Weed And Gun Ownership – The Legal Brief ~ VIDEO

The Gun Collective
The Gun Collective

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- Welcome back to The Legal Brief, the show where we CRUSH the various legal myths and misinformation surrounding various areas of the gun world. I’m your host Adam Kraut and today we are talking about marijuana and guns or how you can’t have both.

For some reason the question about medical marijuana and firearms ownership continues to flood my inbox. So, hopefully this episode will put to bed any misconceptions there might be. Remember, as always, we are dealing with two sets of laws, both federal and state.

A number of states have been passing medical marijuana initiatives. In fact, as of the airing of this episode, the District of Columbia and 29 states have legalized medical marijuana. But I wouldn’t be rushing to your local head shop to stock up on paraphernalia just yet. Well, not if you want to be able to legally possess firearms and ammunition.

While many states have allowed their residents to utilize marijuana for medicinal purposes, it still remains illegal at the federal level.

The result? If you use marijuana, you are a prohibited person. And I know what some of you are going to say, but Adam, the 4473 says “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” and my state legalized it.

If you’re asking me that question, it is safe to say you probably haven’t bought a gun since January of 2017, because the new form even provides very clear warning right underneath the question in bold print. It says “Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”

The 9th Circuit addressed the issue of an individual with a medical marijuana card and an attempted firearms purchase in Wilson v. Lynch. We are only going to discuss the Second Amendment aspect of her claim. Wilson obtained a medical marijuana card in the state of Nevada. Prior to her attempted purchase of a firearm ATF had released an open letter to FFLs which stated in part “if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have ‘reasonable cause to believe’ that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. As such, you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person, even if the person answered ‘no’ to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473.”

Wilson went to her local gun shop where the owner stopped her from completing the form prior to question 11.e since he knew she had a medical marijuana card and refused to sell her a gun. Wilson in turn sued the Government alleging, among other things, that the law, regulation and open letter violated her Second Amendment right.

The Court employed a two step analysis, which first looked at whether the challenged law burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment and then applied an intermediate scrutiny analysis to determine whether the law could pass constitutional muster. Remember, intermediate scrutiny requires that the government’s stated objective be important and there must be a reasonable fit between the challenged regulation and the asserted objective.

With respect to the first part of the test, the inquiry was straightforward. Because Wilson insisted that she was not an unlawful drug user, a convicted felon, or a mentally-ill person, she is not a person historically prohibited from possessing firearms under the Second Amendment. As such, the Court determined the law, regulation and open letter burdened her Second Amendment right and proceeded to step two of the analysis.

In step two, the Court determined that “[t]he connection between these laws and that aim requires only one additional logical step: individuals who firearms dealers have reasonable cause to believe are illegal drug users are more likely actually to be illegal drug users (who, in turn, are more likely to be involved with violent crimes).”

It went on to state that it was “reasonable for federal regulators to assume that a registry cardholder is much more likely to be a marijuana user than an individual who does not hold a registry card.”

The Court found that the degree of fit between the law, regulation and open letter and their purpose of preventing gun violence was reasonable, satisfying the intermediate scrutiny standard.

Weed Marijuana
Weed Marijuana

In short, unless the Federal Government changes the law relating to marijuana’s legality or the ability of a medicinal marijuana user to possess firearms, anyone who uses marijuana cannot possess firearms and ammunition.

Hopefully that clears up the smoke surrounding this issue. If you guys liked this episode, you know what to do, hit that like button and share it around with your friends. Be sure to check out my website adamkraut.com. Remember, if you have a question you want answered on this show, head over to The Legal Brief section on theguncollective.com. Don’t forget to like The Gun Collective on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Full 30, Snap Chat and wherever else you can catch us on social media.

And as always thanks for watching!

Links for this episode:

  • Medical Marijuana – States which have legalized : http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881
  • ATF 4473 : https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download
  • 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) – Unlawful Acts : https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
  • 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 – Unlawful User of or Addicted to a Controlled Substance : https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/478.11
  • Wilson v. Lynch : https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf

About The Gun Collective

The Gun Collective is dedicated to bringing you the highest quality, fast paced gun content possible. Started in June 2015 by Jon Patton, TGC has rapidly taken off to become a go-to source for the things you need to know without a bunch of BS. Please check out TheGunCollective.com to learn more and see what the hype is all about!

  • 30 thoughts on “Weed And Gun Ownership – The Legal Brief ~ VIDEO

    1. @ RattlerJake or should that be Prattlingjerk?
      You are spewing a bunch of allegations that are nothing but pure calumny. In fact you are guilty of violation one of the original 10 Commandments – Bearing false witness.
      Point 1 _ The Catholic Church moved to Rome -http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/why_did_the_catholic_church_move_to_rome_from_jerusalem.php
      Point 1 (part 2) -The Catholic Church does not believe any statue or image has any power in and of itself. The beauty of statues and icons move us to the contemplation of the Word of God as he is himself or as he works in his saints. And, according to Scripture, as well as the testimony of the centuries, God even uses them at times to impart blessings (e.g., healings) according to his providential plan.

      While it can certainly be understood how a superficial reading of the first commandment could lead one to believe we Catholics are in grave error with regard to our use of statues and icons, the key to a proper understanding of the first commandment is found at the very end of that same commandment, in verse 5 of Exodus 20: “You shall not bow down to them or serve [adore] them.”

      The Lord did not prohibit statues; he prohibited the adoration of them. If God truly meant that we were not to possess any statues at all, then he would later contradict himself. Just five chapters after this commandment in Exodus 20, God commanded Moses to build the ark of the Covenant, which would contain the presence of God and was to be venerated as the holiest place in all of Israel. Here is what God commanded Moses concerning the statues on it:

      And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends (Ex. 25:18–19).

      In Numbers 21:8–9, not only did our Lord order Moses to make another statue in the form of a bronze serpent, he commanded the children of Israel to look to it in order to be healed. The context of the passage is one where Israel had rebelled against God, and a plague of deadly snakes was sent as a just punishment. This statue of a snake had no power of itself — we know from John 3:14 it was merely a type of Christ — but God used this image of a snake as an instrument to effect healing in his people.

      Further, in 1 Kings 6, Solomon built a temple for the glory of God, described as follows:

      In the inner sanctuary he made two cherubim of olivewood, each ten cubits high. . . . He put the cherubim in the innermost part of the house. . . . He carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees, and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms. . . . For the entrance to the inner sanctuary he made doors of olivewood. . . . He covered the two doors of olivewood with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers; he overlaid them with gold (1 Kgs. 6:23, 27, 29, 31, 32).

      King Solomon ordered the construction of multiple images of things both “in heaven above” (angels) and “in the earth beneath” (palm trees and open flowers). And then, after the completion of the temple, God declared he was pleased with its construction (1 Kgs. 9:3). Didn’t God know what King Solomon had done?

      It becomes apparent, given the above evidence, that a strictly literal interpretation of Exodus 20:2–5 is erroneous. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that God prohibits something in Exodus 20 that he commands elsewhere.

      Point 2 – Therefore, when confronted with the question of whether we are Catholic or Christian we must say we are both. For ‘Catholic’ we mean that we fully embrace all the riches of Catholic tradition in worship, theology, dogma, moral teaching and devotions. For ‘Christian’ we mean a simple, heartfelt relationship with the living Lord and living out a life and witness of compassion, teaching, evangelizing and caring.

      One or the other? No. Like St. Thérèse cried I cry out, “I will have all!”

      Point 3 about Judgment – You stated I didn’t know my Bible – once again a false statement.

      “The particular judgment is what happens at a person’s death. God judges the person, who either enters into eternal life (purgatory and heaven) or hell.

      The final judgment occurs at the end of time when all the dead are resurrected. The righteous inherit the new world and the wicked are condemned to hell.

      The first is “private” and occurs immediately after death. The second is “public” and occurs on the Last Day at the resurrection. The judgment does not change, just the manner in which it is revealed ”
      “Existence of particular judgment proved from Scripture

      Ecclesiastes 11:9; 12:1 sq.; and Hebrews 9:27, are sometimes quoted in proof of the particular judgment, but though these passages speak of a judgment after death, neither the context nor the force of the words proves that the sacred writer had in mind a judgment distinct from that at the end of the world. The Scriptural arguments in defense of the particular judgment must be indirect. There is no text of which we can certainly say that it expressly affirms this dogma but there are several which teach an immediate retribution after death and thereby clearly imply a particular judgment. Christ represents Lazarus and Dives as receiving their respective rewards immediately after death. They have always been regarded as types of the just man and the sinner. To the penitent thief it was promised that his soul instantly on leaving the body would be in the state of the blessed: “This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). St. Paul (2 Corinthians 5) longs to be absent from the body that he may be present to the Lord, evidently understanding death to be the entrance into his reward (cf. Philemon 1:21 sq.). Ecclesiasticus 11:28-29 speaks of a retribution at the hour of death, but it may refer to a temporal punishment, such as sudden death in the midst of prosperity, the evil remembrance that survives the wicked or the misfortunes of their children. However, the other texts that have been quoted are sufficient to establish the strict conformity of the doctrine with Scripture teaching. (Cf. Acts 1:25; Apocalypse 20:4-6, 12-14) ”
      As for the Heresy part –
      For your Consumption – Heresies

      Lactantius is one of the few Catholic writers who disputed this doctrine (Divine Institutes VII:21). Among heretics the particular judgment was denied by Tatian and Vigilantius. The Hypnopsychites and the Thnetopsychites believed that at death the soul passed away, according to the former into a state of unconsciousness, according to the latter into temporary destruction. They believed that souls would arise at the resurrection of the body for judgment. This theory of “soul slumber” was defended by the Nestorians and Copts, and later by the Anabaptists, Socinians, and Arminians. Calvin (Inst. III, 25) holds that the final destiny is not decided till the last day. ‘

      As far as the Catholic church being a sect – you are so full of it –
      “The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church. It is not ever called “the Christian Church,” either. Although the prestigious Oxford University Press currently publishes a learned and rather useful reference book called “The Oxford Book of the Christian Church,” the fact is that there has never been a major entity in history called by that name; the Oxford University Press has adopted a misnomer, for the Church of Christ has never been called the Christian Church.”

      “The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.

      Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.”

      IN SUMMARY – YOU DON’T SPEAK WITH THE TRUTH BUT RATHER WITH THE PUPPETING OF FALSE ALLEGATIONS AND AN EXTREME IGNORANCE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Go study up and don’t bother replying as you were just shown to be an dilettante Christian.

      1. I forgot to include in my first posting about your stating “You profess your sins to a man, and bow to the pope” –
        Apparently your knowledge of the Gospel is severely lacking because when Christ sent the Disciples out He commissioned them thusly –

        ‘Christ told the apostles to follow his example: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).” And because we Catholics trace our direct lineage back to the original Twelve Apostles – that power was handed down to each successive generation of priests that went through the Seminary to become a dedicated Priest. From there they become Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and finally the Pope. Bow to a Pope – No – it is proper to kiss his Papal Ring as a sign of respect and fealty to the Church of which he’s Christ’s Vicar. The Catholic Church teaches what the Bible says, and helps people get to heaven by the sacraments – all of which God created. Faith alone is hogwash because man is weak and sinful ergo he needs God’s and Christ’s help through the sacraments. For example the sacrament of the Eucharist –
        The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that “our ancestors ate manna in the desert.” Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. “Give us this bread always,” they said. Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.

        Again and Again

        Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).

        His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).

        No Corrections

        Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

        On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

        In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

        But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).

        This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

        But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?

        Merely Figurative?

        They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

        But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

        Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (“I am the door”) and John 15:1 (“I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).

        He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.

        Their Main Argument

        For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

        Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

        The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

        In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

        And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).

        Paul Confirms This

        Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.

        What Did the First Christians Say?

        Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

        Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).

        Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).

        Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

        Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
        of the body and blood of Christ” (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

        In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).

        Unanimous Testimony

        Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

        Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

        One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.”

        Your other prattling about Saints being elevated to the same level as God is pure hogwash. Saints lived a mortal life albeit a pious one. God is IMMORTAL – I AM is his name, and yours is “I AM NOT” He has no beginning, and no end – He IS, WAS, and Always WILL BE. He is everything – omniscient and omnipotent. There is NO MAN who is His equal. Christ took upon himself our form in the bosom of this Mother. She was the only human ever born without the stain of original sin and therefore a suitable ark for the new covenant. Christ was God and man, Divine and human, spiritual and flesh. The intermediary between God and Man. Therefore by His supreme act of obedience to His Father’s Will he became our savior. This is what Catholics believe, and Saints can intercede for us as they have already been granted access to the Narrow Gate due to their holy lives.
        “Unfortunately, many non-Catholics have been so schooled in hostility toward the Church that they appear unable or unwilling to recognize these distinctions. They confidently (often arrogantly) assert that Catholics “worship” Mary and the saints, and, in so doing, commit idolatry. This is patently false, of course, but the education in anti-Catholic prejudice is so strong that one must patiently explain that Catholics do not worship anyone but God—at least given the contemporary use of the term. The Church is very strict about the fact that latria, adoration—what contemporary English speakers call “worship”—is to be given only to God.

        Though one should know it from one’s own background, it often may be best to simply point out that Catholics do not worship anyone but God and omit discussing the history of the term. Many non-Catholics might be more perplexed than enlightened by hearing the history of the word. Familiar only with their group’s use of the term “worship,” they may misperceive a history lesson as rationalization and end up even more adamant in their declarations that the term is applicable only to God. They may even go further. Wanting to attack the veneration of the saints, they may declare that only God should be honored.
        Honoring Saints

        Consider how honor is given. We regularly give it to public officials. In the United States it is customary to address a judge as “Your Honor.” In the marriage ceremony it used to be said that the wife would “love, honor, and obey” her husband. Letters to legislators are addressed to “The Honorable So-and-So.” And just about anyone, living or dead, who bears an exalted rank is said to be worthy of honor, and this is particularly true of historical figures, as when children are (or at least used to be) instructed to honor the Founding Fathers of America.

        These practices are entirely Biblical. We are explicitly commanded at numerous points in the Bible to honor certain people. One of the most important commands on this subject is the command to honor one’s parents: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you” (Ex. 20:12). God considered this command so important that he repeated it multiple times in the Bible (for example, Lev. 19:3, Deut. 5:16, Matt. 15:4, Luke 18:20, and Eph. 6:2–3). It was also important to give honor to one’s elders in general: “You shall rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:32). It was also important to specially honor religious leaders: “Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron [the high priest], to give him dignity and honor” (Ex. 28:2).

        The New Testament stresses the importance of honoring others no less than the Old Testament. The apostle Paul commanded: “Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due” (Rom. 13:7). He also stated this as a principle regarding one’s employers: “Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ” (Eph. 6:5). “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed” (1 Tim. 6:1). Perhaps the broadest command to honor others is found in 1 Peter: “Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor” (1 Pet. 2:17).

        The New Testament also stresses the importance of honoring religious figures. Paul spoke of the need to give them special honor in 1 Timothy: “Let the presbyters [priests] who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17). Christ himself promised special blessings to those who honor religious figures: “He who receives a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man [saint] because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward” (Matt. 10:41).

        So, if there can be nothing wrong with honoring the living, who still have an opportunity to ruin their lives through sin, there certainly can be no argument against giving honor to saints whose lives are done and who ended them in sanctity. If people should be honored in general, God’s special friends certainly should be honored. ”

        Herein ends the lesson.

      2. I will not waste time debunking your lengthy rants that you obviously have cut and pasted and provide because many others have outed catholicism to you before, other than to give an example: When discussing judgement, you continuously make reference to what happened vs what is prophesied as though they are the same, and that there are two judgements – Christ is quite clear that there will be ONE JUDGEMENT! And you make excuses for why you are right when what scripture says is NOT what you claim. What Jesus DID during his time on earth is not the same as what he has told us that WILL happen. Prophesy is not the same as history. Your misinterpretation is no different than that of Jews who claim that present day Israel is the Israel that Jesus refers to in the New Testament, when it is NOT and that they “think” they are safe because they are God’s people – Jesus said he will come for the people of HIS NAME – CHRISTians! You can claim to know Christ, but he has said that if you do not believe his word you do not know him.

        You can insist on defending your cult church, I’m not interested!

    2. I was a forman on a 75+ man construction crew for a few years. 80 percent of my accident reports were alcohol related. I have plenty of experience with alcohol & weed over the last 50years. No question about it, you are at your best when you are not under the influence of any drug. The fact is people do drink and do drugs for whatever reason, no matter what the government says. If the person next to me had a loaded fire arm and i had to choose if they were a drunk or a stoner. I would choose the pot head any day of the week. How many people are killed on the highways each year by alcohol compared to weed?

    3. Just another instance of the BATFE making law. The Federal prohibition is not from Constitutional law (passed by Congress and signed by the President), but the result of Administrative law (made up, approved and applied by a Federal agency, in this case, BATFE), which has the same affect as Constitutional law, but is not and therefor, unconstitutional. This is how BATFE, USFS, BLM, DEA, etc. create the very laws they enforce and it is wrong!

    4. Now that this Opiate Scare is in Full Effect, we have Physicians yanking Patients off of their longtime legitimate Pain Medications and either telling them Screw Yourselves, or giving them some alternatives that don’t work! It’s the same old story in America, a few Jackass Abusers Screw up the whole system for everyone!
      So now we have all of these wonderful drugs made to give comfort to Legitimate Patients in need, and The Government has created a ‘Stigma’ for both Patients and Doctor,s so that the Patient is screwed out of getting their Pain RELIEF! I’m NOT stating there isn’t Legitimate Abuse in the system, but I personally have witnessed 2 patients after years of doing the right thing, getting kicked to the curb, and now suffering due to NO Fault of their own!
      As they have explained to the Physicians, this is WHY we have a Spike in Illicit Heroin Abuse in the streets! These people WILL seek their Pain Relief from somewhere, and NOBODY will be able to SHUT it DOWN!!
      Simply because one is using medication of whatever magnitude to alleviate a condition, doesn’t mean they LOSE their Natural Right To Self-Preservation through Self-Defense!!

    5. Two problems with this court’s decision: first, in this specific instance, the putatuve gun buyer who had the weed card declares she had not every used it. No direct evidence was presented at trial to counter this claim, Thus she was declared an “illegal user” with no proof whatever, only the speculation based on supposition based on likelihood her behaviour was similar to other individuals’ behaviour… a clear case of the INDIVIDUAL being denied die process.

      Second, “illegal user” is a farce anyway, as FedGov have NO authority to regulate or control anything we put into our mouths.. a clear instance of federal law illegally constituted. Further, the supposed “reasons” used in first establishing the prohibition on marijuana, and particularly its listing as a “Schedule One” substance (clearly it is not, as it is NOT addicitive, and it DOES have proven substantial medical benefit in treating certain recognised medical conditions, both qualifications being necessary, by definintion, to be classed as Sched 1, are false. DuPont pressed the banning of all forms of cannabie to protect their new nylon fibre against competition from hemp ropes, the standard in marine use for well above a century. Remove that product from the marketplace, of course nylon will quickly replace it.

      So the very law making cannabis “illegal” and they who use it (no, I do not use it, though I would unquestionably qualify for medical use) “unlawful users of” is an illegal law, and should not exist as it is contrary to the COnstitution. We all know that any “law” enacted that is contrary to the Constitutioin is no law at all, null, void, moot, of no effect. Thus, strictly speaking, there can be no such prohibition connecting marijuana use/possession with gun ownership.

      There is coming a showdown on this very issue. THIRTY states with laws enabling marijuana use> How long can the ilegal Fed prohibition stand?

      1. This is one instance where “Republicans” are STUPID!!!!! And especially Christians!!!!!! Prohibition of Cannabis is not only unconstitutional but is based on pure ignorance! Hemp is the most versatile plant on earth, with uses for clothing, paper and wood products, and medical value. Misuse of anything by a few, does NOT constitute a right or authority of government to ban the rest from using it for valid reason! The Christian majority have helped the government to prohibit a GOD given herb, of immense medical and commercial benefit, due to their gullibility!

        1. @Rattlerjake you are prejudiced against Christians. I am a preacher and do believe in marajuana use in its right way and there are many. I am also a republican who knows when little snots like yourself are trying to push your agenda down everybody’s throats. If I am wrong then lighten up man because you don’t know what you are talking about. I am from a very conservative state and you are just bloviating. There are many of us who used marajuana when you were probably still crapping green if you were even a thought in your daddy’s mind. Ha Ha man don’t make blanket statements.

          1. Just to clarify I don’t use pot and haven’t since 1981 when I started my ministry. I don’t use pot because it is illegal. We must fight in the right spirit and you spouting off things like you did was just not right.

            1. @PPP, I do not believe that “Christianity” takes a position on pot. I believe that “Christianity” takes a position on having a personal relationship with Christ.

            2. @Wild Bill You are only half right! It’s NOT Christianity taking the position, it is individual or groups of Christians who take incorrect stands on certain issues because they do as directed by their pastors. Go to most “Christian” assemblages and just mention the legalization of cannabis and they will start quoting misinterpreted scripture! Ex: Our bodies are the temple of God and we should not do anything to defile it! They have been indoctrinated with the “BAD” side of cannabis, an if you ask them they can’t tell you ONE GOOD PROPERTY OF THE PLANT! And all the while they will be smoking a cigarette, drinking a beer, or feeding their obesity! Moderation is the key!

            3. Christianity takes a stand on trying to do what is right. I am not an activist but just stating my opinion to people like this Rattlerjake who misuses the bible to say or twist whatever he wants to say. I know that nothing in and of itself is evil or holy it’s as the bible says how you yield it like a gun or a knife. It can be used for evil or good. It can cut up food for my little kids in Haiti or it can murder babies not born yet. Guns the same. Same for music. If the words glorify God or something good then it can be holy but if it glorifies something evil then it is evil music. I say there are some good medicinal uses for marajuana and most is probably used by druggie left wing punks who misuse it. I believe we can use or misuse anything to evil or holy purposes. This guy I won’t even reason with and probably shouldn’t have said anything but sometimes I must . Again I don’t smoke pot but yes just like alcohol it has its place even if most have been abused. I am into a personal relationship with Jesus but He said to occupy till I come back and that means to help make policy based upon biblical principles. God bless you, Ammoland and the USA. God bless us all that can be blessed.

          2. You’re wrong!!! I am a Christian and I’m tired of seeing the pseudo-Christians falling in line with the corruption of government. God created cannabis for us to use (not abuse), it is in the Bible and called “Kaneh bosm” in the old and new testaments; and it is thought that the oil Jesus was anointed with was cannabis oil. Christians have been propagandized by the catholic church and zionism on many subjects that are contrary to God’s word! God has told us that MANY WILL BE DECEIVED and that includes many Christians. Few will enter at the narrow gate! By the way I’m 60, and I’ve seen this whole vendetta against cannabis from start to “now”, just as I’ve watched government’s abuse of tax laws, violations of the second amendment, and corruption of the election system (to name a few). What is telling about your ignorance is that you call yourself a Republican, like that means something special. There are just as many ignorant and “progressive” Republicans as there are libturds! I’m a Christian first and a conservative/Constitutionalist second. I grew out of the “Republican” label many years ago when I saw the light. The two party system in this country is what has ruined it, by allowing people to run for office whose beliefs are a direct contradiction to morality (God) and our Constitution. And last – You “don’t use pot because it is illegal”? You think that every law in this country is legal? What will you do when saying the name of Jesus is illegal, or ministering to others is illegal (like is happening already in some places)? Jesus said, Matthew 10:22 (KJV) “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”

            “If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything”!

            1. You sound like the very thing you are railing against. I’ll bet you’re one of them non-denominational types who thinks that all their sins are forgiven and they’ll go straight to heaven. You sound like a heretic to me, and I’m a practicing Catholic (thank you very much for the negative plug) whose never heard the Church or Rome lead anyone down the path to Perdition. We trace our Church all the way back to the original Twelve Apostles – how far back does your Church’s lineage go – back to where someone didn’t like what someone else believed and so they made their own Church. That boys and girls is called heresy.
              Here’s a thought – why don’t you go sit in your basement, and roll up a big fat boy and smoke yourself into oblivion. By the by – pot smoking does kill brain cells and our bodies are supposed to be God’s temples, a gift from the Almighty or whatever you choose – so don’t you think advocating for behavior that can be sinful ( i.e. destruction of the body) also qualifies as a sin? And Christ said “Woe to him that leads any one of these little ones astray, it will go better on Judgement Day for Sodom than for him.” Little ones means those of little faith – not children. And we all must face our Maker and answer for our lives at the moment we die. Are you really going to sit there and arrogantly assure me that you are just going to zip right in the gate? Presumption of God’s mercy is also a sin by the way!

            2. I don’t want to go to prison for smoking pot although it can be used for good. I have spent time in prison and lost my freedom before Christ in my life and I KNOW what it’s like to lose freedom and we must pick our battles and not be stupid. My main ministry is to bring people to Jesus because He is the only peace and salvation. I don’t agree with all you say and some of what you say I do but you being 60 my mistake. I don’t care to admit my wrongs I am just sayin man go ahead and argue your case with throwing scriptures around. You can hit the mark with some scriptures and do some good. I will fight for right even for and with you but I won’t lose my freedom proving a minor point. Yes if it’s against the law to say the name of Jesus I will just lose it all then but not for pot. Let’s be wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove.

            3. @Pistol Packin Preacher – I didn’t say to just go and smoke pot and ignore the “law”, that is assuming on your part, but you should be fighting these illegal laws at every opportunity. If more people did so we would not be inundated with so many unconstitutional and illegal laws! Picking your battles is great in theory, but not in practice. “WE” should be fighting everything we can because when “you give them an inch they will take a mile”, which is what they have done!

              A great example is where an individual in Tennessee is fighting the state against DMV laws that violate the rights of every individual “traveler” in this country. God gives us the right to travel freely and the Constitution backs that by establishing that government can only regulate commerce. But ALL states have created vehicle laws that infringe on those rights because of the profit they receive. US citizens have allowed these laws to take effect and refuse to fight because they are intimidated by government and the threat of incarceration.

            4. @VE Veteran – Old Man’s Club – Heresy? Maybe you should actually research your Catholicism! You obviously don’t know the history of the catholic church, which was created by the Roman government as a way to control the “CHRISTIANS”! Your religion breaks the laws of God! Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” Yet you profess your sins to a man and you bow to a pope! You worship false gods, elevate humans (sainthood) to God’s level because of their worldly “accomplishments, and Catholicism violates the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone.

              I belong to no specific denomination or “church” other than God’s church! Just like catholicism, church denominations select what they want to believe, where a true Christian believes ALL of God’s word! And if you knew anything about true Christianity it originated with Jesus Christ (where it gets it’s name) but goes all the way back to the beginning because we believe what Christ tells us, because it is the belief that Jesus Christ (Yeshua) is the messiah. https://carm.org/is-catholicism-christian.

              It is also obvious that you do NOT understand scripture because your claim that “and answer for our lives at the moment we die.” is NOT what Christ told us. Judgement does not occur until Jesus returns!

    6. What’s even crazier in the ‘requirements’ end guy’s?

      I have a CCW from Nevada and Utah, renewed.

      And I’ve now had medical MJ cards in 2 states.

      So what is this about ‘requirements’?

      Hmmmm

    7. The demon weed…everyone knows it drives people to murder…innocent women to abandon their morals…and more. Let’s go have a drink, smoke some cigarettes, and finish off with some strong coffee or energy drinks while we discuss the dangers of marijuana.

    8. Does the phrase “shall not be infringed upon mean nothing”? During Prohibition were liquor drinkers banned from owning firearms and ammunition? If Federal law supersedes State law, then how can states enact gun laws that are in direct conflict with federal gun laws?

      1. @Charles M, Some state level politicians have determined that they can get more votes from the pot heads if those politicians seem to be fighting for them (potheads). It is a false hope, but the druggies don’t know that.

      2. There was no ATF and no background checks during prohibition. As a matter of fact, the ATF was the Bureau of Prohibition. The Bureau of Prohibition was reorganized into the ATF at the end of Prohibition. You don’t think federal agencies just go away, do you? …they live forever. It’s interesting that J.Edgar Hoover wanted no part of the ATF. The criminalization of marijuana in the US is also tied to prohibition. Harry Anslinger was in charge of the Department of Prohibition and at the end of prohibition, his department was going to have nothing to do. He pushed the demonetization of marijuana and later became the commissioner of the Treasury Department’s Federal Bureau of Narcotics. The ironic thing is that before the end of prohibition was imminent, he had said that marijuana was not bad, did not harm people, and did not make people violent.

    9. I dont have anything against marijuana use or people who use it, but it boggles my mind that that is treated as being better than a firearms purchase. No qualification to use, no coursework, minimal fees, open carry and use (ok only partially).

    10. May I suggest a rework.

      Please contact Attorney Chaz Rainey of Hambrick law for comment, corrections and additions.

      We shall be starting again in another circuit.

      Sincerely,

      S. Rowan Wilson, MBA
      Plaintiff and former cannabis shop owner in Nevada

      1. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3877557/6-26-17-Peruta-Dissent.pdf

        The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this case re­flects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (T
        HOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (slip op., at 6) (“The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions”); Jackson v.
        City and County of San Francisco, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (same). The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 1) (“Second Amend­ment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document”). The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the
        question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurispru­dence is with respect to the Second Amendment as com­pared to the First and Fourth Amendments.

    Leave a Comment 30 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *