Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: US Supreme Court will not hear......

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348

    US Supreme Court will not hear......

    arguments from the local sheriff regarding medical marijuana and chl....

    http://www.kbnd.com/page.php?page_id...ticle_id=11239

    i know have 4 medical marijuana patients in my life..... all of the fine people and upstanding citizens, deserving of the ability to defend themselves...... also have a few dope smoking losers in my life who shouldnt be near a gun ever....

    looks like the right thing is also the legal thing still
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Definitely the right ruling within the current immoral and unconstitutional permit regime.

    Have you heard anything about the BATFE harassing sheriffs who issued permits to medical MJ patients? I seem to remember reading something about it awhile ago but haven't seen anything recently. Beyond on a government list as a "non-approved chemical user" is something I have counseled others about as they considered getting cards...

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    And why would a sheriff give a rip what a federal bureaucrat thinks?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    And why would a sheriff give a rip what a federal bureaucrat thinks?
    Obviously because most sheriffs in this country don't understand their true constitutional role...

  5. #5
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    And why would a sheriff give a rip what a federal bureaucrat thinks?
    A sheriff worries because of federal funding and grants. It all boils down to money.

    I can't wait until the first hold up of a Hostess Twinkie truck my a pot head with the munchies......the goverment will scream see I told you it would be pandomonium.

    Seriously though anyone using a firearm while under the influence of any drug be it drink or smoked needs to be put down on the spot.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    Seriously though anyone using a firearm while under the influence of any drug be it drink or smoked needs to be put down on the spot.
    So if some eighteen year-old kids get caught drinking some beers while target-shooting they should be summarily executed for their stupidity?

    Sorry, I don't know if I can get on board that one...

  7. #7
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    So if some eighteen year-old kids get caught drinking some beers while target-shooting they should be summarily executed for their stupidity?

    Sorry, I don't know if I can get on board that one...
    Your taking it out of context. Using a firarm to protect yourself even if drinking would be ok, just like shooting at the range (18 and drinking while shooting is stupid not illegal).

    I refer to someone drinking or smoking and using a weapon in a crime or just shooting it in the air were someone is killed by those actions. These are the people that should not waist any further O2 molicules.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    Your taking it out of context........
    after rereading your original post there was NO context to take it out of, so you statement had to stand on its own.
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  9. #9
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Well, I believe this is still simply about the licence itself. Not ownership.

    By the laws we have, its is not illegal to have the CHL being a medical mary jane user. However being a user makes it illegal via federal and Oregon state law to own or possess a weapon.

    This doesn't change the possession of the weapon, simply points out that a laminated "card with writing on it" can be had and owned by a drug user.

    Wasn't the sheriff simply fighting that aspect, that it was against the law for him to issue the licence based on that?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    ......
    By the laws we have, its is not illegal to have the CHL being a medical mary jane user. However being a user makes it illegal via federal and Oregon state law to own or possess a weapon......
    actually the form 4473 asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

    unlawful being the key word here....

    in oregon the ommp is NOT unlawfully using the drug, nor is the use necessarily addiction, altho federally ANY use of the drug would be illegal.

    but since this is ONLY for a FFL licensed transaction it has NO bearing at all on the possession of a gun nor does it preclude a private party transaction. there are no laws, either federally or in oregon that prohibit a ommp patient from possession or ownership of a firearm.
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  11. #11
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddybearfrmhell View Post
    actually the form 4473 asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
    Also, what's a user? If a person smoked marijuana two decades ago, is he a user? Two years? Two months? Two days? Two hours? Maybe you're only considered a user if you have a lit joint in your mouth as you are filling out the form.

  12. #12
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddybearfrmhell View Post
    actually the form 4473 asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
    Regardless of what the form says, I could have sworn that Fed law said otherwise..

    Then I went digging in the ORS and noticed this..

    The amendments to 166.250 by section 11a, chapter 826, Oregon Laws 2009, become operative January 2, 2012. See section 14, chapter 826, Oregon Laws 2009, as amended by section 23, chapter 826, Oregon Laws 2009. The text that is operative on and after January 2, 2012, is set forth for the user’s convenience.
    edit : Trying to clarify for myself now what I'm reading over again.
    Last edited by VW_Factor; 01-12-2012 at 03:42 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    Regardless of what the form says, I could have sworn that Fed law said otherwise.....
    and did you find any law, federal or oregon prohibiting the possession or ownership of a firearm by a marijuana user?
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  14. #14
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddybearfrmhell View Post
    and did you find any law, federal or oregon prohibiting the possession or ownership of a firearm by a marijuana user?
    Every hit I'm pulling up shows an unlawful user.

    I guess this would end up under "opinion" of Fed law says all use is against the law, and Oregon law says we have legal medical users. Perhaps?
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady
    I am no victim, just a poor college student who looks to the day where the rich have the living piss taxed out of them.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    Your taking it out of context. Using a firarm to protect yourself even if drinking would be ok, just like shooting at the range (18 and drinking while shooting is stupid not illegal).
    I did not take it out of context. You said:

    Seriously though anyone using a firearm while under the influence of any drug be it drink or smoked needs to be put down on the spot.
    According to that statement, using a firearm + intoxication = summary execution. If that is not what you meant to convey, then perhaps you should have been more specific.

    By the way, 18 year-olds drinking is illegal in every state (outside of certain very limited exceptions in some).

    I refer to someone drinking or smoking and using a weapon in a crime or just shooting it in the air were someone is killed by those actions. These are the people that should not waist any further O2 molicules.
    Why does the intoxication matter? Is it really any different if the offender was stone-cold sober and kills someone with a gun?
    Last edited by ManInBlack; 01-12-2012 at 04:05 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    I did not take it out of context. You said:



    According to that statement, using a firearm + intoxication = summary execution. If that is not what you meant to convey, then perhaps you should have been more specific.

    Calm down, you do understand we are on the same side unless you think it is ok to get drunk or stoned and kill someone....


    By the way, 18 year-olds drinking is illegal in every state (outside of certain very limited exceptions in some).

    I have no idea why you even brought this up, I think you just want to argue about something and the drinking age varies from state to state most being 21 years old.




    Why does the intoxication matter? Is it really any different if the offender was stone-cold sober and kills someone with a gun?
    Itoxication be it by drug or drink and killing someone does't matter to me but it seems to matter with the courts. I don't see a difference between someone killing someone after drinking in a bar and drunk driving then I do someone waiting at the end of your street set to run someone over as soon as they start to cross.

    I see them both as PREMEDITATED as they both decided to kill someone. I know not every drunk driver kills people but the fact is they choose to drink and then drive to me is the same as choosing to run someone down. I guess your child will have to be killed by a drunk driver before you feel different or will you will you tell the guy with 13 DUI's that killed your wife it is ok I know you didn't mean to do it. BTW we have multiple people in Mountain Home with doubble diget DUI's, time bombs just waiting to go off.

    The legal system doesn't see someone that intentionally drives or shoots a weapon into the air and kills someone as premenditated murder they see it as mansluaghter. I believe different but that is just my belief since I have seen a lot of people killed by stupid people that get high or drunk and kill people for no reason then get a couple years.....BUT THEY DIDN"T MEAN IT ARGUMENT.

    The other person is still dead.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Someone firing a gun into the air or driving drunk simply does not meet the standard for premeditation. Stupid, reckless, and negligent, yes. Manslaughter if convicted, yes. Potential death penalty? Sorry, no.

    I understand that if you have lost someone due to those occurrences, you would be bitter and want harsher penalties. I get that. However, I for one am glad to live under a system that at least pretends to look at the circumstances instead of creating blanket rules.

  18. #18
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    Someone firing a gun into the air or driving drunk simply does not meet the standard for premeditation. Stupid, reckless, and negligent, yes. Manslaughter if convicted, yes. Potential death penalty? Sorry, no.

    I understand that if you have lost someone due to those occurrences, you would be bitter and want harsher penalties. I get that. However, I for one am glad to live under a system that at least pretends to look at the circumstances instead of creating blanket rules.
    So getting drunk or stoned and running a bus load of pregnant nuns of a cliff is ok due to the fact the person didn't know what they where doing? I for one like to hold people accountable for their actions.

    If you drive or shoot a weapon while high that is the persons choice, if someone dies due to their chioce of doing something a sane person knows is wrong to me means they need to stop using O2 and save it for people that can use it.

    Taking a drug and killing someone due to the actions while high should be considered premeditated. I for one would like to live in a sociaty where people are held resposiable for what they do both good and bad.

    We have a drunk that has 15 DUI's in town, drives without a liecense, and smiles about it. They keep letting him out, I guess until he kills a kid in a crosswalk then I guess it is just an accident...he didn't mean to kill the child.

    Right.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post
    So getting drunk or stoned and running a bus load of pregnant nuns of a cliff is ok due to the fact the person didn't know what they where doing? I for one like to hold people accountable for their actions.
    Where did I say it was OK? In fact, I specifically called for convictions in circumstances where a person is intoxicated and causes harm to persons and/or property. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

    If you drive or shoot a weapon while high that is the persons choice, if someone dies due to their chioce of doing something a sane person knows is wrong to me means they need to stop using O2 and save it for people that can use it.
    What about texting, doing makeup, reading the newspaper, etc. while driving that results in someone being killed? What about a 16 year old, young, dumb and full of courage, speeding around blind curve and killing someone? Those are all acts we all know are irresponsible and potentially dangerous, but they do not automatically result in a person's death - in fact, more often than not, no one is even hurt. Therefore, it does not rise to the standard of premeditated murder.

    Taking a drug and killing someone due to the actions while high should be considered premeditated.
    If the killing was premeditated, sure. If it was the result of an accident, that's life, and also can happen with people who are stone-cold sober. If it was the result of a clearly-preventable accident, with no premeditation or ill intent, that is negligent homicide or manslaughter. Society correctly recognizes that there is a significant difference in the evil quotient of someone who kills another with malice aforethought and one who kills another unintentionally.

    I for one would like to live in a sociaty where people are held resposiable for what they do both good and bad.
    Ummm...ok. I agree. Of course, you did advocate summary execution for anyone using a firearm while intoxicated; to me, that's not "holding people accountable." That's unacceptably harsh vigilantism to serve your own bitterness (understandable if you have suffered a loss), rather than justice.

    We have a drunk that has 15 DUI's in town, drives without a liecense, and smiles about it. They keep letting him out, I guess until he kills a kid in a crosswalk then I guess it is just an accident...he didn't mean to kill the child.
    If he kills any person while intoxicated, it is not as if he will go free. He will face a serious felony charge and do time. However, in a society says it reserves the death penalty for only the worst of the worst, yet often has a hard time sentencing intentional, sexually-motivated child killers to that punishment, it would be unreasonable to demand the death penalty for someone who has killed another unintentionally.

    Also, how is it that you know that the drunk you mentioned drives without a license, but the police don't? Do you have psychic powers? If so, and if you believe so strongly in holding people responsible, I recommend you call the law on him.

    Right.
    Right.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    348
    sooooooo looks like the US Supreme court isnt going to hear arguments about our local sheriff and chl for ommp patients huh?
    *Disclaimer~ I am not an attorney, i do not give legal advice. Any opinion stated here is in no way meant to insinuate, imply, compel or encourage that you should do anything that is illegal either knowingly or otherwise. My answers however valid may not be complete or applicable to your individual situation. I strongly recommend that you do your own research, make your own decisions and hire an attorney for legal advice ~

  21. #21
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    Where did I say it was OK? In fact, I specifically called for convictions in circumstances where a person is intoxicated and causes harm to persons and/or property. Please stop putting words in my mouth.



    What about texting, doing makeup, reading the newspaper, etc. while driving that results in someone being killed? What about a 16 year old, young, dumb and full of courage, speeding around blind curve and killing someone? Those are all acts we all know are irresponsible and potentially dangerous, but they do not automatically result in a person's death - in fact, more often than not, no one is even hurt. Therefore, it does not rise to the standard of premeditated murder.



    If the killing was premeditated, sure. If it was the result of an accident, that's life, and also can happen with people who are stone-cold sober. If it was the result of a clearly-preventable accident, with no premeditation or ill intent, that is negligent homicide or manslaughter. Society correctly recognizes that there is a significant difference in the evil quotient of someone who kills another with malice aforethought and one who kills another unintentionally.



    Ummm...ok. I agree. Of course, you did advocate summary execution for anyone using a firearm while intoxicated; to me, that's not "holding people accountable." That's unacceptably harsh vigilantism to serve your own bitterness (understandable if you have suffered a loss), rather than justice.



    If he kills any person while intoxicated, it is not as if he will go free. He will face a serious felony charge and do time. However, in a society says it reserves the death penalty for only the worst of the worst, yet often has a hard time sentencing intentional, sexually-motivated child killers to that punishment, it would be unreasonable to demand the death penalty for someone who has killed another unintentionally.

    Also, how is it that you know that the drunk you mentioned drives without a license, but the police don't? Do you have psychic powers? If so, and if you believe so strongly in holding people responsible, I recommend you call the law on him.



    Right.
    Driving Drunk is not an ACCIDENT.

    I also think they need to increase the use of the death penalty and make it so people are not waiting 20 years.

    I don't have psycic powers the drunk brags about driving and when I see him driving I do report it but nothing ever gets done.

    Sociaty doesn't hold people accountable anymore, they blame it on he was sick or it was an accident. Again shooting a gun in the general direction of a crowd is not an accident even if you didn't actually aim at someone. Just like driving while drunk or stoned isn't an accident it is a choice "a premenditated" choice to play russin roulette with innocent lives they may pass.

    I don't drink and drive and don't carry my pistol when I drink...My choice I have seen to many people wounded or killed from people that choose to either shoot or drive while stoned/high.

    So my option is if someone kills someone while drunk or stoned due to their actions be it in a car or by a gun it is neither an accident or unitentional.

    I also agree, cell phones, make-up, watching TV, or any of the other things people do while driving should be held to an equal standard. If someone is texting and kills someone it is not an accident, an innocent person was killed to the premeditated negletful act of another.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWalker View Post

    I also agree, cell phones, make-up, watching TV, or any of the other things people do while driving should be held to an equal standard. If someone is texting and kills someone it is not an accident, an innocent person was killed to the premeditated negletful act of another.
    In law, premeditation is completely different than neglect. I understand your passion about this subject, but this is where we part ways.

  23. #23
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by ManInBlack View Post
    In law, premeditation is completely different than neglect. I understand your passion about this subject, but this is where we part ways.
    I understand also, but I disagree with what is premeditated. To me premeditaion is a chioce to do something before you do it...

    I choose to use my cell phone and drive knowing it distracts me and I might kill someone by running them over.

    I choose to drink or do these drugs and drive knowing it slows my reaction time, impairs me and I might kill someone.

    I choose to unload this clip into a target knowing there is a kindigarden class right behind my target. After all it is not my fault if they get in the way of my bullets.

    I choose to carry my weapon and drink in a bar knowing that my getting drunk could affect my reasoning and I might kill someone that I might not otherwise harm.

    I guess some choices that are thought about prior to doing them are not Premenditated they must just be an accident or neglect. Stupidity is a wonderful excuss until your child is killed by an ACCIDENT that was preventable.

    I didn't know the grenade would explode if I pulled the pin.....don't worry it was an accident.

  24. #24
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddybearfrmhell View Post
    sooooooo looks like the US Supreme court isnt going to hear arguments about our local sheriff and chl for ommp patients huh?
    That does appear to be the case good sir. Jolly good call by the nice fellows over at the Supreme Court. Jolly good.

  25. #25
    Regular Member DocWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by gutshot View Post
    The situations you describe are called "wanton endangerment" in Ky. law. Premeditation would be:

    Intentionally running over someone with your car. It is not important if you were on the cell phone or had been doing drugs or alcohol.

    Going to the Kindergarten and intentional shooting children.

    Intentionally shooting someone whether sober or drunk.

    There is a big difference.
    The difference is in wanton endangerment, you knew or should have known there was a danger that death or serious injury could result and didn't care. In premeditation you made certain the death or serious injury occurred intentionally.
    Typing in a bigger font is impressive, I bow to your superior computer skills.

    I know the difference about the letter of the law, I also know that if a drunk driver kills my child and he dosen't die in the crash he will see what premeditaion is when he is released. This is just me but to do something that you know could kill someone to me SHOULD be considered as premeditated since the choices made prior to the killing were considered before hand. We hear stories everyday of Neglegent people killing people and claiming it was an accident...sorry but in my option the drunk drive didn't kill someone they MURDERED them.

    But you know what they say about options everyone has them.......

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
  •