Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Oregon sheriff taking pot user gun permit case to DC

  1. #1
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Oregon sheriff taking pot user gun permit case to DC

    http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/27...#storylink=rss

    Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters has argued that issuing the license would violate federal law, specifically the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    That argument was rejected by a trial court, the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court in rulings that say state law on concealed handgun permits does not pre-empt federal law, the Mail Tribune reported Wednesday.
    Cynthia Willis of Gold Hill acknowledged using medical marijuana when she filed her permit application with Winters in 2008, setting off the legal battle. She was issued a concealed handgun license after the sheriff lost in the Oregon Court of Appeals.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    155
    If ruled in favor of the sheriff, would people who are prescribed medicine covered by the Controlled Substances Act be affected?

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

    Sent from my HTC EVO
    Last edited by Dogbait; 07-28-2011 at 12:52 PM.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    It's definitely an interesting case. Medical marijuana is pretty well established as a legitimate medical treatment for a variety of ailments. If legally prescribed by her doctor I don't see it as a reason for the denial of her permit. But we will see how the court rules...if they grant cert. Hopefully they won't and the appeals court ruling will stand.
    Last edited by thebigsd; 07-28-2011 at 12:56 PM.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Like it or not, "Pot" is still an illegal substance under Federal Law.

    The "Feds" recently intimidated our State Governor into vetoing a law designed to regulate Medicinal Marijuana dispensaries threatening State Officials with prosecution.

    A SCOTUS ruling, one way or the other, probably won't do anything to settle the issue over "Pot". In the end it will be interesting.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran gogodawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by amlevin View Post
    Like it or not, "Pot" is still an illegal substance under Federal Law.

    The "Feds" recently intimidated our State Governor into vetoing a law designed to regulate Medicinal Marijuana dispensaries threatening State Officials with prosecution.

    A SCOTUS ruling, one way or the other, probably won't do anything to settle the issue over "Pot". In the end it will be interesting.
    Do the Feds regulate concealed handgun licenses? If the answer is no, then it should be left up to the state to decide.
    Live Free or Die!

  6. #6
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    This was gone over before. Having the Medical Card doesn't mean that you have/are on marijuana.

    Therefor, simply having that, and having a CHL is not breaking any laws whatsoever.

    Actually having marijuana on you, etc while carrying was a totally different matter.

    I have a feeling this sheriff is going to lose.

  7. #7
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Habitual user of illegal narcotics = illegal to possess firearm.

    Marijuana = illegal narcotic under federal law.

    habitual user of marijuana = illegal to possess firearm.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    Habitual user of illegal narcotics = illegal to possess firearm.

    Marijuana = illegal narcotic under federal law.

    habitual user of marijuana = illegal to possess firearm.
    Very ture, but this was a CPL, not the gun...can you have a driver license and not own a car?

  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    Habitual user of illegal narcotics = illegal to possess firearm.

    Marijuana = illegal narcotic under federal law.

    habitual user of marijuana = illegal to possess firearm.
    Question: How many times in what time frame does the use of marijuana by an individual make one a "habitual user"? Seems just a little vague to me....

    May be a better law if they specified that you couldn't legally carry if you had a specific level of Metabolite in ones system.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Very ture, but this was a CPL, not the gun...can you have a driver license and not own a car?
    can you have a CPL and not use it?

    How many times in what time frame does the use of marijuana by an individual make one a "habitual user"?
    it does not matter if used in a manner ordered by a medical authority

  11. #11
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    can you have a CPL and not use it?


    it does not matter if used in a manner ordered by a medical authority
    Thats about what the court case we've already had. The judge here only clarified about having the CHL (which in of itself, is certainly NOT a firearm). Not about having a firearm. This sheriff sounds like he wants to fight the CHL.

  12. #12
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    can you have a CPL and not use it?


    it does not matter if used in a manner ordered by a medical authority
    DING DING DING

    That being said, please don't assume that I support the use of any MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCES, but JUST BECAUSE I DON'T DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO LIVE BY MY RULES. I do like being a LIBERTARIAN!

  13. #13
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Trigger Dr View Post
    Very ture, but this was a CPL, not the gun...can you have a driver license and not own a car?

    True.

    Which is why WA says they may issue a CPL, but it's not a defense to a federal charge, as there are situations, like this, where state will issue a CPL, but if carried, could be a violation of federal law.



    it does not matter if used in a manner ordered by a medical authority
    So if your doctor prescribes crack, then it's OK?

    Marijuana is ILLEGAL to possess under federal law. PERIOD. Doesn't matter WHAT the states say at this point. FEDERAL LAW says that you can't smoke weed and have a gun.

    Doesn't matter WHAT a doctor says.

    A prescription for it actually BOLSTERS the federal case, as your doctor is for all intent and purposes TELLING YOU to take it at certain intervals..

  14. #14
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    The crux of the matter is... I'm sure it says on the application, in some way congruent with federal law 'Are you a habitual user of a controlled substance'.. She answered YES, thereby she is INELIGIBLE to have a firearm. So, if you're NOT ELIGIBLE to have a firearm under federal law, you're INELIGIBLE for a state CCW/CPL/Whatever.

  15. #15
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    The crux of the matter is... I'm sure it says on the application, in some way congruent with federal law 'Are you a habitual user of a controlled substance'.. She answered YES, thereby she is INELIGIBLE to have a firearm. So, if you're NOT ELIGIBLE to have a firearm under federal law, you're INELIGIBLE for a state CCW/CPL/Whatever.
    http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A139875.htm

    I understand what I post is not always clear.. Perhaps that will clear some things up.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    well, ( and this is just me here talking, so take it for what it is worth)

    The Supreme Court ruled (Gonzales v. Oregon) that the Federal Gvt can't prohibit doctors from prescribing drugs IAW state law. If the medication is prescribed under state law, (although Fed Law lists it as a Schedule I drug {?}) it gets confusing....

    In this case, it is only State law that is in question (CHL v med. marijuana)... I can't see a compelling Federal interest and reason to go to Federal District and then SC....

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    There are Two Pieces of Legislation Pending before Congress to Amend The United States Federal Controlled Substances Act.

    The First Federal Legislative Bill is Viewable here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1983:

    ..., and The Second Federal Legilative Bill is Viewable here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2306:

    aadvark

    *** It is within My Opinion that The Second Legislative Bill is more Comprehensive, and more Favorable to Enact, than The First Federal Legislative Bill. ***

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    There are Two Pieces of Legislation Pending before Congress to Amend The United States Federal Controlled Substances Act.

    The First Federal Legislative Bill is Viewable here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1983:

    ..., and The Second Federal Legilative Bill is Viewable here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2306:

    aadvark

    *** It is My Opinion that The Second Legislative Bill is more Beneficial than The First Federal Legislative Bill. ***
    Last edited by aadvark; 07-29-2011 at 11:44 AM.

  19. #19
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    True.

    FEDERAL LAW says that you can't smoke weed and have a gun.


    Few people are ever prevented from buying firearms for being a drug abuser or drug addict.

    Of the 820,888 people denied purchase of a firearm from Nov. 30, 1998, to Dec. 31, 2010, less than 8 percent were rejected because they unlawfully used drugs or were addicted to drugs, according to FBI statistics. FYI - your drug related records are only kept for one year in this database.

    That guy in Arizona (Loughner) was able to buy a gun because his records didn't show anything after a year. He was rejected by the army for his pot use.



  20. #20
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    Which is why WA says they may issue a CPL, but it's not a defense to a federal charge, as there are situations, like this, where state will issue a CPL, but if carried, could be a violation of federal law.
    Not sure where you are getting May Issue as Washington State is a Shall Issue State unless there is disqualifying issues at hand.

    RCW 9.41.070
    Concealed pistol license — Application — Fee — Renewal.

    (1) The chief of police of a municipality or the sheriff of a county shall within thirty days after the filing of an application of any person, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person within this state for five years from date of issue, for the purposes of protection or while engaged in business, sport, or while traveling. However, if the applicant does not have a valid permanent Washington driver's license or Washington state identification card or has not been a resident of the state for the previous consecutive ninety days, the issuing authority shall have up to sixty days after the filing of the application to issue a license. The issuing authority shall not refuse to accept completed applications for concealed pistol licenses during regular business hours.

    The applicant's constitutional right to bear arms shall not be denied, unless:

    (a) He or she is ineligible to possess a firearm under the provisions of RCW 9.41.040 or 9.41.045;

    (b) The applicant's concealed pistol license is in a revoked status;

    (c) He or she is under twenty-one years of age;

    (d) He or she is subject to a court order or injunction regarding firearms pursuant to RCW 9A.46.080, 10.14.080, 10.99.040, 10.99.045, 26.09.050, 26.09.060, 26.10.040, 26.10.115, 26.26.130, 26.50.060, 26.50.070, or 26.26.590;

    (e) He or she is free on bond or personal recognizance pending trial, appeal, or sentencing for a felony offense;

    (f) He or she has an outstanding warrant for his or her arrest from any court of competent jurisdiction for a felony or misdemeanor; or

    (g) He or she has been ordered to forfeit a firearm under RCW 9.41.098(1)(e) within one year before filing an application to carry a pistol concealed on his or her person.
    Last edited by BigDave; 07-30-2011 at 01:08 AM.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  21. #21
    Regular Member 1911er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Port Orchard Wa. /Granite Oklahoma
    Posts
    836
    can you have a CPL and not use it?


    YES YOU CAN its called Open Carry
    I truly Love my Country, But the government scares the he!! out of me.

    DEMAND IT
    Congress SHALL NOT receive A salary greater than any service member and will be given EQUIVELANT insurance as any service member

    I came into this world kicking and screaming covered in someone else's blood. And if necessary to protect the Constitution of The United States of AMERICA. I will go out the same way

    All hail the Domain of Neptunus Rex

  22. #22
    Regular Member amzbrady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,522
    there are way worse prescribed drugs to be on that could adjust your judgement worse than alcohol. I hurt my back recently and they gave me percocet. It made me so stupid happy and unable to think straight, I did just like I do if I take a drink of alcohol, I locked my firearm in my safe.
    If you voted for Obama to prove you are not a racist...
    what will you do now to prove you are not stupid?

    "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas

    "They who can who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve niether liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member Lord_Kalen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Montesano - outer areas, Washington, USA
    Posts
    43
    One thought Ive had what about pre 1898 and black powder repros ? there as far as I understand not subject to the gca of 68 but many states bar felons from owning them or some of these weapons , such as centerfire and rimfire weapons in texas for example , but nothing against muzzleloaders , teatfires , volcanics/needleguns or pinfire .

    Washington goes so far as to ban matchlocks and gonnes for felons to possess not sure about "drug users"

    Bit of a side line perhaps but she could have a legitimate need for a CHL to carry say a pre 1898 revolver both inline with state and federal law , as while not being prohibited by owning the weapon under federal law , she would likely need to possess a CHL for concealed carry , or preemption to carry loaded in portland and the like

  24. #24
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    Not sure where you are getting May Issue as Washington State is a Shall Issue State unless there is disqualifying issues at hand.
    Read the quote in the context it was given.

    Which is why WA says they may issue a CPL, but it's not a defense to a federal charge, as there are situations, like this, where state will issue a CPL, but if carried, could be a violation of federal law.

    Taken DIRECTLY from the CPL application..

    Although state and local laws do not differ, federal law and state law on the possession of firearms may differ. You may
    be prosecuted in federal court if you are prohibited by federal law from possession of a firearm. A state license is not a
    defense to a federal prosecution
    So, while they MAY issue a CPL to someone who smokes weed, they're INELIGIBLE TO POSSESS A FIREARM, because they're a habitual user of an illegal substance.


    KTHXBYE

  25. #25
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoWeenie View Post
    Read the quote in the context it was given.
    Taken DIRECTLY from the CPL application..
    So, while they MAY issue a CPL to someone who smokes weed, they're INELIGIBLE TO POSSESS A FIREARM, because they're a habitual user of an illegal substance.
    KTHXBYE
    No where in the CPL Application does it say WA State May Issue, State Law does state it Shall Issue along with disqualifying items.
    If one wants to say they may not issue a cpl for disqualifying items or may issue one to one that cannot legally by Federal Law posses a firearm, then that would be true.

    The CPL application only has the following You May Be's


    • you may be prohibited from firearms possession,
    • you may be prosecuted in federal court


    KTHXBYE
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

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
  •