Oregon sheriff taking pot user gun permit case to DC

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/27/3040929/ore-sheriff-taking-pot-user-gun.html#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.

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

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.

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.

amlevin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Do the Feds regulate concealed handgun licenses? If the answer is no, then it should be left up to the state to decide.

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.

Habitual user of illegal narcotics = illegal to possess firearm.

Marijuana = illegal narcotic under federal law.

habitual user of marijuana = illegal to possess firearm.

TechnoWeenie said:

Habitual user of illegal narcotics = illegal to possess firearm.

Marijuana = illegal narcotic under federal law.

habitual user of marijuana = illegal to possess firearm.

Click to expand...

Very ture, but this was a CPL, not the gun...can you have a driver license and not own a car?

TechnoWeenie said:

Habitual user of illegal narcotics = illegal to possess firearm.

Marijuana = illegal narcotic under federal law.

habitual user of marijuana = illegal to possess firearm.

Click to expand...

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.

Very ture, but this was a CPL, not the gun...can you have a driver license and not own a car?

Click to expand...

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"?

Click to expand...

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

MSG Laigaie said:

can you have a CPL and not use it?


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

Click to expand...

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.

MSG Laigaie said:

can you have a CPL and not use it?


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

Click to expand...

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!

Trigger Dr said:

Very ture, but this was a CPL, not the gun...can you have a driver license and not own a car?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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..

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.

TechnoWeenie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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....

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. ***

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. ***

TechnoWeenie said:

True.

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

Click to expand...

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.

TechnoWeenie said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.