The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [2ndAmendment]

Those who refuse to think are doomed to lose.

What you may lose, in fact, is basically everything -- your freedom and your accumulated wealth.

A federal government ban on the sale of guns to medical marijuana card holders does not violate the 2nd Amendment, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applies to the nine Western states that fall under the court's jurisdiction, including California, Washington and Oregon.

I have warned for quite some time that for those states with medical marijuana laws possession of such a card is a per-se disqualifying act when it comes to firearms ownership.

The "Yellow Form" specifically asks if you are addicted to or a user of any illegal drug.  Since that is a federal form and the question pertains to the NICS (federal) system when it comes to firearms ownership it relates to federal law.  Marijuana is illegal under federal law irrespective of state laws to the contrary.

Therefore mere possession of a medical marijuana card is, under federal law, an absolute disqualifier for the purchase, ownership or possession of a firearm under existing federal law.  Nevermind that such "laws" are repugnant to the Constitution's 2nd Amendment which makes no exception for the users of various substances of any sort, legal or otherwise.  The courts have repeatedly come down on the side of said unconstitutional laws and now we have an appellate court in a 3-0 decision, in the most-liberal circuit of the nation, siding with same.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land and contains no exceptions in the Second Amendment.  Nothing in the Second Amendment gives license to the misuse of a firearm, just as nothing in the First Amendment gives license to the misuse of free speech.  You can be (and will be) arrested for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, unless of course there is actually a fire.  But you cannot be required to wear a ball gag when going into a theater lest you yell "Fire!", even if you previously did so or have a medical marijuana card and thus might be more-disposed to do so.

But, you see, guns are scary.  Then again, so are knives, yet I cut my pork chops with one this evening, and for that matter so are cars -- and all of them can be quite dangerous to utilize when intoxicated on anything -- including weed.

Now you may argue that we should treat one Amendment differently than another due to some set of circumstances.  That we should throw out four little words ("shall not be infringed") and replace them with sentences or even paragraphs under which they may be in fact infringed.  That might even be a persuasive argument but the only lawful way to make it into law is to propose it as an Amendment to the Constitution and get it passed first.

To do otherwise is to allow the argument that only hand-cranked printing presses are protected by the First Amendment; after all, the founders could not have dreamed of so much as a Telegraph, say much less the Internet where you can literally send the entire contents of the Library of Congress from one place to another in minutes.  They could not have possible envisioned a world where live, high-definition video could be viewed from thousands of miles away by hundreds of millions of people at once.  They never envisioned carrying around in your pocket a device that could do all of this and more on-demand, almost-literally anywhere in the United States and across a large part of the world, accessible to virtually anyone of modest means -- not just those relatively wealthy persons with a building suitable to house a large, hand-cranked machine that required hours if not days to set one single printed page of type before the first copy could be made.

Indeed it is this very claim that is raised on a continual basis when it comes to firearms, never mind that every one of these arguments applies equally well to free speech.  A semi-automatic weapon can shoot many rounds in the same time a musket could fire only one; electronic communications can send thousands of copies in the time required to pen one letter, and a simple megaphone allows reaching hundreds of pairs of ears where a bare voice will not.  Rifled barrels are more accurate than smooth-bore muskets; targeted advertising is far more efficacious than a random billboard.  Smokeless powder and primers allow one to carry many more rounds, and fire them more-rapidly, than the process of hand-loading a musket after each shot with raw powder and ball just as a modern printing press can crank out thousands of complete newspapers in the time it took to produce a single copy of a one-page handbill.  Never mind telescopic and other forms of "enhanced" sighting and ranging capability, just as tracking cookies and server logs allow one to know exactly who has downloaded or even read a particular piece of speech.

Such appeals to "special circumstance", you see, sound great right up until that special circumstance is applied to you, at which point it's too late to do anything about it.  Never, ever believe that it can't happen because history has shown that it both has and will if you allow it to occur for anyone, or anything else.  The Constitution was designed to be very difficult to amend for exactly this reason: only under circumstances where truly extraordinary events have transpired that lead the people to be coalesced into a very large super-majority is it lawful to change the words written therein, and thus the process was intentionally made difficult to complete.

Sadly.... this is the world we live in.  A world where The Constitution is nothing more than a bad joke, where people argue that you should be able to ban speech before the fact (e.g. political speech, if someone you don't like or who has a lot of money is emitting same) just like you should be able to ban "certain persons" from mere purchase and possession of firearms based on their authorization to use a given substance within a given state's borders -- in this case for medical purposes.

We're not arguing here over whether someone can be punished for misusing either speech or a gun -- committing libel or slander, for example, or brandishing, assaulting or otherwise using a weapon in an inappropriate manner irrespective of whether they were or are using marijuana or not.

No, we're talking about prior restraint despite the lack of evidence that at the current time, or at any future time, there is an intent to do anything evil or improper; it is instead a mere and unproved claim of association that is used to justify such bans despite an outright prohibition on doing so in the Constitution itself.

Indeed, history suggests that the worst crime you're likely to commit if you use marijuana is a capital assault on the nearest bag of Doritos.

Then, to make things worse, we apply said sanctions only to "certain people."  Witness Malia Obama, who was recently caught on video smoking an apparent joint at a concert and thus, by Federal Law and the infamous "Yellow Form", she is ineligible to purchase a firearm despite being of legal age to do so.  Anyone care to bet whether she would arrested if she in fact did try to buy a gun?

In short, we have devolved into a feudal society of "haves" and "have-nots" where mere association can send you to jail, and yet we, the people, cheer this on despite the clear set of prohibitions in the Constitution that make all such laws void.

Welcome to Amerika, Comrade.  May you enjoy whatever time remains before you are shoved in the boxcar -- or the "shower."  I'm sure you intend to do something wrong -- yes?

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The Rule Of Law

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.