The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on November 05, 2009, 08:15:11 AM
-
http://www.kval.com/news/local/69244857.html
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The right of Oregonians to use marijuana for medical reasons and also to obtain concealed handgun permits is being challenged by local sheriffs who say federal law prevents those people from packing heat.
Advocates for the state's medical marijuana law countered Wednesday in the Oregon Court of Appeals that the sheriffs simply don't like the program and are looking for ways to undermine it.
Both sides now are looking to the courts to say definitively whether there's anything to prevent Oregon from issuing the concealed handgun permits to users of medicinal pot.
The head of the national marijuana advocacy group NORML said he's not aware of the issue being raised in the 13 other states that allow medicinal use of pot.
"It's kind of unique to Oregon that a couple of sheriffs there seem to want to defer to federal law when they really ought to be looking at enforcing state laws," Allen St. Pierre, NORML's executive director, said in an interview from Washington, D.C.
He also noted that the Obama administration in recent weeks has signaled that federal prosecutors will not go after people in those states who use medical marijuana legally.
"The administration is going to defer to local and state governments on these issues," he said.
Sheriffs from Washington and Jackson counties say, though, that they want clarification from the court on whether federal gun laws prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing handguns applies to people who have permits to use marijuana for medical reasons. Marijuana is still classified as a controlled substance under federal law, they said.
Lower courts had twice ordered the two sheriffs to give weapons permits to people who had lost them because they are medical marijuana users, and both appealed those rulings.
Attorney Elmer Dickens, representing Washington County Sheriff Rob Gordon, said the sheriff thinks he's in an untenable position.
"We don't think it's appropriate for the sheriff to be issuing a license to carry something that the federal government has said they are not even entitled to possess," Dickens said in court argumments.
A Portland lawyer for the advocates argued in court Wednesday that federal law doesn't trump Oregon's concealed handgun permit law.
Medical marijuana users who meet all other criteria cannot be deprived of the right to a concealed handgun permit, said Leland Berger, who helped write Oregon's medical marijuana law.
"What this is about is that the sheriffs don't like the medical marijuana law. Twelve years after it was approved by voters, the sheriffs want to discriminate against patients," he said.
Steven Schwerdt said he had a concealed handgun permit for six years before the Washington county sheriff's office revoked it when he became a medical marijuana user.
"I'm no criminal; I'm just a guy who can't physically run away from dangerous situations," said Schwerdt, who uses medical marijuana to relieve the symptoms of severe arthritis and gout.
Schwerdt got his gun permit back in May 2008 when a lower court judge overruled the sheriff's office on grounds that there was no legitimate reason to deny him one.
-
So I guess this means that I can drink and carry. >:( Dumbasses! It has always been a strict violation of concealed carry that you not be under the influence of ANYTHING. So fine, don't deny them the permit if both activities are legal in the state. BUT if they get caught carrying while high, they immediately lose their license, forever. Oh, and don't expect a lot of states to reciprocate.
-
Sounds like a good back door way to disarm people, whether it is safe or not. How about people who misuse prescription drugs, and alcohol, which are legal? Looks like we'll have to give a blood test o buy a gun, All this just makes for more laws and a new branch of the govt to regulate it.
Quit buying the CIA's drugs people, your financing world takeover with every purchase.
-
woody federal law already covers that...
by law they have to ask if your addicted to anything... you would be amazed at how many people say yes to that q.
-
This is pure BS. Using a drug and carrying does not mean being under the influence and carrying. Its like saying because you drink alchohol or take some medication tht makes you drowsy, you can't have a gun. No one is arguing that you should be able to carry while inebrieated. Simply that if you indulge, legally in your own home, that should not keep you from carrying the next day when you are not under the influence.
FQ13
-
This is pure BS. Using a drug and carrying does not mean being under the influence and carrying. Its like saying because you drink alchohol or take some medication tht makes you drowsy, you can't have a gun. No one is arguing that you should be able to carry while inebrieated. Simply that if you indulge, legally in your own home, that should not keep you from carrying the next day when you are not under the influence.
FQ13
Another thing, The question on the ATF form is "Are you ADDICTED to" which is a different matter altogether.
-
I think you guys are missing part of the picture here. Sure being under the influence and shooting is dumb, whether drugs, legal or otherwise, or alcohol.
Besides most of the people I have seen trying to get medical MJ have a physical disability that I personally wouldn't want to have a gun either. The people I have dealt with were physically disabled (weakness, temors ect normally because of another illness) or had vision issues (cataracts, glucoma, near blindness). Do you want someone who can't see very well or can't aim properly/hold the gun up wandering around armed? My wife's aunt is a medically retired CA prison guard and has a CCW pretty much for life. She could probably qualify for CA's medical MJ program, if she hasn't already. She can barely keep the G36 she carries on target for more than a shot or two and can JUST see the target at 15yds. She is SUPPOSED to qualify with it every couple years to maintain it but hasn't fired the complete course since I've known her. Love her to death but wouldn't want to be around if she actually had to use the bloody thing.
FQ-Last time I checked if your were USING MJ or any other medication meant you were to some extent UNDER THE INFLUENCE of SOMETHING. The affects also have some duration. Most that are part of those kinds of programs don't use one day and not the next. It is a daily thing, if not more than once a day. Alcohol is processed in the body MUCH faster than THC so that isn't a realy good analogy.
-
All in all I'd rather be around armed stoner's than armed drunks.
Drunks are unpredictable where as a stoner is more likely to tell you to have some cookies and chill. ;D
-
I don't understand why these two things are related any more than having a liquor cabinet or taking cold medicine and having a CCW are related. To me, this reeks (pardon the pun) of kicking someone while they're down.
Are we really going to tell someone going through chemotherapy that they have to give up their 2nd amendment rights?
-
Besides most of the people I have seen trying to get medical MJ have a physical disability that I personally wouldn't want to have a gun either. The people I have dealt with were physically disabled (weakness, temors ect normally because of another illness) or had vision issues (cataracts, glucoma, near blindness). Do you want someone who can't see very well or can't aim properly/hold the gun up wandering around armed? My wife's aunt is a medically retired CA prison guard and has a CCW pretty much for life. She could probably qualify for CA's medical MJ program, if she hasn't already. She can barely keep the G36 she carries on target for more than a shot or two and can JUST see the target at 15yds. She is SUPPOSED to qualify with it every couple years to maintain it but hasn't fired the complete course since I've known her. Love her to death but wouldn't want to be around if she actually had to use the bloody thing.
What about 15 feet? Its a more realistic SD distance. The the thing is that the elderly, the weak, the halt (what does that mean anyway) and the lame are more likely to need a gun than those who are healthy and strong. They will be targeted by scumbags looking for an easy score and have nothing to fall back on if they have no weapon. Back in high school I smoked my share, and probaly yours, of he demon weed. It did not effect me the next day. I was able to drive, mow the lawns I mowed for money, and operate a boat without that "Oh crap I'm stoned/drunk and should not be doing this" feeling I got exactly once before making a life long promise to myself that I would always have Taxi money if I was going to drink. The point is, I think you might have watched "Reefer Madness" one too many times. Someone who smokes a joint at 5pm so they will have an appetite for dinner at 7pm despite the chemo is not a threat to themselves and others the next day.
FQ13
-
All in all I'd rather be around armed stoner's than armed drunks.
Drunks are unpredictable where as a stoner is more likely to tell you to have some cookies and chill. ;D
Does anyone have any milk? ;D
Exactly! I have extensive experience in both vices and I must agree with Tom. A person whos a bit stoned can be reasoned with whereas, most drunks are just, well.......assholes!
Myself? I was a happy drunk, WAY TOO HAPPY!
-
The drunks I know who are assholes when drunk, are usually not much better when sober. ;D
-
The drunks I know who are assholes when drunk, are usually not much better when sober. ;D
Its like that old Bill Cosby skit.
He asks a coke head "What's the attraction with coke"?
Stoner replies, "It intensifies you personality man"!
Cosby responds, "But what if you're an asshole"? ;D
FQ13
-
What about 15 feet? Its a more realistic SD distance. The the thing is that the elderly, the weak, the halt (what does that mean anyway) and the lame are more likely to need a gun than those who are healthy and strong. They will be targeted by scumbags looking for an easy score and have nothing to fall back on if they have no weapon. Back in high school I smoked my share, and probaly yours, of he demon weed. It did not effect me the next day. I was able to drive, mow the lawns I mowed for money, and operate a boat without that "Oh crap I'm stoned/drunk and should not be doing this" feeling I got exactly once before making a life long promise to myself that I would always have Taxi money if I was going to drink. The point is, I think you might have watched "Reefer Madness" one too many times. Someone who smokes a joint at 5pm so they will have an appetite for dinner at 7pm despite the chemo is not a threat to themselves and others the next day.
FQ13
It MIGHT have negatively affected you last November, however. ;D
-
Even if you drive to the polls drunk, NEVER EVER VOTE UNDER THE INFLUENCE ;D
-
This is pure BS. Using a drug and carrying does not mean being under the influence and carrying. Its like saying because you drink alchohol or take some medication tht makes you drowsy, you can't have a gun. No one is arguing that you should be able to carry while inebrieated. Simply that if you indulge, legally in your own home, that should not keep you from carrying the next day when you are not under the influence.
FQ13
That's exactly how I feel about the subject to! Alcoholics can have permits, so why not MJ users? Most are not stoned every minute of the day any more than the Alcoholics are drunk every minute of the day! After all we are discussing people using MJ LEGALLY!
-
That's exactly how I feel about the subject to! Alcoholics can have permits, so why not MJ users? Most are not stoned every minute of the day any more than the Alcoholics are drunk every minute of the day! After all we are discussing people using MJ LEGALLY!
Even when they ARE stoned they have better judgment, and coordination than someone who is drunk
Which is probably why the majority of violent crime has ALWAYS involved alcohol.
-
That's exactly how I feel about the subject to! Alcoholics can have permits, so why not MJ users? Most are not stoned every minute of the day any more than the Alcoholics are drunk every minute of the day! After all we are discussing people using MJ LEGALLY!
If your a alcohlic a ffl can not legally sell you a gun.
-
I'm NOT an alcoholic!
I can't be!
I don't attend the meetings. ;)
;D
-
If your a alcohlic a ffl can not legally sell you a gun.
I don't recall seeing that question on any of the forms I've filled out to buy most :-X of my guns.
-
its one of the 4 Q, that you must say no too. other wise your DQed. Lieing on federal forms is a crime.
-
its one of the 4 Q, that you must say no too. other wise your DQed. Lieing on federal forms is a crime.
Not on the 4473
http://www.thundertek.net/documents/4473.pdf
-
Question 12 e from ATF form 4473.,
'Are you an UNLAWFUL user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other CONTROLLED substance?"
I think you're wrong again TAB.....alcohol, although a "controlled substance" is NOT illegal if you're over 21 years of age!
-
its one of the 4 Q, that you must say no too. other wise your DQed. Lieing on federal forms is a crime.
Not on the 4473
I think you're wrong again TAB.....alcohol, although a "controlled substance" is NOT illegal if you're over 21 years of age!
Maybe that is something specific to your State? I purchased a number of firearms in a couple of states and never been asked about my use of Alcohol! Now the doctors ask me that every year at my Military physical and every other year at my DOT physical, but never in a gun store. And though you have to be 21 to purchase alcohol I wouldn't consider it a controlled substance because you don't need anybody permission to purchase it!
-
12 e is it. Booze is a depressant.
-
If your a alcohlic a ffl can not legally sell you a gun.
Only if you answer yes on the form.
-
lieing on a federal form is a crime into itself.
read the paragraph right after Q 13 on the link haz posted.
-
12 e is it. Booze is a depressant.
The use and consumption of alcoholic beverages is NOT illegal!
What part of that do you not understand? Even though it may be something that could lead to an illegal activity, such as driving under the influence, the drinking part is LEGAL at the age of 21 in all 50 states!
Being an alcoholic IS NOT A CRIME!
-
its not a crime, but thats why they have "or" there.
-
Is it on the controlled substance list?
-
its not a crime, but thats why they have "or" there.
I'm faced, once again with utter ignorance of the Engish lanquage....
Go back to school TAB and get a refund for your education!
-
I'm bettin' that there is a deinition of the items listed there (as in all gov't forms and laws) tyat describes 'depressant' and I'm further bettin' alcohol ain't on it.
-
Is it on the controlled substance list?
Anybody know where the list is?
-
Anybody know where the list is?
Probably listed at the beginning of the law that put this form in place.
-
Anybody know where the list is?
My guess is one of the many health and safety acts or the tax acts( how they baned drugs) in the teens to 30s. I know my wife has a DEA number so she can write Rx.
-
My guess is one of the many health and safety acts or the tax acts( how they baned drugs) in the teens to 30s. I know my wife has a DEA number so she can write Rx.
Last time I looked you didn't need a script for alcohol, doofus.
-
no but you do need one from the ATF( or state agency) to sell it.
-
no but you do need one from the ATF( or state agency) to sell it.
You need a government license to sell cars, too. What's your point?
-
Even during Prohibition, under the 18th Amendment, CONSUMPTION of alcohol was NOT ILLEGAL! Only the manufacture, transportation or sale of alcohol was banned.
Alcohol is a controlled substance controlled by the ATF, liquor licenses are required, proper ID is required and restrictions that are controlled by the STATES determine WHOM can purchase and consume the substance.
A person of legal age cannot be served an alcoholic beverage UNLESS and UNTIL he or she can produce evidence of their age in most states.
Again, using alcohol or being addicted to alcohol IS NOT UNLAWFUL!
-
Beating your old lady is not a felony either but it can still cost you your second Amendment rights.
The form is the same all over the country, it's a FEDERAL form.
Alcohol IS a controlled substance, you have to meet guidelines that are FEDERALLY required of the state, the state may decide what they are, but the FEDS say the state has to establish them.
-
Alcohol IS a controlled substance, you have to meet guidelines that are FEDERALLY required of the state, the state may decide what they are,
but the FEDS say the state has to establish them.
The first part of that is contradictory. Guidelines that are federally required can't be decided by the State. They are Federal guidelines.
The second part I think is more like the FED says to the state you will establish these standards or you won't get any Federal funds! i.e. Bribery
-
The fed says you have to have guide lines, Here is some guidance, the age limit can not be lower than 18, we don't care how HIGH you put it.
-
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/2108cfrt.htm
Code of Federal Regulations
SECTION 1308
SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
I don't see Bud, Coor's, Miller, Jack, Jim or Bacardi on the list.
-
The fed says you have to have guide lines, Here is some guidance, the age limit can not be lower than 18, we don't care how HIGH you put it.
I working in a bar in 1978, 79, 80, 81 and 82 during the transition from 18 back to 21. It WAS left to the states as too what they chose to raise the age limit. It was a real pain to try and keep track of those that were on the cusp, were grandfathered in because they had already passed the limit but were too young again the following year. Michigan raised the age from 18-21 over a three year period and it was a total clusterf**k...
But, it was left to the states, just like other so called rights that are NOT enumerated in our Consitution! the Feds control the booze commerce and transportation issues but it's left to the states how they administer them. For example, MI never allowed a bar or nightclub to serve alcohol that was not purchased from a licensed distributor. You could not drive down the road to the local packy and serve the booze you bought there. Completely illegal.
-
Then I've been in clubs in NC where you had to bring your own booze and they supplied you mixer and glasses. When you left you could take the remainder with you or they could store it for your next visit.
-
I stand corrected, according to Davids link and Cornell Law school, alcohols IS NOT a controlled substance...
Health and other public concerns have generated detailed Federal and state regulation of the sale and possession of alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, and a wide range of other "controlled substances." The distinctive history of Prohibition, repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, gives particular complexity to the mix of Federal and state law governing alcohol.
Absent any specific regulation, these substances are treated like all other forms of personal property. However, the general rights of property are subject to so-called "police power" regulations of the state, local, and federal governments.
The regulation of alcohol is generally focused on "intoxicating beverages" with the exact definition of "intoxicating" varying from statute to statute. In many jurisdictions, it has been held that the list of liquors subject to regulatory or prohibitive enactments, particularly when such a list is followed by an expression akin to "or other intoxicating liquors" must be intoxicating in fact. Many statutes either refer to "intoxicating liquors" generally, or prescribe an alcoholic percentage cut off. In Mississippi, it has been held that the prohibition of the sale of alcoholic liquor does not apply to a beverage containing less than two tenths of one percent (0.2%) of alcohol.
The police powers of the Federal government are limited to regulating matters which are connected with one of the powers expressly granted to the government by the U.S. Constitution, and which do not infringe on the police powers of the states. This means that the Federal government lacks the power to regulate liquor sales by one citizen to another within the territorial limits of a given state, or to prescribe liquor-related business within any state. Because of the commerce clause, however, the Federal government can and does regulate the importation and interstate transportation of intoxicating liquors; see the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935, 27 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.. The federal government also has the power to regulate liquor sales in D.C., and where it has exclusive authority such as on government owned military reservations, and with Indian tribes. In all other situations, the states' police power controls alcoholic beverage law. The federal government has, however, used financial incentives built into its funding of highways to establish a national minimum drinking age. See 23 U.S.C. § 158.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Alcohol
-
Then I've been in clubs in NC where you had to bring your own booze and they supplied you mixer and glasses. When you left you could take the remainder with you or they could store it for your next visit.
They had those in CA as well but we could buy a bottle at last call and untill 4 am, the barkeeps would sell us mixers for our booze...
If I recall, in order to force most states back to 21 years of age, the Feds imposed reduced federal transportation dollars handed ou to the states until they change their drinking ages. Take away money from the state and force them to do your bidding! Sound familiar?
-
They had those in CA as well but we could buy a bottle at last call and untill 4 am, the barkeeps would sell us mixers for our booze...
If I recall, in order to force most states back to 21 years of age, the Feds imposed reduced federal transportation dollars handed ou to the states until they change their drinking ages. Take away money from the state and force them to do your bidding! Sound familiar?
Yeah, same thing they did with seat belt use. Set guidelines, but leave it up to the state as to whether they adopted them or not.... and if not, states lost out on Federal highway dollars.