Mediaboss Marketing

NORTHWEST ARKANSAS - Your right to bear arms in Arkansas could be taken away if you apply for a medical marijuana card. According to the Arkansas Department of Health, you can't have both a medical marijuana card and legally own a gun because pot is still illegal on the federal level.

Robert Reed, a Navy Veteran who served his country for 16 year, suffers PTSD along medical conditions which medical marijuana would help.

Reed said, "I will not apply for a med license, and risk my livelihood and my safety."

The Arkansas Department of Health said a question they get all the time is whether or not you can own a gun and possess a medical marijuana ID card. Since prescription pot is a Schedule 1 controlled substance, under federal law, you can't own a gun legally. And federal law supersedes state law.

"If they're a user of marijuana, although legal in Arkansas, it's still illegal on the federal level," explained Robert Brech with Arkansas Department of Health. "It's very clear you cannot be a marijuana user, and pass that check."

Reed, and other veterans who fought for Constitutional rights, will not apply for their medical marijuana cards due to putting the freedom they fought for at risk.

"You've got a law that outlaws the people that defended your right to make a law that puts me in jail," said Reed.

"You won't be denied the medical marijuana card. There's actually a provision in the Constitutional amendment that you can't be denied a license. So they may continue to give a conceal carry license to someone. It's really a problem at the federal level, not the state level," explained Brech.

"How can I have health and freedom by giving up a right? I can't," said Reed.

View post:
Medical Marijuana means Losing Your Second Amendment Right - KNWA

Editor:

Too often when liberals, in general, read the Constitution they pick and choose the wording they want to follow. Armed Teachers a Bad Idea (published in the July 11 edition of the Uinta County Herald) is a perfect example of this. To make my point, in italics is the whole Second Amendment:

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.

Of course, liberals with their typical big-government beliefs will only see the words well regulated and it stops there.

The first question I have to ask is who are the militia? By definition they are a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army.

So, we, the people, are the militia, and in order to keep a free state around the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Does it say what kind of weapons I can and cant own? No, it doesnt. A group of men known as the founders had just spent years fighting a tyrannical government with the same weapons the government had.

So, the second the government makes any law restricting people from owning the type of weaponry they can afford and desire, they are in violation of the Second Amendment.

For all of the Christians out there, Luke 22:36 says, Then said he unto them, but now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Its plain and simple that you should own and familiarize yourself with weapons.

And now onto the part that really just confused me more than anything. What about the childs psyche? Most of us have been around or involved with firearms since we were children. Some of us parked off school property so we could leave our rifles in our trucks and go hunting after school.

Guns dont commit crimes and criminals dont care about laws.

I read the comments on the website and I have to applaud most of you for actually giving it traffic. However, there are a few things I would like to clarify.

I took an oath 10 years ago. I was disqualified from serving due to my medical record but I still took an oath; to some people that means something. Secondly, I agree that teachers need sufficient training breach and clear techniques need to be taught.

Finally, I am not a gun nut, I just understand the Constitution as what it is, a legal document.

Patrick Ballinger

Evanston

Read more from the original source:
Letter: Understanding the Second Amendment - Uinta County Herald

The would-be foster parents, William and Jill Johnson, were trying to secure custody of their grandson when William was reportedly told he had to hand over the serial numbers for every gun in the home to complete the process.William claims the caseworker said, If you want to care for your grandson you will have to give up some of your constitutional rights.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb told Breitbart News that this sacrifice of Second Amendment rights includes having no guns for self-protection at home or carried on ones person. And in a press release sent to Breitbart News, SAF pointed out that aGogebic County Court judge allegedly told Williams he had to comply with caseworkers gun control request if he wanted the foster acquisition to succeed.

According to the SAF press release,

The policy of the MDHHS, by implementing requirements and restrictions that are actually functional bans on the bearing of firearms for self-defense, both in and out of the home, completely prohibits foster and adoptive parents, and those who would be foster or adoptive parents, from the possession and bearing of readily-available firearms for the purpose of self-defense. This violates Plaintiffs constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The release quoted Gottlieb saying, The statements from the caseworker and judge are simply outrageous. This amounts to coercion, with a child as their bartering chip. I cannot recall ever hearing anything so offensive and egregious, and weve handled cases like this in the past. Blatantly telling someone they must give up their civil rights in order to care for their own grandchild is simply beyond the pale.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Here is the original post:
2nd Amendment Foundation Files Suit: Alleges Foster Parents Forced to Give Up Gun Rights for Child - Breitbart News

The National Rifle Association targeted the Washington Post in a new video Monday, accusing the newspaper of "doing damage to the country" and promoting the "violent left."

The release of the video comes after the Post wrote a story last week about recent NRA videos that criticize Democratic politicians and the media, but do not focus on gun policy.

"They tell us to not have an opinion unless it's about guns," says conservative talk show host Grant Stinchfield, who narrates the new video attacking the Post. "Listen to me Washington Post. We talk about more than guns because every freedom is connected. If one is threatened, they all are threatened, and the organized anarchy that you, our politicians and you're activists are pushing is destroying our country."

Stinchfield went on to condemn the Post's slogan, "Democracy Dies in Darkness," and said the newspaper "should say, "Journalism Dies at the Washington Post.'"

The Post wrote a story July 11 that mentions a recent NRA video released in late June featuring commentator Dana Loesch that received widespread criticism because it did not emphasize Second Amendment Rights.

In the video, Loesch described liberal demonstrators who "smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports bully and terrorize the law-abiding." A petition to have the Loesch video removed from Facebook argued that "the video tries to create an us-vs-them' narrative and pit Americans against one another."

Critics said the video exploited the congressional baseball shooting that had just happened prior to the video's release, in which five people were wounded, including House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., by an outspoken supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

The NRA is brushing off the criticism. In the new video, Stinchfield says the NRA "will never stop fighting the violent left on the battlefield of truth."

"Here's a suggestion for the Washington Post: don't worry about how many guns are in our videos, worry about how many facts are in your articles," Stinchfield said. "Because if gun owners abused our Second Amendment the way you abuse your paper and the First Amendment, our rights would have been taken away long ago. You people do more to damage our country with a keyboard than any NRA member has ever done combined with a firearm."

More:
NRA: Washington Post abuses First Amendment - Washington Examiner

Guns seem to be a regular topic in the newspaper, along with references to the Second Amendment, which protects the citizens' right to keep and bear same.

I was curious, so I read it: 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.

As a strict constructionist, I would like to advocate for the intent of the writers of this article.

Seems to me that those who keep and bear arms ought to be enrolled in a well regulated militia, currently known as the National Guard or the military reserve. These citizens would be trained and ready should our nation require their services when we are threatened by Native Americans or forces of the British, French or Spanish governments.

We could even designate certain units for advanced training in nuclear weaponry, air combat, operation of a submarine or aircraft carrier, and special ops. We would no longer need a standing military force, since the citizenry would stand ready when needed. This could result in a great savings from the national budget, and allow Medicaid to become a national health care system.

If called, I will gladly bring my bow, arrows and slingshot.

William A. Kaeppel Florissant

The rest is here:
Determining what the Second Amendment means for today - STLtoday.com