Any updates on MMJ and Guns

ProdigalSun said:

You must disclose immediately when stopped if carrying concealed. If you don't they can take the gun, and you lose your CPL for 6 months with a fine.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(pyij2f45capohy55gyms2u55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-28-425f&query=on&highlight=disclose

Click to expand...

right but he wasnt carrying was my point, we were at work..

Not carrying, no duty to disclose. If it's in a trunk case, or similar, you don't have to tell them either. If the cop wants to chat, you don't have to say, but as soon as it turns into a stop, then you must disclose.

mushead said:

right but he wasnt carrying was my point, we were at work..

Click to expand...

Your work doesn't honor CPL?

I have been searching the web everyday since I made this thread looking for 1 case in Michigan wherea Cpl holder was found in possession of a mmj card and was prosecuted by Feds. I have read where illegal growers or people over their plant count or weight limits have been charged. Still I have yet to see one where the patient was legal under MI law and was victimized. I think the memo sent out by the Feds has just been a scare tactic. I really don't know that this would hold up in court.

Also I remember reading the MI legislators were trying to pass a bill stating that MI wouldn't follow and federal gun prohibition laws. If this were the case it would mean that mmj patient would be safe from getting forwarded to the Feds. Anyone heard this news story? Or was I dreaming?

You're not dreaming. I dont remember the bill number though. Michigan does have a "policy" against forwarding info on us to the feds. It just doesnt happen.

The recent states rights movement is gaining a lot of momentum, and it's backed by the tenth amendment, it has wonderful implications for gun owners and marijuana smokers alike.

Tried to rep both of you two again... need to spread some Reputation around it appears. This is having me much less worried about my ability to carry concealed, as long as I follow shit to the T in terms of stops, and not giving probable cause for cuffs, temporary confiscation of handgun, and car search. Thanks again to you both!

You're welcome. Just dont be afraid to deny search, even if it annoys them. I would require a warrant to let them search an empty box.

ProdigalSun said:

You're welcome. Just dont be afraid to deny search, even if it annoys them. I would require a warrant to let them search an empty box.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I'd make them get a warrant to search anything - just don't want a new/spooked officer drawing down on me as I don't take kindly to weapons being pointed and my background/what is mentally engrained subconciously in a way forces me to disarm or incapacitate the offender and remove them from my threat circle by any means required. This also plays into the 8 phases of fear.. namely reasonable vs unreasonable, but that's a whole other subject that for the most part isn't tied into the discussion and I don't wish to threadjack.

So the other day it turns out that the govt decided they weren't going to ban assault rifles just yet. I think all of the politicians know what the lobbyists will do to their campaigns if they proceed against the gun owners. They'll be out of a job for sure if they mess with people's gun rights.

DaleRoberts said:

So the other day it turns out that the govt decided they weren't going to ban assault rifles just yet. I think all of the politicians know what the lobbyists will do to their campaigns if they proceed against the gun owners. They'll be out of a job for sure if they mess with people's gun rights.

Click to expand...

No doubt on that, they'll decide it's time to stir the pot once they get other retarded measures in place to add further complication to an already messed up system. Isn't that what they always do?

TheMan13 said:

AMENDMENT II

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.

I believe there is reasoning behind the simplicity of wording here. The Bill of Rights dictates what a government CANNOT do.

Click to expand...

what a simpleton with simpleton reasoning.

it also says something about freedom of speech not being abridged in simple language, yet for some reason i can't scream 'fire' in a crowded theatre.*

and for some reason, even scalia agrees to restriction on types of "arms" and who can own them.*

go on with your simple ways though, ma'am.

TheMan13 said:

It was our forefathers clear intent to rule by laws rather than men when establishing this country. These laws like the Bill of Rights were intentionally clear and simple to justify ignorance of the people NOT acceptable as a defense. Today 1 in 300 of our population are lawyers employed by the grey area they have created taking an unjust amount of resources from their community for literally a parasitic service IMO.

Click to expand...

many of the founding fathers you exalt were also lawyers, moron.

DaleRoberts said:

I hope that decision is held up in a court of law. These days I'm not so sure our govt and court system feel like they need to follow the laws. They sure as hell haven't respected the voters decisions. Or the will of the people.

Click to expand...

the "will of the people" can be tyrannical.

if we left it to "the will of the people", it would have been illegal for our president's parents to marry each other.

we follow the constitution, not the will of the people. silly goose.

Some of you may not know this fucktard UncleBuck, but shit stains of life like this looser are hard to come by. He is a perfect example of one more confident than correct and completely clueless.

UncleBuck said:

what a simpleton with simpleton reasoning.

it also says something about freedom of speech not being abridged in simple language, yet for some reason i can't scream 'fire' in a crowded theatre.*

and for some reason, even scalia agrees to restriction on types of "arms" and who can own them.*

go on with your simple ways though, ma'am.

Click to expand...

You obviously don't get it. ^ This,...BS... is just the latest political stunt being used to subvert our rights. Trouble is, people are buying it.

The second amendment was worded specifically differently to prevent such infringements. It stands out among the other amendments in its wording and its meaning, and this was done intentionally.

I was gonna type a bunch of shit talk.... even started to then stopped. Really guys, is anyone gonna take a Donald Rumsfeld avatar anymore seriously than a hitler one. Hey why don't we all have war monger avatars? Maybe because we don't support evil?

We are not talking about war.

Would you consider a war against evil, evil?

ProdigalSun said:

We are not talking about war.

Would you consider a war against evil, evil?

Click to expand...

Sure. What's evil to one may not be evil to another. All things are many things. It's all about perspective.

UncleBuck said:

what a simpleton with simpleton reasoning.

it also says something about freedom of speech not being abridged in simple language, yet for some reason i can't scream 'fire' in a crowded theatre.*

and for some reason, even scalia agrees to restriction on types of "arms" and who can own them.*

go on with your simple ways though, ma'am.

Click to expand...

I'd rather hear someone scream fire in a crowded theatre than revisit a few incidents in the past 2 years and hear gunfire.

somepotname said:

Sure. What's evil to one may not be evil to another. All things are many things. It's all about perspective.

Click to expand...

Going to war for oil is evil, especially when we have enough of our own. Going to war against someone like Hitler or Hussein is not.

Again, this isn't a thread about war. Guns are inanimate, men may or may not be evil.