature should do away with it.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      This is about state? I was under the impression we were talking about Federal.

  16. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    observe ancient ritual, submit to transgressor. fair exchange.

    know why the water table is so low in yemen? the ghat trees are thirsty.

    i saw kratom leaves for sale in manhattan bodegas.

  17. avatar FedUp says:

    The real problem here is cutting a deal, probably with help of a public defender, whereby she got zero punishment and the DA got himself a felony conviction, for a charge that stood not one chance in a hundred of resulting in a conviction at trial. Five people in a car, a bunch of weed in the car, no idea whose weed it is, so let’s make felons out of all of them.

    In the case at hand, I thought that if the only evidence of illegal firearm possession was your need to use it to defend your life, that it wasn’t admissible evidence for firearm possession charges? But, given the fact that she apparently still lives where the ‘marijuana conviction’ happened, I don’t have very high expectations from either the DA or the defense attorneys.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You’re still missing the point. No prosecutors, no court, no trial, nobody is complaining about her defending herself. They are revoking her parole, completely bureaucrat.

  18. avatar Eric O says:

    Prosecuting anyone for anything less than violating someone’s right to life, liberty, and property is, in itself, a violation of their right to life, liberty, and/or property. Regardless of whether it is a non violent “crime”. Right and Left alike enjoy imposing their views onto other people while using the legal system to do so:
    “Oh, you have [guns/heroin]? Let me absolutely violate your rights regardless of whether you have violated anyone else’s.”

    1. avatar Eric O says:

      That’s how easy it is to identify the Rosie O’Donnells of the world.

    2. avatar burley says:

      It’s surprising how few adults actually understand this. I have the most frustrating conversations with people who say ridiculous things like ” but how would you stop people from speeding if you don’t license drivers?!”

    3. avatar Wasteland says:

      A driver caught behind the wheel drunk, who has not caused a wreck YET…should be good to go since he/she is not really violating life, property etc. Hell why not let him/her drive away and as long as the cop doesn’t get a call for a traffic crash, hey guess what? It’s a win win everybody got lucky!

      Driving with a b.s Sovereign citizen “license plate, or no plate at all, is all good I guess? Unless you’re involved in a hit and run and the victim is totally screwed.

      Going away with driver licenses is awesome. It is so great it would allow all people with several prior serious convictions (reckless driving causing a crash with injury or property damage, DUI…) to drive. And jumping back to point #1, they can even drive drunk as they do not violate your life or liberty until they send you or your kids to the ER I guess.

      A parasite selling pills to high school teens is really not that big of a deal, after all the teens want to purchase the pills, don’t they?

      And the list goes on, the sky is the limit.

  19. avatar Ed says:

    All you dipshits forget that George Washigton GREW pot, so did Thomas Jefferson. Ben Franklin preferred Cocaine and hookers, so these three amazing Americans would all be felons and George would be doing LIFE for a non-violent cultivation charge and I’m sure all of them would catch tax evasion charges as well….keep that in mind.

  20. avatar Ralph says:

    Making simple possession of pot into a felony is one of the dumbest things our so-called “justice system” has ever foisted on our country — and that’s saying something, since the entire system is corrupt on a Third World level.

    As a (retired) lawyer with decades of experience, I have nothing but contempt for the system, and listing pot as a Schedule 1 drug is just one of a million reasons.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      Any PI experience?

    2. avatar El possum gordo, etc. says:

      Go live some time in Liberia, Venezuela, Bangladesh, or Uzbekistan, and come back to tell us our justice system is 3rd world material.

  21. avatar CZJay says:

    Even if a man is home he needs a tool to defend her from criminals who run a red dot on their pistol:

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      Obviously he stole that in a previous home invasion.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        What’s fucked up about having a red dot on your gun is when criminals steal your gun they now have the ability to actually hit their target like they can in one of the FPS games they often play. Prior to red dots on pistols they had to have some level of skill, now it’s point and shoot. Similar to a laser, but much better.

  22. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    The fact that pot is seen through the same lens as meth or PCP etc. is of course stupid beyond belief! This country is overloaded with felonies at both state and especially federal level, most of these felonies should never result in prohibited person status. As a country we need to clean house and remove most felonies, of those that remain the number that remove voting and gun rights should be severely limited.

    No, I don’t smoke pot, and wouldn’t even if it was legal, for that matter I barely drink at all.

  23. avatar Free Texas says:

    I agree. I don’t want to live in a country of potheads (nobody would be on time for anything), but I think the war on drugs has been an excuse to militarize police and limit our civil liberties potentially. But to the point, why would any non-violent offense preclude the right of meaningful self defense in an age of firearms? Odd reasoning. Especially in light of the fact that there are about umpteen million federal felonies one can inadvertently violate now…

  24. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Never lie on the 4473. Tell the truth. Look into a private sale in your local area. Having said that pot users need to face the consequences of their actions. You want freedom? I don’t really believe you do. Because responsibility come with freedom. I don’t think smoking pot, in doors, should be a felony. But in a moving vehicle? If she and her friends had killed someone, that’s felony murder as far as I’m concerned. There are all guilty.

    Pot users are not reliable people (my father) in my experience. They are not reliable supporters of Liberty. They vote for drugs and against 2A rights every single time. That is why California (my experience), Washington state and Colorado, all lost their gun rights. Because to the pot heads “its an equal trade”. Losing guns to get legal marijuana intoxication is a equal trade.
    “Drugs and guns are of equal value”. Lose you gun rights no big deal. Most pot heads have never had a gun in the family. They never appreciated the second amendment in the first place.

    Historically the pot legalization leadership NEVER SUPPORTED the Second Amendment. And they STILL DON’T. In fact they said if drugs were legal there would be no need for anyone to have guns. They also said blacks would not need guns and crime would be lower in the housing (gun free zone) projects. So said the dope smoking pot heads.

    Should a gun dealer deny her a gun sale if her alcohol drug conviction popped up vs her conviction for pot intoxication????

    And if she uses a gun under the influence of pot should she go to jail? I know she would be in jail having had to much to drink.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Give it a rest bud, everyone here knows you think people should have freedom only so long as they don’t do anything you don’t like. Typical leftist attitude, which is funny because you’re always railing against “the three Ls, libertarians, liberals, and the left”

      1. avatar Butterfree says:

        He is partly right. SOME potheads would trade many things in favor of leagalizing this, and then that. SOME folks are seriously addicted to pot, they don’t freak out like meth heads, heroin junkies, crack heads, but they have a serious addiction. They cannot function a day without smoking pot. People who smoke frequently WILL suffer a loss of cognitive abilities, it might be hard to spot but it is there, they will be “slower”.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        The response from a typical pot head. “All I want is to put things into my body and don’t want to face the consequence of my own actions”.

        I want the tax payer to pay for my “free” pot and “free” drug rehab.

        That is why Libertarians will never win. Even Libertarian Senator Rand Paul in my state of Kentucky is not working on your precious drug legalization. But he is working to making industrial hemp legal. That would help the farm economy everywhere.

        Its a worthless crop to Libertarians who can’t get intoxicated on it.

  25. avatar James W Crawford says:

    One of Oregon’s “non-violent” marijunna bootleggers fired a 12 gauge shotgun, probably loaded with slugs, at his landlord’s children because he was angry about an attempted eviction. Yamhill County Judge Ladd Wiles, aka “Amanda Marshall’s cuckold” (Look up the Hammond case to know what an uber bitch she is) employed the same profound discernment that enabled his wife to engage in a prolonged extramarrital affair that he remained oblivious to until she got herself arrested for stalking her boyfriend, by giving the bootlegger a free pass.

  26. avatar Actions have consequences, get over it and use your brain BEFORE next time. says:

    All the TTAG pot heads, drunks, reckless drivers, wife beaters, sovereign citizen, cop haters…are upset lmfao.

    Wtf I can drive drunk, I driver better drunk. I hate cops I got a ticket for speeding 20mph over and following too closely, we live in a third world country I want to drive like I am playing a nascar video game bro! Having 20g of pot in the car is not a big deal man, it is just pot man.

    But of course, blame the cops, blame the “system”. I mean who else is to blame when you were driving like a complete retard, you knew it, and you got busted. Who else should you blame when you sit in a car with idiots and their collection of contraband, who are working hard on committing traffic violation so the cops have a reason to pull them over, and you know the end of the story.

    It is your responsibility to know the laws you may be violating someday in your State, and the consequences of doing so. I want to believe those here who make it sound that in their State, nazi cops are at every corner waiting to catch everything that moves. Move then. We have a big country.

  27. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    Last time I checked this is the year 2018. Not only should a bogus conviction for pot not be detrimental for you to possess or purchase a firearm it definitely shouldn’t be used against you for lawfully defending yourself and the lives of others. Did I miss something, were we all suddenly transported back to 1950? Marijuana should be legalized in this country and not be legal in the piecemeal fashion that now exists. Or at the very least make cigarettes and any form of booze illegal to possess also! Cigs and booze kill hundreds of thousands yearly in this “Once great nation”, pot has never killed a single verifiable person in the history of it’s use. A week ago this site posed the question of our opinion of the most ridiculous gun laws on the books. Now I know the answer… All charges should be dropped and expunged on anyone who was ever charged with possession of less than a quarter pound of marijuana or less. This charade of justice should have been rectified years ago. Too many people have been unjustifiably punished over the years for simply having fun with a proven harmless substance, while millions have died because a federally sanctioned highly addictive substance that is proven kill people.

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