Honolulu orders gun owners with medical marijuana prescriptions to turn in their guns:
Gun-owning cannabis patients in Honolulu, Hawaii, aren’t feeling like they’re living in paradise right about now. After all, many recently got a letter from the Honolulu Police Department demanding they either transfer their firearms or turn them over to law enforcement.
“The Honolulu Police Department has sent letters to local medical marijuana patients ordering them to “voluntarily surrender” their firearms because of their MMJ status.
The letters, signed by Honolulu Police Chief Susan Ballard, inform patients that they have 30 days upon receipt of the letter to transfer ownership or turn in their firearms and ammunition to the Honolulu Police.”
Honolulu being a one-party town, what do you think is going to happen?
Oh, yeah – the Feds are saying the same thing.
Next: If you drink – turn in your guns. If you smoke – turn in your guns. If you jaywalk – turn in your guns. If you breath – turn in your guns. Now stick your leg out so we can shackle a ball and chain to it. There. Isn’t that better?
Hawaii’s may-issue law specifically says that drug users can not own a gun. Hawaii’s firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. If something like this makes its way to the USSC we may end up with shall-issue in the Aloha State.
And then all Hell would break loose. Their is a racial element to crime here. Many more Polynesians and Indonesians would be denied a carry permit than whites or Japanese.
JPA, if you smoke cigarettes are you considered “impaired”? No, and you know it. So, your point is pointless.
Still, I don’t agree with this law. Do I think it’s a reasonable limit as allowed for under McDonald, no, but whether it’s reasonable is an issue for the court.
Mann, you aren’t (as far as I know) a constitutional Law professor or lawyer. You cannot confidently assert this law is unconstitutional on it’s face, because you lack standing as an expert in the field, just as neither Mitch nor I are. I may agree it should not be seen as constitutional (and I do) but until this is vetted through the courts, the jury is out (or in this case, the panel of judges). The point being, many times you righties claim some limit is unconstitutional only to find out later, you’re dead wrong. The state (and municipality) are allowed to issue reasonable limits, the question is, what is reasonable?
As far as your racist comment, WTF ever. There are more whites on the island than Polynesians and FAR more than Indonesians (or of those decent). So, actually, it’s pretty likely there will be more “whites” limited – but I’m sure your point is about percentages. News flash Mann (or as I shall call you going forward, RacistMann), minorities generally have higher crime rates, because they generally life in lower economic strata – which is the real predictor – not race. Maybe someday, you righties, who constantly use race and racial demographic (ignoring socio-economic strata) to justify your pattern of accepting injustice, will see just how wrong you are, every day.
“accepting injustice”
We can central plan ***them*** better. Like the Met Council Sims games.
Phenobarbital is a drug that can be used to treat some forms of epilepsy.
It is also a drug that can be abused. Someone who is under treatment can have the drug in system from daily intake, but not be impaired.
Are they going to go for the guns of people under treatment with drugs other than the dread cannabis?
Actually, Pen, the strongest predictor for criminality is not poverty. It’s unwed parenting. And with only 27% of the state’s population, caucasians are unlikely to make up the bulk of those refused for carry permits.
Regarding the unconstitutionality of may issue carry, the relevant precedent is Moore v. Madigan, which required Illinois to adopt shall issue concealed carry. Yes, even though the 9th Circus dis-serves Hawaii, the precedent is likely coming there.
Regarding the notion of giving up guns for using medical marijuana, it boggles the mind that one can take Marinol or even opiates without losing that right, but a little bit of marijuana in another form ought to disbar someone from owning a firearm. Or that, really, one can be an alcoholic while not losing the right, but a sub-intoxicating dose to control seizures or back pain is #abigdeal.
Federal marijuana law is unconstitutional on its face.
No, I’m not a big-shot constitutional law professor but then, neither were James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin or George Washington. We’re people of good faith capable of exercising intelligence in light of experience to reach rational conclusions based on a fair reading of the text of the Constitution and an understanding of the context in which it was written.
The Founders, having thrown off a powerful government and seeking to replace a weak one, struck a balance. Our government is an enumerated-powers type. Congress was given the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and between the several states, and with Indian nations. The plain intent was to avoid the trade wars that had occurred under the Confederacy.
There is no grant of power in the Constitution for the United States government to regulate vices like alcohol, which is why the 19th Amendment was necessary.
Supreme Court opinions stretching the commerce clause to unrecognizably absurd extremes in order to avoid the inconvenience of another amendment were wrongly decided and should be overturned, beginning with Wickard v. Filburn and continuing through Gonzalez v. Raich. I look forward to more Supreme Court vacancies so President Trump can put us back on the path to limited government.
In the mean time, perhaps he can take a leaf from President Obama’s playbook. Laws that the President doesn’t personally like (such as immigration), he need not vigorously enforce. If President Trump were to direct federal agencies to refocus their law enforcement efforts on other areas of higher priority, it would have the regrettable effect of leaving nobody to enforce the medical marijuana law but what can you do when needs are many and resources are few?
You cannot confidently assert this law is unconstitutional on it’s face, because you lack standing as an expert in the field, just as neither Mitch nor I are.
My confidence is based on the fact that the USSC has found laws very similar to Hawaii’s to be unconstitutional.
Penigma, Your assertion that MP is racist is beyond the pale, typical BS coming from someone that’s really just a twerp.
The problem with “may issue” laws in general is that it is in conflict with the principle of equality under the law & due process. Opponents of “shall issue” laws should consider how they would feel about a sheriff in a “may issue” county or state refusing to give permits to Blacks, with no recourse to the judicial system. In Hawaii, “may issue” has resulted in cronyism — friends of the sheriff and their family members get permits, lawyers, judges, and connected business owners get permits, no one else does.
BTW, if concealed carry were legal in HI I would probably get a permit, “just in case”, but I would not carry. Too much hassle.