National Universal Background Checks

[Buzzard]

 

 

WitchDoctor, Is it recreational marijuana or medical marijuana that you feel uneasy about mixing with guns? Medical marijuana isn't about getting stoned. There ARE those of us that need pain relief that would benefit from such a bill. My pain doctor strongly advises me to get a MM card during every visit and I have explained more than once that because I'm a gun enthusiast, I won't apply for a card due to the 4473. She then asks "How many guns do you have? Don't you have enough?" and I explain, "I like collecting them. Why should I be limited in how many guns I can collect? Car collectors aren't banned from purchasing cars when they acquire a MM card and cars kill far more people than guns do. So why should I be penalized and lose a cherished freedom to gain some much needed relief from pain?"

 

Illinois decriminalizing small amounts of pot won't benefit me either because again, I'm not looking to get high, I need more pain relief than my medicine provides. And not ALL medical marijuana contains the THC that gives one the "high". Now, I realize there are those that will run to their doctor feigning non-existent pains to get a MM card, just as many lazy folks have done to get a handicap card to get the closest parking spots. And I'm told weed makes you passive while booze usually makes you less inhibited and/or more aggressive. I would say alcohol raises more concerns that marijuana does.

 

LMAO! Have you tried modern medical pot? Mind-blowing potency. Just unreal.

 

 

Since I don't have a MM card, just HOW would I be able to try it!? And did you even READ my entire post? As I pointed out.....

 

...not ALL medical marijuana contains the THC that gives one the 'high'.

 

[yurimodin]

looks like GOP is prepping to throw 2020 so they don't have to repeal all the garbage they pretend to oppose.....

[InterestedBystander]

Full story at link...

 

Universal Background Checks Are Constitutionally Suspect

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/universal-background-checks-are-constitutionally-suspect/

 

...UBCs violate the original meaning of the commerce clause and are likely ineffective at combating the very malady theyre alleged to address.

Once more I find myself in the unenviable position of disagreeing with one of Americas brightest legal minds, John Yoo. In January, Professor Yoo and I debated the legality of various aspects of the Trump administrations border-wall emergency declaration. Today, Im going to dissent from his assertion in an NRO article published last week that universal background checks (UBCs) as applied to intrastate transfers between private citizens are constitutionally kosher.

 

I agree with him that UBCs dont violate the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms does not extend to violent felons or the dangerously mentally ill. But I part company with Professor Yoo when he argues that federally mandated UBCs on intrastate transfers between private citizens (as opposed to federally licensed firearms dealers) do not violate the commerce clause. When Congress extends its regulatory authority to the simple transfer of an existing legal good between two individuals within the same state, it blasts through the plain meaning of the Constitution, and it even strains existing precedent (which has long granted Congress more regulatory power than the Founders intended)....