With pot friendly states saying they will fight or ignore federal marijuana laws....what's to keep gun friendly states from using that as a template to allow full auto, suppressors, constitutional carry, etc.? Discuss.......
The problem is the federal DEA can raid state licensed pot shops, seize all inventory and arrest the owner and all employees as federal felony drug dealers.
Wrong idea. The DoJ said, in essence, if a state allows the sale/possession.use of MJ, it will be far more selective in the violations of federal law it chooses to investigate and prosecute. If the DoJ were to say the same thing about 'assault weapons' during a federal ban on same, the left will go apeshit.
Under the Obama administration the policy was to not enforce federal marijuana laws. That left the issue in the hands of the states. Back in the 1980's the NRA convinced Reagan to dissolve the ATF because they didn't want to federal gun laws to be enforced. However, because of an outcry from law enforcement all across the nation the plan was abandoned. There is no reason to believe that Trump would try anything like that.
"When Ronald Reagan came into office, the NRA nearly succeeded in its longtime goal of abolishing ATF. Reagan wanted to eliminate the agency and transfer its powers to the Secret Service and the Internal Revenue Service. But NRA leaders decided they preferred the weak devil they knew to stronger new regulators. Quietly and somewhat awkwardly, they lobbied to undo their accomplishment. "As long as ATF existed, the firearms lobby could utilize it as a symbolic opponent," Vizzard said. "Without an ATF, the firearms lobby lost a key actor in the ritual drama - the villain."" Wouldn't those laws be enforced by the Secret Service and IRS then? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...14/AR2010121406045_3.html?sid=ST2010121406431
But the original plan was that no federal agency would enforce gun laws. After much criticism, Reagan decided to compromise. The NRA backed down and decided that they'd rather have the ATF enforcing gun laws than those other agencies.
Either a power or authority is delegated to the Federal Government or State Government, why both as with Firearms ?
The Commerce Clause and Taxation Clause of the US Constitution grant the federal government power to regulate guns. The Tenth Amendment protects the traditional police powers of the states which include regulating firearms.
States can pass anything they want. The feds can, will and do arrest people all the same for violating federal law.
The policy under the administration of Barack Obama that allowed individual states to ignore federal laws regulating marijuana has been rescinded under the administration of Donald Trump.
Actually, that is not true. Sessions has simply issued a memo that echo's the same standards outlined in the Cole Memo. Like the Cole Memo written during the Obama Administration, it reiterates the federal position that pot is illegal, but states there are other priorities that may, or may not, direct the focus of enforcement.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...-obama-era-policy-legalized-marijuana-n834591 Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave U.S. attorneys the green light Thursday to aggressively enforce federal laws against marijuana — even in states where pot is legal. In doing so, Sessions reversed an Obama administration policy that shielded legalized marijuana from federal intervention and enabled the pot industry to flourish. "The previous issuance of guidance undermines the rule of law and the ability of our local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement partners to carry out this mission," Sessions wrote in a three paragraph memo. Sessions wrote that he is simply directing "all U.S. Attorneys to use previously established prosecutorial principles that provide them all the necessary tools to disrupt criminal organizations, tackle the growing drug crisis, and thwart violent crime across our country." Federal law prohibits growing, buying and using marijuana. But while Sessions gave permission to prosecute marijuana cases, a Justice Department official stressed that he did not explicitly call for that. Nor did Sessions say federal prosecutors should now go after the industry. Still, the Sessions memo drew immediate condemnation from Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, a Republican whose state legalized pot in 2014. He threatened to retaliate by holding up confirmation of Sessions' picks for top DOJ positions.
Dog whistles from the left don't replace facts. Excerpt from Cole Memo written during the Obama Administration regarding Federal prosecution of Marijuana Laws. https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf These priorities will continue to guide the Department's enforcement of the CSA against marijuana-related conduct. Thus, this memorandum serves as guidance to Department attorneys and law enforcement to focus their enforcement resources and efforts, including prosecution, on persons or organizations whose conduct interferes with any one or more of these priorities, regardless of state law.1 Excerpt from Sessions Memo written the other day: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1022196/download In deciding which marijuana activities to prosecute under these laws with the Department's finite resources, prosecutors should follow the well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti originally set forth these principles in 1980, and they have been refined over time, as reflected in chapter 9-27 .000 of the U.S. Attorneys' Maiiual. These principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community. So tell me, how different are the above two paragraphs?
that's why we need more Judges like Clarence Thomas who takes a dim view of the violation of states' powers
