Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Should I apply for my CHL or wait?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    All right friends, after lurking on this forum for several months now, I've finally decided to take the plunge and join up. This shall be my inaugural post; and it'll be quite a doozy -- I'd first like to apologise for pouring my heart out onto a forum where I have good reason to think that it won't exactly be received with open arms (just read the whole thing through and it'll be quite clear why); and I'd secondly like to apologise for relaying very personal details which, while integral to understanding what has happened, may put some people off or cause them to look down upon me with contempt -- however, as you shall soon see, these details form a central part of the narrative which is my life, and to omit them would leave critical events without a primary explanation.

    Secondly, let me state my unequivocal support for OC and all of the issues wrapped up in it; and that my main motivation for getting the CHL is to remove the burden placed on me by the onerous legal restrictions that my city, and others, place upon OC; not so much to CC, unless the situation demands it, but rather to solidify my legal position relative to OCing. I already OC in all situations that I can (which given the city in which I reside, are not many), and would like to expand those situations to the legal maximum.

    As a preface to my little story, I'd like to mention that I completed the Hunter's Education Safety & Training Course several years ago, when it was still possible to attend such a course at a private home (apparently since then, there have been draconian insurance requirements placed on those who teach the classes, and this accounts for the dearth of available Hunter's Ed courses in my local area), so I have no worries about meeting the 'training' portion of the legal requirements for obtaining a CHP.

    So the prologue of my story begins when I was 21 and originally applied for my CHP (I had completed Hunter's Ed in my teens). I was denied under the so-called "willies" clause (ORS 166.293(2) ) on the basis that I had, at the time, a seizure disease which was treatable only with the use of marijuana (although controversial, this was a LEGAL use since I did possess a legal OMMP card; and although inconsequential in this part of the story, my use of marijuana features prominently in matters which will be discussed soon). At the hearing I petitioned for (under ORS 166.293(5)-166.293(12) ), the Sheriff, Rob Gordon, explained that although I had demonstrated that my seizures were well controlled, and that I had demonstrated a two-year-plus period of seizure-free living, the off-chance that I might suffer a seizure in a public place, thus rendering personal control of my weapon impossible, constituted "reasonable grounds to believe" that I would be "reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of [my] mental or psychological state". Despite evidence that I presented (sadly, my financial situation forced me to appear pro-se, i.e. represent myself) that I had a type of seizure disorder which had, as one of its characteristics, an "aura" (a perceptible warning that a seizure was going to occur within 5-45 minutes) which allowed me to remove myself from any public situation and medicate myself to prevent the seizure, thus rendering the Sheriff's objections medically without merit -- the denial was upheld. (Immediately after the hearing was concluded, I asked the judge about the basis for his decision; he replied that the Sheriff had "met the burden of proof", and that was all the explanation I received.)

    So a few years later, after more doctors and more experimental medications and more intrusive examinations, I finally was rid of the seizure disorder through a combination of hypnotherapy and an experimental drug (I won't get into that here, since it would require an explanation four or five times as long as this entire post would be, and besides, it's not germane to the discussion of firearms or firearms issues). I turned in my OMMP card, and for more than two years, I had nothing whatsoever to do with marijuana. Eventually, however, I decided to start using it again, primarily for relaxation (I know, I know, there is no excuse for breaking any law, EVER, but allow me to briefly explain: For eight years, I had to smoke the stuff every single day, without EVER being able to feel the fun relaxation that my friends were able to enjoy, due to habituation over time [remember, I wasn't smoking for pleasure then; merely to stave off seizures, and so I didn't 'ramp up' my consumption over time like most "potheads" do]; and, having had to suffer through its use for years, I felt a little bit of entitlement to enjoy what had been previously unenjoyable for me. (Although I don't want this to get twisted into a political discussion about marijuana, I feel that I need to mention that there are literally MILLIONS of otherwise-law-abiding Americans who would rather light up after a stressful day then knock back a few beers; and I know I am not unique in this regard.)

    So a couple of years passed, my wife and I had a daughter, and it was around this time that I discovered this grand website, and decided to again "get involved" with guns and shooting and OCing, and all the fun that entails (since I was unsuccessful in obtaining my CHL, I had to be rather careful about where and how I OC, seeing as CCing wasn't an option).

    So, I had just managed to mentally 'settle-in' to the new role of father when a particularly pernicious incident unfolded... As a consequence of my stepfather's death a couple of years ago, my mother insisted that my wife and I 'come back home to stay' with her, both for her own emotional wellbeing as well as helping out with the numerous household chores which she had become unable to take on by herself; so we agreed, and all was well.

    It came to be that our house became rather crowded: my wife and I, and our new daughter, living with my mother, as well as my younger sister and my younger brother, and my brother's friend as his roommate (an even longer story; he'd been forced out of his own home by his parents, and my mother frequently takes pity on the less fortunate). And so it was, that the brother's friend had a girlfriend who would come and see him (at our house) from time to time; and one of these times my mother caught the two of them 'between the sheets' together. (One of the rules here is that there is no sex between unmarried people -- she just won't put up with it at all.) The predictable "get out of my house" speech quickly followed.

    And so about two weeks after this prelude to disaster had occured, I was out and about buying groceries when a Child Welfare/CPS worker came to the house and demanded drug tests from everyone, insisting that he had reports that we "were all using cocaine and leaving the baby unattended for hours on end". (Naturally, neither of these things were true, but that didn't matter to the caseworker.) He said that he'd return the next day, which he dutifully did. The next day when he came back, he told me that "we're not interested in weed-smoking or anything like that, but we need to make sure that there's no cocaine use here" in order to get my wife and I to submit to urinalysis tests. (Shortly later I found this to be a damned lie!) Thinking that he was being honest, and knowing that I had never used cocaine (so I thought this would be a quick matter to disprove and put to rest), we agreed and took the test.

    About a week later, another caseworker, accompanied by WCSO officers, arrive at the house, and claim that since we both tested positive for marijuana, that they had the evidence of child abuse they needed, and they ripped our little infant child from our arms. (As a brief commentary -- but not to derail the discussion which I hope will follow -- there are MILLIONS of otherwise-law-abiding parents who use marijuana in their own homes, without exposing their children to the smoke, or even letting them know about this behaviour; we also fall into this category [changing clothes, washing face & hands, using airfilters in both smoking room and baby's room, etc. etc.]; are they just as 'guilty' of "child abuse" as we are?)

    This happened in May of this year; since then, we have been abstinent, gone to drug counseling, are setting up parenting classes, and generally "jumping through" allof the "hoops" that the Court has demanded of us, so that we may have our child returned to us.

    Throughout this whole process, no criminal charges were filed against either of us, nor was any mention made of the numerous guns which I own and keep (locked up, of course) in the house; since it was never alleged that the child was in physical danger from either of us, merely that the smoking of marijuana ITSELF was the act that constituted the alleged "child abuse", not any particular action to the baby by either of us.

    Now, it goes without saying that I've now learned my lesson about marijuana ("never again", etc. etc.), but with all of the relevant history laid out before you, dear friends, it's time to ask my real questions.

    1.) Since I meet the requirements for training, no criminal record, etc. etc. for issuance of the CHL, should I apply at this time?

    2.) Should I apply on my own, or should I take one of the CHL classes? (It's my understanding that at the end of the class, they actually submit the paperwork for you, in a batch with the other class attendees.)

    3.) If not now, should I wait until this entire Child Welfare imbroglio is concluded, and then apply?

    4.) Will I ever have a hope of actually getting my Oregon CHL? Or should I just put all my effort, when the time comes, into moving out of Oregon and trying to obtain a CHL in a new state of residence?



    Now I know that many (if not all) of you will outright condemn me for my choice to use marijuana, and this is completely understandable -- it's easy to see why noone would stand in support of someone knowingly breaking ANY law -- and perhaps, even commendable to do. As I've said, I've learned the lesson, and I've been "clean" for several months now (since May, actually). I also know that the struggle to regain my child has to come first; I would never claim differently. However, I also know that a man has to have SOME fun in his life, otherwise life devolves into merely the question of "how much punishment can you take before you've had enough"; and since I can't have fun in the usual ways (I'm not legally allowed to even drink, remember) that leaves shooting as the sole outlet for my emotions, and the sole source of my enjoyment (aside from marital relations, of course). And so, in the furtherance of that activity, I find myself focusing on exercising my Second Amendment rights more and more, not just to further my enjoyment of the shooting sports but also (and perhaps moreso) the furtherance of my personal protection, and the protection of those around me. [After all, it would be a grave disappointment indeed to be denied my child on the grounds that I "could not appropriately provide for her protection", would it not?] Which leads back to the procurement of the CHL, and my question as to how, strategically, should I proceed.



    Please tell me your thoughts and ideas on this matter, I've been considering how to proceed on this for months now, and I'm not above hearing some constructive criticism. And also, thank you for taking the time from your lives to read this; I hope that it's touched you and perhaps opened your eyes a little to the perspectives of others. It was certainly hard enough for me to write all this out and lay myself bare for criticism and foul invective: but I can admit that I probably deserve it.

    Thank you, OCDO.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    160

    Post imported post

    You're right, I think it wrong of you to have broken the law, but I believe you that you've changed your ways. Having your child taken from you can do that.

    In any case, if you can swing it, take the CHL course. It's definetly worth it. But they won't turn in everyones' applications at once. You HAVE to go the Sheriff's office to get your fingerprints done and turn in the application personally. This allows them to verify your ID and verify that your prints are your prints.

    Good luck with everything, wish you three the best in the future.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Thank you for the helpful advice; if I may but request a point of clarification:

    Should I take the class as soon as possible, so as to get the permit as soon as possible, or should I wait until this drama has concluded to take the class & apply?

    I'm worried that this sort of thing might appear on their background check (or the LEDS database, for that matter) and prevent the issuance of the permit under the aforementioned "willies" clause, which would mean the time & money spent on the class would have been a waste.

    What do you think?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    So, almost fiftyviews and only one person kind enough to give me advice on this?



    Maybe if I ask nicely... please?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Just my $.02, but I'd wait until I had my child back before applying.

    You never know how a particular judge or lawyer is going to twist the fact that you have now applied for a CHL (and this most likely will appear as part of a background investigation), especially being from the more liberal part of the state.

    Wishing you good luck in getting everything back in order, though.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , Oregon, USA
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    I'll skip any kind of judgment here and just explain it as I understand it.

    First, the process:

    Since you're still in Washington County, like DenWin said, there's a certain procedure for this county that's a little different than others. You take the class, then fill out an application. Unlike many other counties, Washington requires 2 non-relative character witness as well. Then send it in and wait.

    Eventually, you'll get a letter informing you of your CHL appointment (I actually got 2, but it was for the same appointment). If you can't make it at the time they arbitrarily pick, well, you can call and try to arrange a different one. They do seem pretty nice down there. Once you go in for you appointment (this is where you pay the $65, get your fingerprints and picture taken), it's generally 3 weeks from then for it to be mailed out to you (if you are approved).

    Now, the bad news:

    I've looked over the relevant statue, ORS 166.291 (https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.291.html), and I'm not sure you'll get it. 166.291-L talks about drug convictions (which it doesn't sound like you've had) but it does talk about court-ordered drug diversion. There's ORS 166.291-L-B which states it can't be held against you if you've not been convicted of ORS 475.864 - since you weren't convicted of any possession charges, this may be a way around it.

    kgasso also makes a very good point - trying to get your CHL right in the middle of a tussle with the Child Welfare Services Department looks... suspect at best. I understand they're unrelated, but the Sheriff may not see it that way.

    I recently got my CHL because I do a lot of traveling through Beaverton and Tigard, and really didn't want the hassle, so I can totally empathize with your desires. It just may be, however, that life has dealt you too bad a hand for this to work out.

    My advice would be to wait till this blows over, then start asking questions again.

    I'm glad you're getting everything straightened out and your life on track, and I hope you get your baby girl back real soon.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    Dude, I cannot begin to express how utterly WEIRD I find your story, on just so many levels.

    That said, I feel sad for you in that you feel that shooting is your sole enjoyable outlet in life, other than sex, booze, and marijuana.

    Now obviously you're a pretty intelligent fellow judging by the tone & timbre of your original post, but MAN are you ever acting stupid!

    How OLD are you, because you're acting like a kid. Being a man entails doing the right thing as well as doing things right. Right now, the right thing is for you to concentrate on is getting your collective **** together and getting your kid back. Once that's accomplished, then I suggest finding some more creative outlets for your personal enjoyment other than shooting. Apply for the CHL later when you have your kid back, and you have achieved greater stability in your life.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    I would first like to thank all of you who replied to this thread; I can admit that I am fully deserving of the criticisms levelled at me, and that I've obviously made several serious mistakes (not the least of which was allowing that girl to ever come here).

    My plan shall be to wait until this imbroglio has reached its conclusion (most likely in May of next year), and then scratch up enough money to attend the class at that time. (I think also that I should arrange for a small retainer for my current attorney, in the event of another denial, so that 166.291(L)(b) can be brought up in my defense, should the need arise.)

    And to Ironbar, let me say a few things: Firstly, that my story is admittedly quite strange and convoluted -- it was exactly this that caused me to wait so long before asking advice from people with a like mind with respect to gun rights. Perhaps asking for advice was not such a bright idea on my part! Secondly, as to my personal enjoyment, those who raised me from childhood told me upon my reaching adulthood that "the game has changed. The only things that are fun in this life are either illegal or dangerous. Or both. So forget about having fun and try to content yourself with mild enjoyment, since real fun will cost you either your health or your freedom." Of course, I couldn't bring myself to believe that this was true (after all, who would?) but, as this entire experience has shown me, that it is quite true; for me at least. Seeking pleasure can certainly cause people to make stupid decisions, and there is no more effective proof of that then what I'm going through now.

    At the risk of releasing identifying information, I am twenty nine years old, and although I am not immune from the various cancers plaguing my demographic (the street culture, the victimhood mentality, unwillingness to "grow up", etc. etc.), I've certainly realised the folly of the mentality that I held; and I certainly agree that being able to protect oneself and one's family is far more important than seeking relaxation and the ability to "unwind". I definitely wouldn't call this paradigm shift a change to asceticism, but more of a resignation to a life of drollery, punctuated by brief moments of enjoyment. I agree that it's time to 'grow up', and I can think of no more accurate way to describe that condition than my previous sentence. Perhaps I did act childishly; at any rate, I won't argue that I don't deserve what's happened.

    Having said that, I still welcome any and all further opinions any of you may have.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    Child welfare workers are like BATFE are like DEA. They all know better than you how to run your life. Don't ever let any of them in your life. Fight any intrusion by these constitutional miscreants as hard as you can.

    There are federal laws about drug use/possession and firearms. Not good to have that posted here.

    Good luck getting your daughter back from the nanny state.



    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  10. #10
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    TiP wrote:
    I've certainly realised the folly of the mentality that I held; and I certainly agree that being able to protect oneself and one's family is far more important than seeking relaxation and the ability to "unwind". I definitely wouldn't call this paradigm shift a change to asceticism, but more of a resignation to a life of drollery, punctuated by brief moments of enjoyment. I agree that it's time to 'grow up', and I can think of no more accurate way to describe that condition than my previous sentence. Perhaps I did act childishly; at any rate, I won't argue that I don't deserve what's happened.
    Now see, here's where I have to disagree with you again. I'm quite a bit older than you, but I don't consider myself to be living a life of drollery at all. The thing is, at age 29, your options are still pretty limited as far as what fun you can have in life. As you live and get older, provided you're not still spending more than you're earning, you suddenly realize that, "Wow, I guess I can afford that trip to Vegas with the guys," or, "Wow, I really can afford to take my wife & kid to Disneyland this year."

    If you mind your P's and Q's, stay out of trouble, live the American Dream instead of dream about it, you'll eventually find yourself in a better and better situation every year. DON'T settle for mediocre in life. If your job sucks, then go back to school, or get whatever education you can in order to get a job that doesn't suck. Screw the economy and everything to do with it. Companies are still hiring people for jobs. I'm even applying for a new job this week in fact, and I'm still employed, and in no danger of getting fired.

    BTW, where did you go to school anyway? You write in a remarkably lucid fashion, and your spelling & grammar are better than some of the execs at work.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Well, at the risk of 'threadjacking', I'll answer the question: I don't really have much of a higher education per-se;merely a GED and some community college courses. I do like to pass the time with a good nonfiction book, though.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    There is quite a backup, at least in most counties, for CHLs right now. So applying earlier is better, because you might be waiting months for an appointment.

    That said, you will not be granted a CHL if you are addicted to any schedule... uh, 1, I think? substance. (trying to find the cite for this, but I don't remember where I saw it.) As much bull@#$% as it is, being an OMMP has been taken as prima facia evidence of addiction by some counties, and best I can recall, the @#$%ing courts have upheld that nonsense. It's the only reason I'm not a WMMP/OMMP. (I know for a fact that cannabis would do wonders for my sleeping disorder, where other drugs/therapies/treatment has failed, but instead, I suffer daily.) The fact that you're now in drug diversion, after being an OMMP, pretty much guarantees you a solid denial. Complete the ridiculous classes and get some clean UAs before you give it a shot.

    Never talk to any government agent without a lawyer present. Never submit to any test without consulting a lawyer. Key words for any bureaucratic interaction: I don't consent. If they have probable cause, they will force the issue. If they don't, they will only threaten to. If they don't and the break in anyway, you'll get the evidence thrown out (though you'll have to go through a couple level of appeals) and have a decent shot at getting a lawsuit (assuming you have any money left over to pursue one).

    Not everyone on this forum is a right-wingnut (though admittedly they do dominate), and there's nothing wrong with breaking a stupid, harmful law.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Well, I've got several clean UAs (all of them since late June), and I'm still in the waiting list for the parenting classes, but I guess my largest concern with the CHL issue is that even after demonstrating abstinence, completion of the ridiculous classes, etc., even after our daughter gets returned to us; do you think I'll be denied even after I've "jumped through" all of their "hoops"?



    And I sympathise with your health plight; I wish that my condition could have been forgone, but were I to stop medicating myself with it (when I had the condition), I would likely have died, thus rendering this whole conversation moot. Although it's now been a few years since I had an OMMP, is it the sort of thing that produces a lifelong legal stigma in terms of CHPs?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    TiP wrote:
    Well, I've got several clean UAs (all of them since late June), and I'm still in the waiting list for the parenting classes, but I guess my largest concern with the CHL issue is that even after demonstrating abstinence, completion of the ridiculous classes, etc., even after our daughter gets returned to us; do you think I'll be denied even after I've "jumped through" all of their "hoops"?
    Yes, there's a good chance you'll be denied. There's a decent chance the denial will be overturned when you challenge it, and a good chance it'll be overturned on appeal.

    That said, it also depends a bit on your sheriff's office, and how thorough they're background check is.

    And I sympathise with your health plight; I wish that my condition could have been forgone, but were I to stop medicating myself with it (when I had the condition), I would likely have died, thus rendering this whole conversation moot. Although it's now been a few years since I had an OMMP, is it the sort of thing that produces a lifelong legal stigma in terms of CHPs?
    Unfortunately, it can be. At least until it gets truly legalized, which I'm pretty hopeful I'll see in my lifetime. And hey, I can't wait -- there's no denying the recreational benefits as well as the medicinal ones.

    I'm trying to find information about the followup from the case, but I haven't had any luck yet. I'm sure it's just working it's way through the incredibly slow wheels of justice. Here's the story: http://stash.norml.org/oregon-county...juana-decision

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Firstly, let me thank you, Grishnav,for the link to the story; having said that, I think that a retainer for an attorney will definitely be necessary in my case, even though I am no longer a marijuana user.

    Secondly, do you happen to know the counties in which any involvement with the OMMP is considered prima facie evidence of addiction? It may be time for my family and I to move to a more rural location (especially if Washington County is on that list).

    I would also like to echo one of the commentors from the linked thread who said, in the event of a denial or revocation, "The harsh reality is that if someone needed my help I can no longer provide it, nor can I defend myself, so the overall “safety” of my community has been reduced."

    I don't suppose that Adamesq might step up to the plate (once the time comes) for a bit of pro-bono work? (Just kidding Adam, I know you wouldn't want that kind of press.)

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    TiP wrote:
    Secondly, do you happen to know the counties in which any involvement with the OMMP is considered prima facie evidence of addiction? It may be time for my family and I to move to a more rural location (especially if Washington County is on that list).
    Washington County I believe is still fighting the legal battle, and I've heard of Multnomah county denying on the basis of being an OMMP too, but I can't find a story about it. I haven't heard of any other counties doing it, but I can't say that others don't. I also don't know if the policies are still in effect in Multnomah or Washington.

    One thing to keep in mind is that a denial doesn't preclude you from trying again in the future. If you can spare enough to try, but not get a lawyer, it theoretically won't hurt anything to just try, and wait to fight until you've accumulated the necessary wealth to mount a real defense.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Well, that is definitely true; but continuallly applying and being denied can get quite expensive as the $65-per-application fee has to be paid over and over again... and, as another poster famously quipped a while back, "I already pay enough taxes".

    I fear that, in the end, it may be easier just to move...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    TiP wrote:
    Well, I've got several clean UAs (all of them since late June), and I'm still in the waiting list for the parenting classes, but I guess my largest concern with the CHL issue is that even after demonstrating abstinence, completion of the ridiculous classes, etc., even after our daughter gets returned to us; do you think I'll be denied even after I've "jumped through" all of their "hoops"?
    Yes, there's a good chance you'll be denied. There's a decent chance the denial will be overturned when you challenge it, and a good chance it'll be overturned on appeal.

    That said, it also depends a bit on your sheriff's office, and how thorough they're background check is.

    And I sympathise with your health plight; I wish that my condition could have been forgone, but were I to stop medicating myself with it (when I had the condition), I would likely have died, thus rendering this whole conversation moot. Although it's now been a few years since I had an OMMP, is it the sort of thing that produces a lifelong legal stigma in terms of CHPs?
    Unfortunately, it can be. At least until it gets truly legalized, which I'm pretty hopeful I'll see in my lifetime. And hey, I can't wait -- there's no denying the recreational benefits as well as the medicinal ones.

    I'm trying to find information about the followup from the case, but I haven't had any luck yet. I'm sure it's just working it's way through the incredibly slow wheels of justice. Here's the story: http://stash.norml.org/oregon-county...juana-decision
    I saw the link you provided, I believe this is a update to that case.

    http://stash.norml.org/oregon-judge-...handgun-rights

    It was ruled in favor of the CHL holders/applicants.

    ETA: Maybe I am terrible at reading... But I just noticed the link I cited was from may of 08 and the 1 you cited was of june of 08. Therefore I am assuming since I didnt read much of your link it was a appeal from the sheriff.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    I actually remembered your case, TiP. The only issue and problem is that if the Oregon Courts rule the way of the 3 CHL holders who are OMMP card holders to be not applicable, what will simply happen is that they will turn over the CHL list to the federal prosecutors, and then the feds will compel the OMMP program to disclose if these three plaintiffs, and anyone who has ever appealed a denial on the basis of their OMAP. Once they have that information, the ATFE, FBI, and DEA will arrest these people for possessing a firearm while user of a controlled substance.

    This entire thing shows how beyond stupid the federal controlled substances act is, and it needs to be seriously revised, or repealed.

    There is a effort on the federal level to remove cannabis from the federal drug control schedule.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal...Substances_Act

    This is the truly legal method of dealing with this problem. If Cannabis is removed from schedule 1 to where it will allow medicinal use or removed altogether, the problem is solved. You don't see laws prohibiting the possession of crossbows, longbows, knives, and other such weapons from "drug users", and it should be no different for firearms.

    Any litigation directly on the 2nd amendment implications of this would be at least a decade off, and there are way too many gun owners who are willing to destroy the 4th amendment to just "go after those druggies" without realizing that destroying the 4th amendment will also effect them too.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    While I myself was not a part of the linked case, I suppose that there are many parallels that could be drawn from their legal positions to mine (at least, what mine WERE the first time I applied).

    And, although I don't want this thread to become a political soapbox for me to spew my views on marijuana, I definitely appreciate all the well-wishes and support that you fine folks have extended to me; and I too agree that this nonsense would be cut short rather quickly were marijuana to be legalised (and heavily taxed, offered only to those 21 or over, etc. etc.). Who knows? Perhaps it could even offera way out of the financial burden that threatens to crush our state.

    At any rate, I thank you all for your responses and opinions, and if you've got more, then by all means keep them coming. As for myself, I've continued "being a good boy" and am hoping that some headway will be made at tomorrow's court hearing on the matter.

    Thanks again, to all of you. (Oh, and I'm still open carrying whenever and whereever I can. )

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    deleted

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Yes, 21 or over.

    Thanks, I missed that typo, hah. Edited the post to eliminate it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385

    Post imported post

    You know tip, when all this blows over, perhaps you start dabbling in to single malt scotches. Now there's a fine way to unwind that's perfectly legal.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Beaverton (Ugh!), Oregon, USA
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Ironbar wrote:
    You know tip, when all this blows over, perhaps you start dabbling in to single malt scotches. Now there's a fine way to unwind that's perfectly legal.
    Not a half-bad idea!

    Oh wait, that would constitute "substance abuse" which, as we recall, is synonymous with "child abuse" which would land me right back where I am now, except then I'd be classified as a "repeat offender" with a "history of substance abuse". :X








Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •