Frank Ettin
Administrator
No question "works" as long as people can lie (and it's not something picked up on NICS). But if you are caught in a lie, that's another federal felony. Sometimes people get caught and prosecuted for that.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Gun ownership and the legalization of marijuana
- Thread starter CO_GunShooter
- Start date
hardworker
New member
I'm not arguing for a wiz quiz with each purchase, but I still think that for us to sit back and say "don't blame us, he lied on the form" is pretty much telling the anti's how to fix the law to make lying harder.
hardworker
Many of us have been required to submit to drug testing to get or keep a job.It is a pass/fail test.One test is the hair test.If you have smoked pot during growing a hair,it can be detected.
If a person were involved in a legitimate self defense shooting it may very well be there would be tests performed to see if the shooter was under the influence of anything.Testing positive for THC would give the prosecutor a strong card to play to the jury regarding whether judgement was impaired when the trigger was pulled.
But,that is just problem one.
Problem two,this person is now proved a prohibited person in posession of a firearm,felony.
Problem three,if this person signed a 4473,false statement.Felony.
Consider if a person is hunting,fishing,shooting,there is a reasonable chance of being checked out by an LEO,such as a game warden.The question"Do you have any weapons? May come up.Red eyes,odor,a seed ,etc can lead to a search.
The OP had a great idea! Find out what the law is,where do I stand,how can I make good choices.
To take a position"Thats all BS" well,a person can do that.It might be difficult to get a judge to agree.
Many of us have been required to submit to drug testing to get or keep a job.It is a pass/fail test.One test is the hair test.If you have smoked pot during growing a hair,it can be detected.
If a person were involved in a legitimate self defense shooting it may very well be there would be tests performed to see if the shooter was under the influence of anything.Testing positive for THC would give the prosecutor a strong card to play to the jury regarding whether judgement was impaired when the trigger was pulled.
But,that is just problem one.
Problem two,this person is now proved a prohibited person in posession of a firearm,felony.
Problem three,if this person signed a 4473,false statement.Felony.
Consider if a person is hunting,fishing,shooting,there is a reasonable chance of being checked out by an LEO,such as a game warden.The question"Do you have any weapons? May come up.Red eyes,odor,a seed ,etc can lead to a search.
The OP had a great idea! Find out what the law is,where do I stand,how can I make good choices.
To take a position"Thats all BS" well,a person can do that.It might be difficult to get a judge to agree.
At least one state disagrees with the idea that medical marijuana and concealed handgun licenses are mutually exclusive:
Concealed handgun owners with Oregon medical marijuana authorizations will be allowed to keep their gun licenses after a U.S. Supreme Court decision not to hear a sheriff's legal challenge which claimed U.S. federal law trumps Oregon state law.
Concealed handgun owners with Oregon medical marijuana authorizations will be allowed to keep their gun licenses after a U.S. Supreme Court decision not to hear a sheriff's legal challenge which claimed U.S. federal law trumps Oregon state law.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Very wrong and misleading. The U. S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case is not a decision on the merits and means nothing. The matter has not been decided under federal law.dajowi said:At least one state disagrees with the idea that medical marijuana and concealed handgun licenses are mutually exclusive:
Concealed handgun owners with Oregon medical marijuana authorizations will be allowed to keep their gun licenses after a U.S. Supreme Court decision not to hear a sheriff's legal challenge which claimed U.S. federal law trumps Oregon state law.
The Oregon Supreme Court, in Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011), ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. The case did not substantively address the federal law issue. In fact, the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):
...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...
In other words: Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun; but she can still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).
CO_GunShooter
Inactive
That's interesting. Legal in the state, illegal by the feds, I wonder how these medical marijuana user feel about being half-law abiding, half-not.
I didn't say that Ms. Willis couldn't be indicated under federal statute. I was only pointing out the facts as they currently stand in the state of Oregon.
The ruling issued in Salem, Ore., upheld previous decisions by the Oregon Court of Appeals and circuit court in finding that a federal law barring criminals and drug addicts from buying firearms does not excuse sheriffs from issuing concealed weapons permits to people who hold medical marijuana cards and otherwise qualify.
“We hold that the Federal Gun Control Act does not pre-empt the state’s concealed handgun licensing statute and, therefore, the sheriffs must issue (or renew) the requested licenses,” Chief Justice Paul De Muniz wrote.
In looking over the on-line CHL application from the county, there is no specific language dealing with Oregon Medical Marijuana Card holders.
The state has made a determination as to how it's going to handle a rather controversial issue regardless of federal law. Who knows what the future will bring.
The ruling issued in Salem, Ore., upheld previous decisions by the Oregon Court of Appeals and circuit court in finding that a federal law barring criminals and drug addicts from buying firearms does not excuse sheriffs from issuing concealed weapons permits to people who hold medical marijuana cards and otherwise qualify.
“We hold that the Federal Gun Control Act does not pre-empt the state’s concealed handgun licensing statute and, therefore, the sheriffs must issue (or renew) the requested licenses,” Chief Justice Paul De Muniz wrote.
In looking over the on-line CHL application from the county, there is no specific language dealing with Oregon Medical Marijuana Card holders.
The state has made a determination as to how it's going to handle a rather controversial issue regardless of federal law. Who knows what the future will bring.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
But the practical, real world result is the a medical marijuana user in Oregon, even with an Oregon CHL, is still subject to federal prosecution if he possesses a gun. The Oregon CHL is, as the Oregon Supreme Court specifically stated, no barrier to federal prosecution under federal law.dajowi said:...In looking over the on-line CHL application from the county, there is no specific language dealing with Oregon Medical Marijuana Card holders.
The state has made a determination as to how it's going to handle a rather controversial issue regardless of federal law. Who knows what the future will bring.
The Oregon Supreme Court's decision is a nice technical analysis of basic preemption law. And it reaches what is a proper, technical conclusion. But it breaks no ground nor even challenges in any way the supremacy of federal law.
That's probably why the U. S. Supreme Court didn't see any reason to take the case. That's also why, as far as the marijuana/gun dynamic goes, the Oregon decision is unlikely to have any meaningful effect. So it's unlikely the future will bring much, unless by a change in federal law.