DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
I really have to wonder if you guys would feel the same way about "draconian" laws if someone who legally possessed marijuana in Colorado took it into a neighboring state where it was illegal.
I really have to wonder if you guys would feel the same way about "draconian" laws if someone who legally possessed marijuana in Colorado took it into a neighboring state where it was illegal.
I'll take that as a no.isn't there a thread on that subject?
You could if it was more than 4 oz.For what it's worth, I don't think I'd get 5 to 10 for bringing some weed into Oregon.
Marijuana will be "officially" legal here in Oregon once the new laws take effect in July. Possession of less than one ounce was decriminalized in 1973, and nonviolent offenders caught with larger amounts have often been given community service or short jail sentences. They don't get an automatic 5-10 years and a felony on their record so your comparison with New Jerseys ridiculous gun laws is invalid.You could if it was more than 4 oz.
I think marijuana should be legalized, sold in stores, and taxed. Proceeds from the tax should be used to fund drug treatment for addicts. The current prohibition on marijuana is working about as well as the prohibition on alcohol did back in the 1920's. It is a waste of our tax dollars to prosecute nonviolent people for growing a plant.I really have to wonder if you guys would feel the same way about "draconian" laws if someone who legally possessed marijuana in Colorado took it into a neighboring state where it was illegal.
The penalty or the ability to get out of them is irrelevant. The comparison is about bringing something into a state where it is illegal, from one where it isn't. People here seem to want to stand up for someone who broke New Jersey's gun laws.... I was simply posing the question whether or not their outrage would apply to other laws as well, or just the ones they personally disagree with.Marijuana will be "officially" legal here in Oregon once the new laws take effect in July. Possession of less than one ounce was decriminalized in 1973, and nonviolent offenders caught with larger amounts have often been given community service or short jail sentences. They don't get an automatic 5-10 years and a felony on their record so your comparison with New Jerseys ridiculous gun laws is invalid.
How can you say the guy was a "law abiding gun owner" when he illegally had the gun in his glove box? Is this a case of "abiding by the laws you agree with"?
Legal to own, and carry at his job as a security guard. Illegal to carry loaded in his glove box off duty."Davis had aspired to be a cop and fight crime in his city in New Jersey. But in 2013, Davis was pulled over in a routine traffic stop. He was then charged with a second-degree felony for having a legally owned firearm in his glove compartment.
Davis did not conceal the fact that he had a gun in the vehicle and told the police officer that he had a gun in the glove compartment. The gun was then seized without mention of any charges. The gun was loaded as Davis was a security guard at the time."
Was he illegally transporting the weapon?"Davis had aspired to be a cop and fight crime in his city in New Jersey. But in 2013, Davis was pulled over in a routine traffic stop. He was then charged with a second-degree felony for having a legally owned firearm in his glove compartment.
Davis did not conceal the fact that he had a gun in the vehicle and told the police officer that he had a gun in the glove compartment. The gun was then seized without mention of any charges. The gun was loaded as Davis was a security guard at the time."
No, its a case of the punishment being out of all proportion to the "crime". The man was a security guard, he had no criminal record, and the gun was legally purchased. The "crime" of having it in the glove box does not warrant 5-10 years in prison and a felony conviction on his record for the rest of his life.How can you say the guy was a "law abiding gun owner" when he illegally had the gun in his glove box? Is this a case of "abiding by the laws you agree with"?
So neither the NAACP nor Governor Christie are eager to help? Odd.I think by federal laws he was allowed to transport but the problem is he got stopped in NJ where it was illegal. It will certainly create a court case which NJ will probably lose. The problem is they probably wouldn't be retroactive and help him with his plea bargain, so he needs the governor's pardon.
Transport to and from his job, or the range to practice. He was out at night on a date.I think by federal laws he was allowed to transport but the problem is he got stopped in NJ where it was illegal. It will certainly create a court case which NJ will probably lose. The problem is they probably wouldn't be retroactive and help him with his plea bargain, so he needs the governor's pardon.
That would be a "states rights" issue to determine.No, its a case of the punishment being out of all proportion to the "crime". The man was a security guard, he had no criminal record, and the gun was legally purchased. The "crime" of having it in the glove box does not warrant 5-10 years in prison and a felony conviction on his record for the rest of his life.
According to New Jersey law, yes. But that isn't the point. The point is that he should not have to face 5-10 years in prison and a lifelong felony conviction. How about giving him a fine, or some community service?Was he illegally transporting the weapon?
So neither the NAACP nor Governor Christie are eager to help? Odd.