Court: Illegal immigrants can't have guns - Polidicks

[QUOTE=areolop;35947509]This thread is so derailed[/QUOTE] Discussions evolve and shift. If you would prefer not to partake, leave. If you have anything to add to the original discussion, post it and ignore the side-discussion. Your whining contributes nothing.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35947501]Bingo bango bongo California state authorities recognize licensed medical marijuana growing, selling and possession, but the DEA still considers it a federal crime in all instances. I would suspect that California has not been brought to task because they're afraid of the courts ruling [I]against[/I] the federal portions of the law and thus legalizing medical marijuana nation-wide. So currently they're at a standoff, with the DEA arresting people for federal crimes which are considered no crimes at all in the state.[/QUOTE] Except that's wrong, asshole, the Supreme Court effectively declared those null and void with Gonzales v. Raich, with medical marijuana simply being the most popular cause to attempt the noble concept of nullification with these days.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;35948344]Except that's wrong, asshole, the Supreme Court effectively declared those null and void with Gonzales v. Raich, with medical marijuana simply being the most popular cause to attempt the noble concept of nullification with these days.[/QUOTE] and yet medical marijuana continues to be a thing in california, asshole. Gonzales v. Raich is about home-grown cannabis, additionally. Meaning that someone with a prescription cannot grow their own. Raich was growing her own medicine, not purchasing it from a legal provider. That case's impact was not the impact you are implying, nor did it solve the discrepancy between California and federal law. [editline]14th May 2012[/editline] Try not to call me an asshole before you even know what fucking case you're talking about.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35948379]and yet medical marijuana continues to be a thing in california, asshole. Gonzales v. Raich is about home-grown cannabis, additionally. Meaning that someone with a prescription cannot grow their own. Raich was growing her own medicine, not purchasing it from a legal provider. That case's impact was not the impact you are implying, nor did it solve the discrepancy between California and federal law. [editline]14th May 2012[/editline] Try not to call me an asshole before you even know what fucking case you're talking about.[/QUOTE] From what I heard the DEA loves raiding those legal providers.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;35948489]From what I heard the DEA loves raiding those legal providers.[/QUOTE] Yeah they do, but thus far the california legislation remains intact.

[QUOTE=Tacosheller;35878627]They're, pardon the stereotype, taking our jobs. They're using benefits and not paying taxes, so money doesn't circulate. If they were citizens, it'd be fine. I'm all for an easier way for citizenship, but that doesn't mean they should do it illegally.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States#Undocumented_Taxpayers]But they do pay taxes and they don't use benefits like social security or medicaid[/url] I find the notion that all illegal immigrants are all dirty dirty criminals pretty disturbing.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35948512]Yeah they do, but thus far the california legislation remains intact.[/QUOTE] And if you read any copy of the Texas Penal Code of 2012, you'll find the Sodomy law declared unconstitutional nearly a decade ago still in it, with only a little note in fine print next to it saying it was declared unconstitutional in 2003. That said, the Federal Government can't repeal state legislation, just like the state of Texas can't repeal county laws and city ordinances no matter how unconstitutional or how much they conflicted with state law. All they can do is make them nonfunctional by throwing them out the minute they get appealed to the federal level; this is how Louisiana obscenities cases worked in the 1980s, you get arrested and convicted by the Parishes; but 99.9% of the time you appealed to the State courts, they would throw out the case as unconstitutional. Now, the Surpreme Court has held the prohibition on Marijuana is constitutional and legal on the federal level; so while the state law is still intact and followed by the local authorities and courts in California since they are probably striped of jurisdiction to enforce Federal Law like authorities are in Texas, the DEA is a federal entity with sovereign immunity from state law, and they charge people with violation of federal law which only federal courts hear.

You do realize there is an enormous difference between a moot, archaic ban on something and the legalization of something, right? A law is considered moot if it is overridden, meaning that while it is still on the books for historical purposes, it goes completely unenforced. If it resumes being enforced, it is no longer moot. For instance, the 3/5ths Clause in the Constitution is considered moot, given later amendments made it entirely irrelevant. It remains, however, in the Constitution as a matter of record. The Eighteenth Amendment also remains, even though it was nullified by the Twenty First. In California, the legalization of medical marijuana is not moot. Licenses and prescriptions are still given out. Again, stop coming back once a week to try to one-up me on a subject you clearly spent a lot of time researching but absolutely no time comprehending.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36000396]In California, the legalization of medical marijuana is not moot. Licenses and prescriptions are still given out.[/QUOTE] The legalization of Medical Marijuana is moot as nullification per Cooper v. Aaron, moot as medical necessity per United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, and finally moot as not being within Congress' power in Gonzales v. Raich; As such the Federal Government is not even obligated to take California law into consideration, it is only held to Federal law and the United States Constitution if in conflict with federal law, so unless you want to pull out a argument the ban on marijuana is unconstitutional, the Federal Courts, DEA, and Attorney General's office do not have to give a fuck about what California's law states due to sovereign immunity and the Supremacy Clause. The only people who give a fuck about California law are their officials who are required to follow Californian law, since quite rarely do states empower any officers under their jurisdiction to enforce federal law. So please, show me how this is a example of quasi-nullification other than the fact the police in California, being striped of jurisdiction to enforce any laws beyond the California penal code, don't enforce the federal law?

No, it isn't, because it's still happening. Moot means a law is irrelevant. The California law has not been made irrelevant, because it is still a factor in California. Medical marijuana is still a thing there. It's only fucking moot when it ceases to be a thing. What about this don't you understand?

[QUOTE=Lankist;36001321]No, it isn't, because it's still happening. Moot means a law is irrelevant. The California law has not been made irrelevant, because it is still a factor in California. Medical marijuana is still a thing there. It's only fucking moot when it ceases to be a thing. What about this don't you understand?[/QUOTE] It is moot as far as the federal courts are concerned.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;36002252]It is moot as far as the federal courts are concerned.[/QUOTE] No, it isn't, because the federal and local laws haven't reconciled.

[QUOTE=Fausty;35878350]I agree with this, no point in allowing someone who's in our country illegally to own a gun.[/QUOTE] Yes, but then again there's illegal use of guns by American citizens, too.

Is there a federal law that says they can't have guns? If not, all this decision means is that states can pass such a law, not that they can't have guns period

[QUOTE=Venezuelan;36005892]Is there a federal law that says they can't have guns? If not, all this decision means is that states can pass such a law, not that they can't have guns period[/QUOTE] State laws say that legal residents can have them. Otherwise, your FFL application won't be approved, since it goes through the FBI/ATF.

So it's a federal policy that's already been in place, and this decision just supports it?

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea. You're removing the right for someone to defend themselves just to abide by the law. I think people should have a right to access to weapons as par in staying in the USA. Plus the fact that it's not easy to become a legal citizen anyway. It took my family close to five years and you don't know how difficult it was concerning work, and just living. Not all illegal immigrants want to be illegal. I pay taxes and I work, does that not constitute myself as being a legal citizen?

[QUOTE=sHiBaN;36006697][B]Personally, I don't think it's a good idea. You're removing the right for someone to defend themselves just to abide by the law. I think people should have a right to access to weapons as par in staying in the USA.[/B] Plus the fact that it's not easy to become a legal citizen anyway. It took my family close to five years and you don't know how difficult it was concerning work, and just living. Not all illegal immigrants want to be illegal. I pay taxes and I work, does that not constitute myself as being a legal citizen?[/QUOTE] Ever hear of the Mexican drug war?

[QUOTE=faze;36006726]Ever hear of the Mexican drug war?[/QUOTE] No duh smart butt. Try to think of it in a positive sense. What about the innocent civilians? You're going to take their right to defend themselves. Plus not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico

[QUOTE=sHiBaN;36007286]No duh smart butt. Try to think of it in a positive sense. What about the innocent civilians? You're going to take their right to defend themselves. Plus not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico[/QUOTE] Well if they were here legally, the constitution would apply to them. Since they're not, it doesn't.

[QUOTE=Lankist;36002305]No, it isn't, because the federal and local laws haven't reconciled.[/QUOTE] State laws are irrelavent for federal proceedings unless they are the basis of a case, all charges the DEA files are under Federa, and as long as the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is in effect, Marijuana is illegal as far as the federal government and courts are concerned, and the Supreme court has ruled it was within Congress' power to completely prohibit Marijuana on the Federal Level. So while it is legal as far as California is concerned, the DEA is not held to Californian law due to sovereign immunity, and there's no such defense to federal charges that the action in question was legal under State Law.

[QUOTE=faze;36006726]Ever hear of the Mexican drug war?[/QUOTE] Just what the fuck are you implying right now?

How are you guys making controversy out of this?

[QUOTE=sHiBaN;36006697]Personally, I don't think it's a good idea. You're removing the right for someone to defend themselves just to abide by the law. I think people should have a right to access to weapons as par in staying in the USA. Plus the fact that it's not easy to become a legal citizen anyway. It took my family close to five years and you don't know how difficult it was concerning work, and just living. Not all illegal immigrants want to be illegal. I pay taxes and I work, does that not constitute myself as being a legal citizen?[/QUOTE] The funny part is that because you are not a legal resident of the US, you dont get a lot of rights. What you just said is that the US should become the worlds largest arms dealer to illegal aliens, legally.

How 'bout NOBODY has guns in the civilian populace? I understand there are many people out there who can handle them reasonably, so removing them entirely might be stupid, but gun laws are pretty lax at the moment and could probably be stepped up just a little. Still, even then, most criminals would just resort to the black market so we would only be hurting ourselves. Eh, I guess banning firearms isn't entirely the answer then. I think I just had a debate with myself.

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;36008629]How 'bout NOBODY has guns in the civilian populace? I understand there are many people out there who can handle them reasonably, so removing them entirely might be stupid, but gun laws are pretty lax at the moment and could probably be stepped up just a little. Still, even then, most criminals would just resort to the black market so we would only be hurting ourselves. Eh, I guess banning firearms isn't entirely the answer then. I think I just had a debate with myself.[/QUOTE] If innocent civilians couldn't buy guns, then outlaws would have them. There are too many guns unaccounted for, for the "ban guns" law to ever be realistic. It would be lawlessness and people couldn't defend themselves. Guns are here to stay. Death happens, life sucks but at least be better prepared. Don't be a pussy and say "oh guns are bad they hurt people!!!" Guns are tools, like a hammer or a screwdriver. Both can kill people.

[QUOTE=DeadCow;35878720]I should have specified that I'm talking about strict gun control, like in California. There's a bunch of stupid laws on guns here. On my AR-15, we: -had to wait 10 days after purchase before picking it up. -had to get a non-detachable magazine (you need a pen point to get the magazine out). -had to limit the magazine capacity to 10 rounds. -had to do a few other stupid pointless things. Would a criminal pay attention to these laws? Most likely not. A criminal could buy a gun right off the street, no waiting period, paperwork, or anything.[/QUOTE] What do you need an AR-15 for?

[QUOTE=faze;36008717]If innocent civilians couldn't buy guns, then outlaws would have them. There are too many guns unaccounted for, for the "ban guns" law to ever be realistic. It would be lawlessness and people couldn't defend themselves. Guns are here to stay. Death happens, life sucks but at least be better prepared. Don't be a pussy and say "oh guns are bad they hurt people!!!" Guns are tools, like a hammer or a screwdriver. Both can kill people.[/QUOTE] But immigrants want to start a Mexican Drug War in the US? How come you think innocent-until-proven-guilty only applies to you? [editline]18th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=areolop;36007886]The funny part is that because you are not a legal resident of the US, you dont get a lot of rights.[/QUOTE] This is why you're going to be an awful cop. areolop on patrol: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQo9_VI6TnA[/media]

[QUOTE=Lankist;36008877]But immigrants want to start a Mexican Drug War in the US? How come you think innocent-until-proven-guilty only applies to you?[/QUOTE] You missed my point, and frankly you're too stupid to understand it. Second point, Innocent until guilty only applying to me...what are you talking about?

[QUOTE=AngryChairR;35878553]Harming legal citizens by committing crime, not paying taxes, contributing to large slum areas, having children and keeping them out of education to live a life of crime, working illegally They deserve to be sent back to their own country. Because it's not their country to have rights in. [/QUOTE] You forgot to say one thing. [media][URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIzivCJ9pzU[/URL][/media]