Get this now. The sale, production, possession, or use of marijuana is against Federal law. Two states have legalized the use of marijuana. By definition, these laws are Unconstitutional. (see the Supremacy Clause) However, the Obama administration is making no move to enforce Federal law in these states.
Some banks, not knowing what the legal ramifications of handling what is evidently big money made in this newly legal (not really) industry, have refused to handle the money. After all, they could come under some severe penalties for knowingly handling money earned in violation of Federal law.
Along comes Eric Holder. He has said, basically, that the Feds won't mess with the banks if they take the money. Citing a "public safety component," and a "law enforcement perspective," he said it ain't good to have these large bunches of cash "just lying around."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/holder-feds-to-let-banks-handle-pot-money-181777.html?hp=l2
In other words, the Administration, specifically the Holder Justice Department, wants to facilitate the banks in breaking Federal Law. They are winking at laws passed by states in direct contravention of Federal Law. This kind of thing really encourages respect for the laws of the land, doesn't it?
Personally, I have no problem with legalization of marijuana. It would really probably be a good thing. It would free up law enforcement, Federal, state, and local, to concentrate on more serious drug offences.
That isn't the question here, though. If the Obama Administration is in favor of legalizing marijuana, they should get a Senator from one of the states (Washington and Colorado) to introduce legislation repealing the Federal Laws against marijuana. If not, then they should enforce the law. Send Federal Agents into the states, make buys, and bust the dealers.
Of course, Holder is just taking his cue from his boss. Congress passed The Affordable Health Care Act. Obama signed it. Bad as it is, it is the law of the land. However, Obama, by decree, is picking and choosing how, when, and in some cases, what parts of the law are going to be enforced. That is Unconstitutional. It is the law. He is bound to enforce it. Selective enforcement of laws by the very people who are Constitutionally bound to enforce laws as they are written and passed is a dangerous thing. I don't understand why even the democrats in Congress are letting him get away with it.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Thoughts on several current events
I have, for the most part, sworn off posting political stuff on Facebook. I will try to resume my blog for that purpose, but not limiting it to politics. I hope to post on various topics at least once, and hopefully twice, each week. I promise to post a good Obama-Hillary-Eric Holder bash real soon. ;-)
There have been a couple of things that have happened in the last few days regarding carrying of personal firearms. One is the incident in Maryland where a man who had a valid carry permit from Florida was harassed by Maryland officers even though he did not have his weapon with him. I did link to this article on FB. The article can be found at
http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/
I believe this is an example of the worst sort of behavior by police officers, short of actual physical brutality. More than likely, the officers were "trolling" for drug mules. The car was from Florida, and it and the occupants probably fit some kind of profile indicating a possible drug car. It is disturbing to think that an innocent family can be inconvenienced, humiliated, and generally treated like criminals by law enforcement in the US. Maryland is a notorious anti-gun state, but things like this happen all too often in even usually gun-friendly states.
Next, the incident in Florida where the retired Police Officer killed the guy who was texting during the movie previews. Wow!
I don't know exactly what happened, and whether the retired officer was indeed shooting in self defense after the incident escalated, but it sure sounds bad for him. I won't offer an opinion on who is at fault here, but I do have some thoughts on carrying a personal weapon.
First, if one chooses to carry a firearm, he/she needs to be sure that he has the proper mental attitude. If one isn't prepared to use his weapon if the need arises, then it could very well be used against him. I am afraid many people buy a gun thinking that it can be used to scare away a potential attacker. It might, but it might not.
I believe there are several things about which a legal carrier of a firearm must be very clear in his or her mind.
First, just because you carry a weapon, that does not make you a police officer. Many people have fantasies of breaking up an armed robbery in a convenience store, or stopping a brutal domestic attack in a public place. Remember, as a citizen (as opposed to a Police Officer), every bullet you fire has your name on it, with a strong possibility of a lawsuit at the end of it. Police Officers have the liability protection of the state or municipality. If Barney Fife fires a shot at a criminal but hits the Baptist Minister instead, the City of Mayberry is liable. If you do it, you are liable.
Next, if you choose to carry, you need to become the meekest, mildest person in the room. If you are carrying a weapon, I believe you lose the right, morally if not legally, to become aggressive. You no longer can afford to blow your horn and flip off the idiot who cut you off in traffic. You can't afford to initiate a confrontation over something so trivial as, say, texting in a movie theater. You don't know how the person you are hassling is going to react. If you have initiated such a confrontation, and wind up having to use your gun, then a jury is probably going to find you in the wrong.
I believe there are two legitimate reasons for a private citizen to carry a gun: first to protect that individual and or his/her loved ones. Next, and to a lessor extent, and in some circumstances, to protect property. There might be times when intervention is justified, but I believe they are few and far between.
There have been a couple of things that have happened in the last few days regarding carrying of personal firearms. One is the incident in Maryland where a man who had a valid carry permit from Florida was harassed by Maryland officers even though he did not have his weapon with him. I did link to this article on FB. The article can be found at
http://tbo.com/list/columns-tjackson/jackson-gun-owner-unarmed-unwelcome-in-maryland-20140112/
I believe this is an example of the worst sort of behavior by police officers, short of actual physical brutality. More than likely, the officers were "trolling" for drug mules. The car was from Florida, and it and the occupants probably fit some kind of profile indicating a possible drug car. It is disturbing to think that an innocent family can be inconvenienced, humiliated, and generally treated like criminals by law enforcement in the US. Maryland is a notorious anti-gun state, but things like this happen all too often in even usually gun-friendly states.
Next, the incident in Florida where the retired Police Officer killed the guy who was texting during the movie previews. Wow!
I don't know exactly what happened, and whether the retired officer was indeed shooting in self defense after the incident escalated, but it sure sounds bad for him. I won't offer an opinion on who is at fault here, but I do have some thoughts on carrying a personal weapon.
First, if one chooses to carry a firearm, he/she needs to be sure that he has the proper mental attitude. If one isn't prepared to use his weapon if the need arises, then it could very well be used against him. I am afraid many people buy a gun thinking that it can be used to scare away a potential attacker. It might, but it might not.
I believe there are several things about which a legal carrier of a firearm must be very clear in his or her mind.
First, just because you carry a weapon, that does not make you a police officer. Many people have fantasies of breaking up an armed robbery in a convenience store, or stopping a brutal domestic attack in a public place. Remember, as a citizen (as opposed to a Police Officer), every bullet you fire has your name on it, with a strong possibility of a lawsuit at the end of it. Police Officers have the liability protection of the state or municipality. If Barney Fife fires a shot at a criminal but hits the Baptist Minister instead, the City of Mayberry is liable. If you do it, you are liable.
Next, if you choose to carry, you need to become the meekest, mildest person in the room. If you are carrying a weapon, I believe you lose the right, morally if not legally, to become aggressive. You no longer can afford to blow your horn and flip off the idiot who cut you off in traffic. You can't afford to initiate a confrontation over something so trivial as, say, texting in a movie theater. You don't know how the person you are hassling is going to react. If you have initiated such a confrontation, and wind up having to use your gun, then a jury is probably going to find you in the wrong.
I believe there are two legitimate reasons for a private citizen to carry a gun: first to protect that individual and or his/her loved ones. Next, and to a lessor extent, and in some circumstances, to protect property. There might be times when intervention is justified, but I believe they are few and far between.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)