Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (981191)	11/12/2016 8:32:04 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By locogringo TideGlider Respond to of 1577883

If Dems lose ONE more state legislature, GOP could push Constitutional Amendments unopposed! Nov. 12, 2016 12:01 pmNov. 12, 2016 2:52 pm by SooperMexican • 420 Comments One of the more interesting results of the shocking 2016 election is that Dems have lost control of so many state legislatures that we’re within just ONE more of being able to start a “Convention of States” unopposed. Follow Marc Porter Magee @marcportermagee Democrats now control only 13 state legislatures (26%). If they lose 1 more they fall below the % needed to stop constitutional amendments. This is the process provided by the Founders in Article 5 of the Constitution whereby three quarters of the states can vote to propose and ratify amendments to the Constitution. This is how the ever expanding power of the government into our lives could be stopped and rolled back to what the founders intended as the balance of power between the states and the federal government. Mark Levin explains here how a Convention of States is Constitutional and could reverse the unending growth of the federal government. We also have a great FAQ about the Article Five Convention process here. therightscoop How about a balanced budget amendment? Congressional term limits? Requiring Congressional approval of all rule-making by federal agencies?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (981191)	11/13/2016 2:17:44 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577883

Court Rules That Medical Marijuana Card Holders Can't Buy Firearms by Michal Addady September 1, 2016, 4:36 PM EST Because it can make them “irrational and unpredictable.” If you have a medical marijuana card, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says that you can’t buy a gun. The court ruled 3-0 on Wednesday that a ban preventing medical marijuana card holders from purchasing firearms is not in violation of the Second Amendment, the Associated Press reports. There are nine western states under the appeals court’s jurisdiction, including Nevada, where the case originated. A lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Nevada resident S. Rowan Wilson after she tried to purchase a gun for self-defense and was denied based on a federal ban on the sale of guns to users of illegal drugs. Though marijuana has been legalized in some places on a state-by-state basis, it remains illegal under federal law. The court maintained that drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.” Wilson claimed that she doesn’t actually use marijuana, she simply obtained a card to show her support for its legalization. The appeals court agreed with guidelines from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that firearms sellers should assume that medical marijuana card holders use the drug. Chaz Rainey, the attorney representing Wilson, said that he plans to appeal the decision. “We live in a world where having a medical marijuana card is enough to say you don’t get a gun, but if you’re on the no fly list your constitutional right is still protected,” he told the AP. He argued that there should be more consistency in how the Second Amendment is applied. Alex Kreit, marijuana law expert at the San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson School of Law, expects that this ruling won’t be the last we see of the issue. He told the AP that the ruling may be challenged by people who use medical marijuana who will argue “that they shouldn’t be lumped with other drug users in terms of concerns about violence.” http://fortune.com/2016/09/01/medical-marijuana-gun/