Posted on 03/04/2011 10:00:47 AM PST by Sasparilla
That's the question in Oregon this week. The Supreme Court of Oregon is deciding whether having a medical marijuana card that allows medicinal use of marijuana bars that card holder from obtaining a concealed handgun permit.
Although some states issue cards making it legal to possess and use medical marijuana in those states, Federal law has stiff penalties for possession. However, the Feds generally seem to be leaving individual medical marijuana users alone and they have been targeting dispensaries in states such as Michigan as traffickers.
A recent administrative opinion by Federal agents who administer the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has said that having a medical marijuana card is prima facie evidence that the holder is a marijuana user; therefore, the holder is barred from passing the NICS check to buy a gun under Federal law.
A Medford woman with a medical marijuana card applied for a concealed handgun permit, and was turned down by the local sheriff because of her medical marijuana card. The seven Justices are focusing on...
(Excerpt) Read more at secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com ...
It shouldn’t, as all gun restrictions for law-abiding citizens, including the requirement of a permit to exercise a God-given right, are by definition unconstitutional.
what about for felons, or mentally defectives as adjudged by a court?
It is. I am torn but keep coming back to what Ben Franklin
said about security and liberty.
Check the BATFE Form 4473: "is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant"
'Legal' in Oregon, illegal at the Federal level.
Yeah, get a 'medical marijuana card' and identify yourself as a legalized illicit user, and you could face problems going to get your CCW.
Just because Obama's Justice Dept is not pursuing this right now should be no comfort to anyone using medicinal marijuana.
But hey, it's their life.
I’m okay with it, as long as they realize that using that gun while high could put them in a whole heap of trouble.
Own a gun, use pot, instant federal felon.
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person - ...
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); ...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
I would oppose issuing a concealed carry permit to any person who uses powerful mood altering drugs even when prescribed. Just as I would oppose issuing a driver’s license or a pilot’s license to such. There must be some degree of responsibility attached to the exercise of any right. These drugs are quite powerful and tend to produce sometimes drastic misperceptions of the environment (I have seen it many times). The last thing we need is irresponsible use of firearms by otherwise law-abiding citizens because they are too intoxicated to make a fully rational decision.
So, presume that some nosey journalist goes and wins a court battle to gather all the names of a particular state's 'medical marijuana' card holders just like journalists have successfully done to get lists of CCW applicants and permitees, and then what?
Process both lists side-by-side and any matches you find just identified a drug-user felon with a firearm permit who by ATF code is a prohibited person.
Anyone who seeks a 'medical marijuanaa' card who isn't actually on death's door without their marijuana has a flippin' hole in their head. I'm not against 'medical marijuana', but anyone seeking to acquire a medical marijuana prescription for recreational purposes and foolishly ID's themselves as a druggie to their government deserves whatever happens to their reckless ass.
Where in the 2A is the exception made for the things you talk about?
People ALWAYS have a right to self-defense....and if they use it inappropriately they should ALWAYS have to suffer the consequences.
Period.
What's a CCW holder supposed to do if he gets injured and his doctor prescribes pain killers while he recovers? Turn in his license, and then have to go get a new one when he heals up?
Should a person be denied a CCW, or the right to own firearms at all if they’ve ever been diagnosed as being an alcoholic?
I am troubled by the number of people that seem to think the Commerce Clause empowered the federal government to deny the right to keep and bear arms.
I do include alcohol. A very large percentage of violent crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol and a known alcoholic should not be carrying a gun.
And yes, there are exceptions to every right. These are dictated by common sense, common decency and human conscience. Rights are not license to do as one pleases and damn the consequences. Rights exercised irresponsibly will be lost - witness what has been happening in the United States of America. An amoral or immoral, irresponsible and ignorant people will not keep their rights and it does no service to anyone to insist that we must allow unlimited exercise of every right in any circumstance. That way lies slavery.
>Wonder if you are including alcohol in powerful mood altering drugs. If not, why not?
Decongestants as well: ever see someone suffering allergies prior and after they can breathe?
You do realize how subjective the determination of "alcoholism" is, how easily a government employed doctor could make that diagnosis, and how difficult it could be made to get it changed?
And you're proposing giving the bureaucracies of the federal government the authority to determine who they can make exceptions for, on the premise that it will be done according to those criteria?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.