Guns, Weed, Bikers And Judges

September 20, 2016

All Posts, News

Guns, Weed, Bikers And Judges

Let’s start with guns.

The Second Amendment – the amendment immediately after the amendment that makes it legal for you to read these words – simply says “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

For 152 years the point of the Second Amendment was understood to mean that power should legally reside with the people and, as Chairman Mao wrote in 1938, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” In the United States the Second Amendment was understood to mean that individuals enjoy the right to be armed – with guns, switchblade knives, brass knuckles, cutlasses and so on – in order to defend themselves and their neighbors and as a last resort against tyranny. As recently as 1933, individuals could buy a Thompson sub-machine gun in a drug store. In 1934, Congress sought to discourage those sales with a tax authorized by the National Firearms Act.

In 1939, the Supreme Court disagreed with the traditional reading of the Second Amendment and ruled that the right to be armed was a “collective right.” What the collective right interpretation meant was that as long as the police are armed you do not need to be.

In 2008, by the narrowest of margins, the Supremes ruled that: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” So the right to bear arms became a limited individual right.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” the learned jurists opined. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Citing the 1939 decision of their forebears, five of nine justices decided it was lawful for the police unions lobby to bribe politicians to enact a law that “limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those…in common use for lawful purposes.” So switchblades and sawed off shotguns were out but nobody could take away your right to own a little .38 or a bolt action 30.06.

Whether individuals should enjoy the right to be armed is a matter of continuing debate that falls along ideological lines.


Virginia colonists began growing hemp, by order of King James I, in 1619. George Washington grew hemp. The medicinal use of cannabis began no later than 1839. In 1854 the New York Times called cannabis “a fashionable narcotic.” By the 1880s there were numerous hashish parlors as well as opium dens in most American cities.

In general, the temperance movement frowned on all forms of intoxication and states began to regulate the sale of cannabis in about 1905. The regulation was not so much intended to specifically regulate cannabis use as much as to regulate medicines. If a tonic had marijuana in it, that ingredient had to be listed on the label. In 1914, New York passed a law that said cannabis could only be sold by prescription.

During the depression, small farmers began to complain that they were being driven out of business by large farms that employed Mexican field hands who smoked marijuana. Marijuana use was generally seen as un-patriotic and in 1937 the United States outlawed marijuana because Harry J. Anslinger, who was America’s first drug czar, argued, it was a “killer drug” that made its users violent, irrational and promiscuous – like the Mexicans.

Marijuana became legal again, with a prescription or a doctor’s recommendation, in California in 1996. It is probably reasonable to say that most, but hardly all, people who have a doctor’s recommendation for marijuana use the drug as a recreational intoxicant at least sometimes.

Currently 21 states and the District of Columbia have legalized “medical marijuana.” Four states, all in the West – Alaska, Washington, Oregon and Colorado – have legalized marijuana for use as a recreational intoxicant. All of those states and all of those users defy federal law. Under federal law, marijuana remains a so-called “Schedule 1 substance” without any legal medical use.

Under federal law, possession of marijuana, hashish or hashish oil is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine the first time they catch you. The penalties double if they have caught you with killer weed before.


Selective enforcement of the federal prohibition on marijuana possession and use has become a law enforcement tool in the war on motorcycle clubs.

For example, the racketeering indictment of 16 members of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club this year is padded with marijuana charges. Seven of the 46 counts are federal marijuana offenses. Before the indictment was unsealed, a Kingsmen regional officer told The Aging Rebel, “We don’t condone drug use but we aren’t the party police.”

The Department of Justice thinks they should have been. Among the allegations in the indictment is “Kingsmen Motorcycle Club chapter clubhouses permitted illicit drug use and distribution, including cocaine, marijuana, and other controlled substances, between club members, associates, friends, and supporters of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club.” The key word is “permitted.”

One Kingsmen, “did knowingly, intentionally and unlawfully possess with the intent to distribute, and distribute, a quantity of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance. All in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(I)(D), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.”

A little more chilling is the grand jury charge that: “On or about August 26, 2015, in the Western District of New York, the defendant, Jack Wood, also known as Jake, also known as Snake, then being an unlawful user of a controlled substance as defined in Title 21, United States Code, Section 802, namely marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, unlawfully did knowingly possess…firearms.

The legal concept is fairly straightforward: If you smoke marijuana you forfeit your Second Amendment rights. You cannot legally possess a firearm. If you smoke marijuana and possess a firearm and you are a member of an indicted motorcycle club you may face 20 years in federal prison.


All of the above lends context to a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, The Ninth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Alaska, Oregon and Washington permit the recreational use of marijuana. Arizona, California, Hawaii, Montana and Nevada allow the use of medical marijuana. The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over federal case in nine states. Eight of those states allow residents to ingest marijuana.

Last month the Ninth Circuit, in an appeal brought by a Nevada woman named S. Rowan Wilson against United States Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch and officials of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ruled that if you smoke marijuana, or even if you threaten to smoke marijuana, you cannot legally purchase a gun. The court also reaffirmed a 2011 Ninth Circuit ruling, United States v. Dugan, “which held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms.”

Nevada law requires medical marijuana users to register with the state. Rowan had argued that she registered with the state as a political statement in favor of cannabis legalization but that she never actually used the substance. The ATF, meanwhile, had told Nevada gun dealers not to sell guns to anyone whose name appeared in the registry. The letter read, in part: “Any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”

When Rowan was denied the right to buy a gun for self-defense she sued. A lower court ruled against her and the Ninth agreed.

“As we recently observed” the learned justices began to quote themselves, “The Controlled Substances Act prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime.”

“Studies and surveys relied on in similar cases suggest a significant link between drug use, including marijuana use, and violence,” the court continued. “Moreover, legislative determinations also support the link between drug use and violence. In particular, Congress enacted” the law “which bars unlawful drug users from possessing firearms, ‘to keep firearms out of the hands of presumptively risky people.’ It is beyond dispute that illegal drug users, including marijuana users, are likely as a consequence of that use to experience altered or impaired mental states that affect their judgment and that can lead to irrational or unpredictable behavior. They are also more likely to have negative interactions with law enforcement officers because they engage in criminal activity. Finally, they frequently make their purchases through black market sources who themselves frequently resort to violence. It may be argued that medical marijuana users are less likely to commit violent crimes, as they often suffer from debilitating illnesses, for which marijuana may be an effective palliative. They also may be less likely than other illegal drug users to interact with law enforcement officers or make purchases through illicit channels. But those hypotheses are not sufficient to overcome Congress’s reasonable conclusion that the use of such drugs raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”

Heads up. Watch your six.


36 Responses to “Guns, Weed, Bikers And Judges”

  1. david Says:

    The highest Federal Court in the nation ruled in Miranda v. Ariz.(1966)

    “Where rights secured by the Federal constitution are involved, there can be NO rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    The unalienable right to own and carry, pre-existed the formation of the U.S., and any national gov. It’s a Creator granted unsalable right which was protected by the Bill of Rights(1787).

    Any legislation passed by a disrespecting and criminal Congress since the Bill of Rights, was void the moment it “passed”.

  2. HAHAHA! Says:

    A friend of mine applied for a concealed handgun permit recently, and the state where he lives denied it because he had been to rehab for alcohol. Though the federal law doesn’t say anything about alcohol users or abusers, his state’s laws say that anyone addicted to all the usual illegal drugs AND alcohol cannot own or possess firearms. Now, even though he hasn’t had a drink in many years, because he tried to follow the law and obtain a concealed handgun permit he’s fucked from buying and maybe even possessing firearms. Totally fucked up.

  3. Woodstock Says:

    What is the point of discussing the rules of a rigged game? A crooked game that we aren’t even allowed to walk away from and while we sit and talk about how fucked it is the motherfuckers running the game are busy as hell removing our one and only option.

  4. troyez Says:

    Dirty, sneaky feds! It reminds me of the sneaky crap the Veterans Administration tried to pull a couple years back, where they asked vets if they had firearms in their homes, and then passed on the names to the feds with guns and badges! Dirty, stinking, bureaucratic cockroaches!
    I don’t smoke but thanks for the heads-up Rebel, I’ll pass the info on to friends who do.
    Thanks for all you do Rebel,

  5. Sieg Says:

    Slide is correct about the funky provisions of GCA 68, but to take it a step further, you should know that if you own a weapon, you AUTOMATICALLY have engaged in Interstate Transport, unless that weapon was provably made, sold, and remained in the boundaries of the state you reside in. Dig that. Federal beef right there if you lend, sell, or whatever, a piece to a friend, Brother, friend of a friend, family member, whoever, who is a “Prohibited Person”. Ask me-I know.

    99% Biker, yes, your medical records are “supposed” to be confidential. There is no such thing as “classified” material that doesn’t originate with the government. Unfortunately, all it takes is for the FedCoats to say they want it, and open sesame. Even if they don’t ask for it, don’t you think they have a back-door into each and every computer system in the country? Last point on that, since medical insurance is now mandated by the FedCoats, they have a pretty cogent argument that they are the legitimate owners of all medical records.


  6. Scooter Rick Says:

    It seems like the government, from the local city counsel right up to that dickhead in the white house, is doing any and everything they can to piss people off. And it’s working. Think they will be shocked at the results of that?

  7. 99%Biker Says:

    I will never admit to being the smartest person in the room….but aren’t your medical records supposed to be classified??

  8. Slide Says:

    As stated above, a stellar piece of journalism Rebel. The comments also reflect your ability to bring out the thinking few in this country.

    Anyone that has an inkling into reading the 18 U.S. Code Chapter 44 – FIREARMS in it’s entirety, would be dumbfounded by the complexity and redundancy of the wording it contains. As you stated, it covers not only weapons, but a myriad of other clauses that entrap anyone for the most part on weapons violations.
    Example § 925A – Remedy for erroneous denial of firearm. These six words absolve the government from being held accountable for any lawsuits that may arise due to wrongful charges against anyone.

    The Gun Control Act of 1968 “Thanks Sirhan Sirhan” is a piece of work dealing with interstate commerce. It defines; transporting weopons, who can and can not transport weapons across state lines. It also defines a felony as being a year and one day in any facility. So if you were convicted of a misdemeanor, say drunk driving second offense, and they give you 18 months, your now a felon in the FEDS eyes. It may be a misdemeanor in your state but in the eyes of the FEDS you just lost your right to bear arms.

    “The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, effective 30 September 1996, makes it a felony for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition.” That one amendment covers a huge swath of sheople. AND gives the FEDS open access to your gun safe should you be on their radar.

    What I find most interesting and I’m sure most of your readers are aware of is that the 9th Circuit was at one time the most liberal of courts. Not now, it’s the 6th Circuit that holds that title as of 2012.

    “For some time, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has suffered a reputation as being the circuit most at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court. The San Francisco-based court has frequently been the most reversed among the circuit courts, with one term in the mid-1990s seeing 27 of its 28 decisions reversed or vacated by the high court.
    Conservatives decry the 9th Circuit’s perceived liberal bent. As candidates for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich practically recommended abolishing the circuit, while Rick Santorum suggested that its judges be banished to Guam.”

    So as goes California, so goes the rest. Nevada has gone off it’s rocker. Here in the good old south, and I mean Confederate South, gun rights are defined by what’s in the gun safe. “Better get back to Tennessee Jed.” GD.

    Damn right Rebel, everyone best “watch their six.”

  9. Bone Head Says:

    Ohio legalized medical marijuana, and right on the heels of that Ohio’s State Police announced if they pulled you over or were involved in an accident they would charge you with OVI. Their reasoning is marijuana stays in the system for 30 days. Knowing how judges go along with pretty much anything they can, you’ll be convicted and sentenced just as if you were drunk out of your mind.

    As a result, your license is gone. Your insurance will sky-rocket (IF they’ll insure you) and other expenses may run as much as $10,000. Your employer can fire you. Your wife can file for divorce. Good luck getting to see your kids again or getting another job.

    Catch22 all the way. And these fools want us to trust them? Fat chance.

  10. Paladin Says:

    When the armed citizenry of this Country decide to stop listening to those that continually attempt to rule over them, the problem will be no more and those that live their pathetic lives, groveling at the feet of their elected rulers and perceived protectors, will meet the fate they so desperately hope to avoid. I envision a future where this Country’s freeways are far less crowded.

    Long May You Ride (to those that deserve to),


  11. The Kraut Says:

    Siegs dead right.

    I got popped for weed in the USN and it was on every eval I had after that.

    They fuckin know…

    Sooner or later the “criminal/substance abuser registry” will far outnumber the the
    gov’s ability to subdue or incarcerate the numbers of those needing disarmed owing to records as ‘proof’…

    ‘nother revolution likely to happen it comes to that.

    I’m baked right now and can almost spell straight…didnt ride today, fuckin rained.

    respects, The Kraut

  12. Shyster Says:

    Very well written article Rebel. For anyone interested, read Les Adams treatise on the 2nd Amendment. Lastly, ghost guns are everywhere. Problem solved.


  13. Sieg Says:

    Hold The Phone, glad to see someone grasping the essentials.

    You know, there is an aspect to all of this that seems to have slipped below the radar.

    Yes, the pot registry will be used to disqualify people from owning firearms, but beyond that, stop and thing about “obamacare”. Now, it’s mandatory, for all practical purposes, to have insurance. That insurance will require meticulous records to be kept for all patients. That information will include any drugs prescribed to them. The FedCoats will have/do have access to all of these records, either “legally”, through the various exchanges, or by hacking the mainframes of the insurance companies.

    Think about that.

    Gotten a script for vicodin, or maybe some lorazapam, anything like that? Muscle-relaxants? Anti-depressants? Guess what…you’re a “drug-abuser”.

    And with medical records being made “transportable”, it won’t be too long before all of this will be available simply by running your drivers license.

    Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, right, zek?


  14. T Hell Says:

    @ “Guns, Weed, Bikers And Judges”

    What a fuckin let down I thought this was an open invite to a party……

  15. Elmo Blatch Says:

    Excellent piece once again Rebel. Thank you.

  16. Elmo Blatch Says:

    Not long ago there was a news story and video of cops raiding (without a warrant) a medical marijuana dispensary in Santa Ana, California. The video showed many things but in particular some of those fine law enforcement officers consuming marijuana edibles they stole from the sales cases.

    Gee, I wonder if this twist applies to those cocksuckers who so freely violated the law in that video.

  17. Dasein Says:

    I’d rather my armed neighbors were under the influence of PCP, not to mention the picnic party favor “killer weed”, than be under the influence of hillbomma. It’s one (spurious)thing to assert that weed users are de-facto federal criminals, and therefore in forfeiture of 2nd Amendment rights. It’s alcoholic percodan blather to claim that smoking weed “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.” “Learned justices quoting themselves (sic)”, should be required to take a little Guns and Weed training, just to find out what’s what. That delightful image of “small farmers began to complain that they were being driven out of business by large farms that employed Mexican field hands who smoked marijuana” seems to tell a truer tale of weed than what some cuck bozo in a martini-soaked robe has to say.
    Great, as usual, and timely article, Rebel.

  18. BMW Says:

    Well, somehow I lost the following: as they…utilize federal legislation to..then a line from last paragraph got inserted. The final paragraph originally read:Their focus on the first amendment ignores the necessity for a second amendment to preserve the first….
    Sorry for the screwup! BMW

  19. BMW Says:

    The article–a very good one–ties together some of the bigoted attitudes of the self-styled “elite”, as they utilize federal l ignores the necessity of a second amendment egislation to keep the “undeserving” masses, (which I read as American citizens) under the control of their wannabe masters. Rebel could have gone into historic detail, there are hundreds or thousands of relevant examples, but that could drag on to weeks of reading.

    It is a real shame that the ACLU doesn’t support fighting these bigoted federal rules. Their focus on the first amendment that can presrrve the firsy amendment.

    Interestingly, those early militias owned and used every sort of weapon available, from swords to cannons…


  20. Hold_The_Phone Says:

    I’ve been saying it for a while now…it’s all over except for the shootin’.

    No government system, no government, no nation has survived intact over long time scales. No country is immune from it’s own inevitable demise. I think we’re circling the drain.

    There are only 2 questions to answer:

    1) When will the revolution start?
    2) Will it be relatively peaceful like the 1989 Russian Revolution, or will it be the Civil War all over again?

  21. Steel Says:

    Can see what the strategy is. States or localities may legalize marijuana but the feds aren’t. So, promote more legalization, get people to register as users, take away their 2nd amendment rights. All part of the overall plan to disarm Americans and increase government power in my view. Indeed, you had Obama saying at the UN yesterday the USA should cede freedoms to get in line internationally. Be aware.



  22. Hans Says:

    Just imagine drug testing being added to the application process for a gun license.

  23. panamaa Says:

    Fuck it……. I’m going home to clean my gun, smoke a joint and ride my bike up to the store to buy a 6 pack…

    I feel it’s my patriotic duty to do so this fine day…

    Nice piece Rebel, thank you….

  24. DocB Says:

    They’ve stretched the law a bit here and will probably continue to make it work. I’m left wondering how long it will take them to stretch the law to include PTSD victims.
    There is also a question on that form about mental stability and weather or not you have been treated for mental illness. Does that include Drug addiction, alcohol addiction and PTSD. If you’ve ever been treated for any of those conditions you’re probably on a list somewhere. Clintonites and gun control people would love to take guns away from veterans and bikers and just about every one else. Not much of a stretch here on mental instability.
    Ride safe

  25. Austin Says:

    Ditto the Excellent Writing comments. Sometimes we get caught up in our own little piece of the puzzle, and forget there is a BIG picture developing. Thanks Rebel.

    “Marijuana use was generally seen as un-patriotic and in 1937 the United States outlawed marijuana because Harry J. Anslinger, who was America’s first drug czar, argued, it was a “killer drug” that made its users violent, irrational and promiscuous – like the Mexicans”

    I’ve been shacked up with a violent, irrational and extremely promiscuous Mexican for the past 4 years. My experience taught me that smoking weed, a LOT of weed, and NO alcohol – was the only way he could calm down and focus enough to function at work or out in public. It is definitely a genetic thing, just like his lactose intolerance and his diabetic family members.

    I never touch the stuff. I just found myself in a situation, and made the best of it. Then I realized…

  26. david Says:

    As Nuke n’ Pave wrote, very well written and presented journalism Rebel.

    For a U.S. Supreme Court group of judges to even suggest, much less majority rule; the absolute protected certain unalienable right to own and carry arms for the People’s protection against gov. tyranny as expressed in the Federalist Papers, is a “collective” right of the People and NOT an individual unalienable right, shows the 1939 court either did not read the Federalist Papers in support of the Consti.,counsel for one of the parties never raised the issue, or the court was not able to make the large distinction between all the People and gov. office-holding pigs.

    Individuals have always comprised society, and without individuals society itself, would not even exist. In a gov. created by, for and of individuals, those same individuals would not, and did not, ever intend for their gov. to tyrannize themselves out of existence, or out of any of their pre-existing the gov. unalienable Rights, therefore the Bill of Rights. In 1939 the High Court was still bound to follow the original intent of the Constitution Convention members over a hundred years earlier.

    The founders of this country were more aware of the truths expressed in the Declaration of Independence than most of the public today, especially the self-evident truth(not opinion) that the sole purpose of ANY government is to secure all the Creator granted certain unalienable rights of the People, and no other reason. There is no limitation upon the People’s exercise of any protected unalienable right instead, the U.S. Consti. is a compact which highly prohibits the gov. from infringing upon or denying any of the People’s Creator granted unalienable rights.

    Concerning the four Western States which have legalized weed use within their borders, the People and the States protected their rights as against Federal infringement or denial via the Tenth Amend.(Bill of Rights). The weed use right of the People was recognized against the Federal governments infringement thereof. Anyone charged with a violation of Federal weed statutes in those States, is able to raise the Ten Amend. protection of State recognized and protected rights against attempted or actual Federal deprivation thereof.

  27. Nuke n' Pave Dave Says:

    Masterful and masterfully in the same sentence. Hmm… Musta been drinkin’ a bit more than I thought there…

  28. Phuquehed Says:

    Fuckin’ fedtards…screwing things up since the beginning and *still* haven’t learned that all the problems of ‘government’ and the system is *BECAUSE* of them…not ‘We the Peons’. You and I didn’t put the nation into trillions of dollars of debt…our lame government did, etc, etc, etc. The stupid motherfuckers who someohow keep getting themselves elected just seem impossible to learn anything or give a crap about anything but power and money, this leads to a direct correllation of all the fucktarded alphabet souptards being nothing but those power-hungry shit-stains’ jack-booted brown shirts, because those ass-licking dildo’s in power will only hire those stupid enough to believe anything *they* (the politicians) say and nobody else.


  29. Dan-O Says:

    Land of the Free…

  30. Gandalf Says:


  31. Brad H Says:

    Folks who’ve been altered by alcoholic beverages are far more dangerous than those consuming marijuana.
    Many states also ask gun purchasers and CWP applicants if they are “Habitual Drunkards”.
    More people are shot outside bars and taverns than weed stores.
    Of course, banning alcohol during the ’20s and ’30s (Prohibition) worked so well, don’t ya know.
    How could a feeble minded person like me think the feds would ever have anything but good intentions and my safety in mind when they continue to ban marijuana because its so destructive. Now, let’s throw gun control in the mix and I’d say the nanny state is well on its way to protecting all of us!
    Oh by the by, I would guess more than one or two of our good ‘ol boys in blue would also be restricted from weapons if truth be told about weed use, especially the younger ones. Also, leos suffer a higher rate of alcohol abuse and alcoholism than almost any other profession (you can find statistics and numerous surveys to back this). Yet these are the people tellin us we must not pass go and head directly to jail.
    Makes sense to me!

  32. Davr Says:

    And people said I was crazy when I told them this would happen, years ago.

  33. Paladin Says:

    CA, in its never ending war on gun owners has recently decided that anyone that has been issued a medical marijuana card is now prohibited from purchasing a firearm. The Ca DOJ snags registered medical marijuana users when a dealer processes the State required DROS (Dealer Record of Sale) paperwork. CA also reports this to the Feds, who in turn will update the NICS (National Instant Check System), thereby screwing a medical marijuana user, if that user decides to move to another State that relies on the NICS system for firearm eligibility approval.


  34. Rebel Says:

    Dear TX_Biker,

    In most states you can just lie. In Nevada, they keep a list.


  35. Nuke n' Pave Dave Says:

    Rebel, As a columnist myself for about twenty years before I retired from it, I must commend you on the masterful manner in which you so masterfully tied all these disparate subjects together. My hats off to you, great writing-wonderfully presented. I only wish I could do so as well…

  36. TX_Biker Says:

    As long as i can remember ATF Form 4473, which anyone purchasing a firearm in the united states has to fill out, has always had question 11e. Question 11e asks: Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? so it doesn’t matter if the state you live in has legalized weed. The feds still haven’t. So in an underhanded twist of justice, all those that now buy and use Marijuana legally in Colorado, Washington, etc. Can no longer purchase or own guns….this is a perfect example of the old be careful what you wish for adage…..

Leave a Reply