Illinois Wants Potheads to Give Up Their Second Amendment Rights

Illinois is mulling a new medical marijuana law that would force pot users to sign away their right to bear arms.

Those who focus on the right to bear arms love to say, “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand,” as a catch phrase to show that the founders did not want government to be able to sweep in and take away our rights to self defense. That phrase can be asked of Illinois legislators who are proposing that to get a medical marijuana permit citizens would have to relinquish their right to bear arms.

The plan would require pot users to be fingerprinted for a background check, they’d have to pay a yearly $150 permit fee, and they would be forced to give up their Second Amendment rights to be allowed to get pot.

Interestingly, the National Rifle Association is not too keen to jump into this one. Apparently coming to the aid of pot users is a role they aren’t comfortable with so for now the NRA is not taking a position on the proposed law other than to say it will be interesting to see how the courts are going to reconcile it.

I find the NRA’s passing on this matter gutless. I am not fan of pot use–in fact, I’ve never done the drug in my life–nor am I a fan of legalizing it, but for the NRA not to see that this proposed law is clearly un-constitutional is pretty sad.

The fact is, one cannot relinquish a constitutional right merely to be allowed to do something else. The government has no right whatsoever to take away a freedom from a citizen who has done nothing wrong.

But even on a logical note it makes no sense. Are Illinois lawmakers saying that people who smoke pot are prone to shooting up their neighborhoods? What basis for that conclusion exists?

None.

This provision is clearly unconstitutional. Clearly.

As to the rest of the law, it has a whole raft of other requirements such as cops and school bus drivers would not be allowed to attain a legal pot use license, pot would have to be in a sealed container unreachable by a driver in a car, and pot sales could not be carried out within 250 feet of a school, among other things.

Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
Fox Business Network Steals Maria Bartiromo Away from CNBC
  • Vagabond661

    Slippery slope: The next step would be to do the same for pain meds, alcohol, or anything else that might cause you to be impaired.

    You would think if they could ask you to get fingerprinted to get medicinal MJ, shouldn’t we ask that someone take a piss test before they get welfare? Or get a picture ID to vote?

    • mango888

      It isn’t a slippery slope….it’s illegal….it’s unconstitutional under any interpretation of the constitution by any group, conservative, liberal, or libertarian. Discussing the subtleties and ramifications of idiocy is idiocy.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Voting and not voting have consequences. Other than perhaps California the state legislature in Illinois is more blue, loopier, more liberal and more asinine (BIRM, 3x) when compared to any large-population state. This Idiocracy bill is the left’s wet dream: throw a bone at young potheads and the cocktail party set while simultaneously scaling back gun rights and setting the table for additional gun restrictions. The real scary thing is that now that Obama has carte blanche over the federal judiciary (Sharron Angle couldn’t grasp the irony, but that’s another topic for another day) by the time the issue of gun restrictions tied to state sanctioned marijuana usages inevitably winds its way through the courts the gun restrictions components thereof might not be ruled unconstitutional. Keep all this in mind when Nov. 2016 rolls around.

    • jim_m

      Shut up Larry.

  • Paul Hooson

    What is your personal opinion on this one here, Warner? – BTW, sorry for my funny post yesterday on your other column. All of it is true, but very funny I thought.

    • jim_m

      Wow. That was disingenuous. I think you set a new record for non-apologies.

      You are “sorry” that your comment was both “true” and “very funny”.

      Keep it classy.

      • Paul Hooson

        My own personal opinion is that persons involved with drugs of this type should give up their gun rights for safety reasons. If a person has such poor health that they require drug intoxication to deal with pain, etc., then they present a possible public safety risk. I do strongly support 2nd Amendment rights for all other healthy person except with a criminal background, mental health or drug or alcohol issues.
        As far as my funny post to Warner yesterday, Jim, he noted that more people are moving to Oregon than anywhere else. I thought that it was funny to note that Oregon has so many strip clubs, including two strip clubs I own. Maybe that’s why.

        • jim_m

          I wasn’t asking for your opinion on the subject here. I was simply pointing out that your apology was not an apology at all. If you are going to apologize then you should mean it. You obviously did not here.

          • Paul Hooson

            Jim, I wanted to amuse with my comment yesterday, not anger or annoy. I apologize for annoying, rather than amusing yesterday. I meant no nonrespect to anyone.- I make money differently than some around here, so I don’t mind any jokes about it, or making a few jokes about it either.

        • mango888

          And it’s my personal opinion that if some politicians, or you, arbitrarily decide what legal medicines should prohibit gun use, we might as well throw the constitution out and make you emperor….. Are you serious?… “drugs of this type”….you mean drugs that have been proven safer than alcohol, tobacco, and opiates…..you mean drugs that aren’t addictive….you mean drugs YOU “think” are of the wrong type…..You clearly have a thought disorder, or alzeimher’s, or some mental problem , that in MY opinion indicates “such poor health”, you should be prohibited from having access to your 2nd amendment rights! Maybe when the shoe’s on your foot you will reconsider (unless of course your “poor health” inhibits fair and logical thinking).

    • 914

      He gave his opinion from paragraph 5 on down..

      • Paul Hooson

        I see that now. But, that’s going to be a hard sell to many in law enforcement and government. There’s some people who turn angry and violent the next day if they haven’t had their pot. These are the types who will be nothing but trouble. Mixing drugs and guns isn’t a good thing. Not now…not ever….

        • jim_m

          But if they are getting angry the next day they are no longer high. So they wouldn’t be mixing guns and drugs.

          This is for medical marijuana so these people are very ill. What the dems are doing is taking advantage of desperately ill people and using their desperation for help to take their civil rights away.

          I would expect a lefty to be OK with that.

        • 914

          We don’t have to sell anything to them .. They work for us. Our rights remain. The fact that they are trying to constantly steal and manipulate our liberty’s away from us is only proof that they need to be removed.

        • mango888

          What planet are you from? …..”some people who turn angry and violent”….would you care to substantiate this absurd statement…..mixing any mind altering substance and guns is a bad idea, but singling out pot is just self-serving antipot gibberish. You really need to do some homework if you are going to spew the kind of 14th century dogma that we have finally put in our past with research and open minds.

    • warnertoddhuston

      As I said above, one cannot be required to give up Constitutional rights just to be afforded a license of some sort. No one that wants a pot use license should have to give up their 2A rights. If they do, then why is ANYONE that takes ANY medication allowed to have their 2A rights? Why should you have your rights if you drink alcohol? The whole question is idiotic.

  • jim_m

    Next will be that you can’t have a FOID card if you have a driver’s license. The excuse will be that it will eliminate drive by shootings.

  • JWH

    Guns don’t kill people. People … dude, are those Chee-tos?

  • massvocals

    first of all you do not need a permit to own a weapon or a gun you have a right under the 2ed amen of the united States constitution you can only lose that right though due process , getting a permit is waving the right by signature and agreeing to statue there under , its same as license to drive , to marry , to be in business , the state hires thugs so called police and they will arrest you if you do not have the paper work however the court has to fall away under the SJC ruling you as citizen have to know the case law to instruct the court , by the way you then can bring lawsuit on the state agents personally for violation under criminal code title 18 , section 241 , 242 , 245 , my e mail is Massvocals@comcast.net any patriot I will help …

  • massvocals

    never sign anything but if you have too sign like this , sign your name and include Non Assumpsit and if its contact ad UCC -1 207 all rights reserved the law makers can be held to violation of oath under the fact they swore oath to the constitution and there fore doing this is treason act they can be dismiss at once and held criminally please give me the names of all

  • GarandFan

    How about pot smokers give up the right to vote?

    • jim_m

      For that matter I think that state employees in unions should not be allowed to vote since that gives them undue influence in collective bargaining.

      Also people who get substantial income from the government such as people on welfare or people receiving government grants such as academic researchers should not be allowed to vote since their vote is corrupted by who would give them the greatest amount of largesse.

      But then if we stopped people who were parasites on the nation from voting the dems wouldn’t have anyone voting for them.

  • LiberalNightmare

    >>
    The plan would require pot users to be fingerprinted for a background check, they’d have to pay a yearly $150 permit fee, and they would be forced to give up their Second Amendment rights to be allowed to get pot.
    >>

    A background check so you can buy pot? Who do they think they are treating pot smokers like criminals?

  • 914

    Illinois wants potheads to give up 2nd amendment rights just like their native son wants all America to give up all rights period for his Dicktatorship.

  • spencer60

    The funny thing is, this already exists.

    You have to fill out and sign the ATF Form 4473 when you purchase a firearm.

    On the form it asks you if you are an ‘illegal user of marijuana…”. Well since pot is illegal at the federal level, even people license by their state are illegally using it.

    If you check ‘yes’ on this box, it disqualifies you from buying a firearm.

    • jim_m

      While technically you could not buy a gun what Illinois is asking is that you would have to surrender any guns that you already own. There is a difference.

  • spencer60

    On a re-read I notice that you castigate the NRA for not taking a stand on this issue.

    Really?

    How about the fact that this tiny ($3-5 million in lobbying budget per year) organization is fighting the gun control lobby to a standstill every single day?

    I’m sure they would love to have the resources to go back and challenge existing stupid gun control laws, but for now they simply need to work on stopping any new stupid gun laws from being rammed down our throats.

    The language preventing illegal drug users from buying firearms has been in the background check system since it was instituted in the mid 1990′s.

    If you want a really good example of absurd gun control laws though, you need to look up the Lautenberg Amendment. It added being under a restraining order as a lawful reason to be denied your Second Amendment rights.

    Ever been through a divorce, or had a friend go through one? These days a temporary restraining order is almost automatically taken out on most divorce cases.

    In many cases you may not even know that one is taken out, since you don’t even have to be present.

    This was jammed onto a budget bill in 1997, and cost thousands of people their rights, include a large number of police officers.

    That’s just one of the many, many ways the gun control lobby has been working to reduce the number of people who can purchase and own firearms. This is obviously someone in IL’s way of doing the same thing with pot.

    What’s interesting is that the ‘medical pot’ crowd is typically a younger demographic, as is the fastest growing demographic among firearms owners.

    This is obviously a shot across the bow to say to these people ‘pick pot or firearms but not both’.

    The author is correct though, this is flagrantly unconstitutional

    I’m sure if it looks like it might get any traction at all, you will see everyone from the ACLU to the NRA get involved. For now it’s just another gun controllers wet-dream.

  • Par4Course

    We have a specific Constitutional Amendment assuring “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” yet the courts permit all manner of gun ownership regulation. At the same time, the right to privacy/right to abortion that the Supreme Court discovered in 1973 is considered nearly absolute.

    The geniuses in the Illinois legislature – the last state to allow citizens the right to carry guns – are irrational on the subject of firearms.

    Illinois has legalized the use of marijuana only for medical purposes only. Should all prescription drug users be required to relinquish their 2nd Amendment rights? How about their 1st Amendment rights to assembly and free speech, their 4th Amendment right to be secure from unwarranted searches and seizures, or their 5th Amendment right to be free from forced self-incrimination, etc.?

    Requiring medical marijuana users to give up their 2nd Amendment rights is an unreasonable and dangerous precedent.

  • Myron Zawoiski

    If this is the case, what about alcohol and prescribed drugs from Doctors, stupid thinking demorcratic state ledgislators……..Stupid A$$ People Running a state government…….WOW……its like a “live from New York, its Saturday Night……Stupid A$$ Ill. Goverment…….?

  • massvocals

    this pure prejudice on cannabis and people putting it forth are putts form my cold dead hand you shall take but I will have spent every round

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE