Tweet
Take a deep breath because this is long and legalize. lol
This was pertaining to some law in Illinois that prohibits medical cannabis users from owning firearms.
This is something a friend of mine wrote and it makings surprisingly good sense to me.
"I can flat out tell you that this is unconstitutional.
Let me explain why:
The second amendment gives the federal government no rights to regulate private gun ownership or transference. What it does give the federal government the right to do and by proxy the states the right to do, is to regulate groups who would act in concert dealing with firearms. depending on who you ask this regulation could apply in all manners of regulations that are considered constitutional today. However, at the individual level, no right of regulation should be accepted or acknowledged.
Why you ask? Lets take a look at the second amendment:
This is the version that the federal congress ratified:
"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."
This is the version that the states ratified:
"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."
Notice the differences? Those differences are what gives states the idea that they can in anyway shape or form regulate individual firearm ownership as well as leads to ideas that gun ownership is about militia and not individual ownership. I'm here to tell you it most certainly is not!
The federal version of the 2nd amendment has a comma that clearly shows that those who created the 2nd amendment intended for two different levels of influence to apply. One, the ability to regulate firearm ownership as it pertains to militia activities, two, the complete freedom of the individuals when it comes to all aspects of firearms.
Let me say this again so you will understand it: The federally ratified version of the second amendment gives the federal government prohibits the federal government from creating any type of authority over private gun ownership at the individual level or corporate level as long as the purpose of the firearms is not designated for militia usage.
As a precursor to becoming part of the United States of America, all states had to agree to the constitution as it was ratified by the federal government. States could have state constitutions that expanded upon constitutional rights but could not take away from the federally guaranteed constitutional rights agreed upon by the as of then designated federal officials who signed the Constitution of the United States of America.
This requirement by local and state governments to observe federal gun rights has been spoken by the supreme court at least three times and most recently just a couple years ago concerning an issue in New York.
If this is not enough to convince you that Illinois does not have the right to prevent medical marijuana users constitutional rights then let me direct you to another recent court decision on statutory law vs. constitutional law concerning the recent NSA revelations:
"Judge Leon who ruled two weeks ago in Klayman v. Obama that the NSA actions are unconstitutional also looked at statutory law but said this:
While this judge does say that congress has great latitude to create statutory schemes he also created precedent that clearly indicated that anything pertaining to the rights given by the constitution supersedes any statutory law that any congress, be it federal, state, or local, ratifies.
These two interpretations should clearly show the thinking individual that the state of Illinois as well as all other states who have laws on the books prohibiting the ownership of guns by medical cannabis users are unconstitutional and any who passed these laws were negligent in their duties as elected officials.
I would like to expand on this to say that virtually all gun ownership regulation aimed at the individual is unconstitutional for the same reasons stated above pertaining to medical cannabis users. Shockingly enough, this includes the obviously infringed upon group who because of a felony or violent background cannot own firearms. As much as we might wish it otherwise, without a constitutional convention being held to modify the constitution as it is currently written, no governmental agency in the United States of America has any right to regulated individual gun ownership in way, shape, or form."
Well....what do you think about them apples?
No flame wars.......just something interesting to think about
This was pertaining to some law in Illinois that prohibits medical cannabis users from owning firearms.
This is something a friend of mine wrote and it makings surprisingly good sense to me.
"I can flat out tell you that this is unconstitutional.
Let me explain why:
The second amendment gives the federal government no rights to regulate private gun ownership or transference. What it does give the federal government the right to do and by proxy the states the right to do, is to regulate groups who would act in concert dealing with firearms. depending on who you ask this regulation could apply in all manners of regulations that are considered constitutional today. However, at the individual level, no right of regulation should be accepted or acknowledged.
Why you ask? Lets take a look at the second amendment:
This is the version that the federal congress ratified:
"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."
This is the version that the states ratified:
"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."
Notice the differences? Those differences are what gives states the idea that they can in anyway shape or form regulate individual firearm ownership as well as leads to ideas that gun ownership is about militia and not individual ownership. I'm here to tell you it most certainly is not!
The federal version of the 2nd amendment has a comma that clearly shows that those who created the 2nd amendment intended for two different levels of influence to apply. One, the ability to regulate firearm ownership as it pertains to militia activities, two, the complete freedom of the individuals when it comes to all aspects of firearms.
Let me say this again so you will understand it: The federally ratified version of the second amendment gives the federal government prohibits the federal government from creating any type of authority over private gun ownership at the individual level or corporate level as long as the purpose of the firearms is not designated for militia usage.
As a precursor to becoming part of the United States of America, all states had to agree to the constitution as it was ratified by the federal government. States could have state constitutions that expanded upon constitutional rights but could not take away from the federally guaranteed constitutional rights agreed upon by the as of then designated federal officials who signed the Constitution of the United States of America.
This requirement by local and state governments to observe federal gun rights has been spoken by the supreme court at least three times and most recently just a couple years ago concerning an issue in New York.
If this is not enough to convince you that Illinois does not have the right to prevent medical marijuana users constitutional rights then let me direct you to another recent court decision on statutory law vs. constitutional law concerning the recent NSA revelations:
"Judge Leon who ruled two weeks ago in Klayman v. Obama that the NSA actions are unconstitutional also looked at statutory law but said this:
While this judge does say that congress has great latitude to create statutory schemes he also created precedent that clearly indicated that anything pertaining to the rights given by the constitution supersedes any statutory law that any congress, be it federal, state, or local, ratifies.
These two interpretations should clearly show the thinking individual that the state of Illinois as well as all other states who have laws on the books prohibiting the ownership of guns by medical cannabis users are unconstitutional and any who passed these laws were negligent in their duties as elected officials.
I would like to expand on this to say that virtually all gun ownership regulation aimed at the individual is unconstitutional for the same reasons stated above pertaining to medical cannabis users. Shockingly enough, this includes the obviously infringed upon group who because of a felony or violent background cannot own firearms. As much as we might wish it otherwise, without a constitutional convention being held to modify the constitution as it is currently written, no governmental agency in the United States of America has any right to regulated individual gun ownership in way, shape, or form."
Well....what do you think about them apples?
No flame wars.......just something interesting to think about