Graybeard Outdoors banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is already the case in NY state (Public Law 209 or 291?) if you have been convicted of misdemeanor MJ possession (or felony of course) or held and charged for any mental improprities, and the Fed NICS will support this if they find it during checks.

fyi....TM7

Smoke medical pot, lose your Second Amendment gun rights?

A bud of medical marijuana is shown at Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse Monday, Oct. 20, 2009, in Portland, Ore. Pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers should not be targeted for federal prosecution in states that allow medical marijuana, prosecutors were told Monday in a new policy memo issued by the Justice Department. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)


Story Published: Nov 4, 2009 at 5:10 PM PST
By BRAD CAIN Associated Press
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The right of Oregonians to use marijuana for medical reasons and also to obtain concealed handgun permits is being challenged by local sheriffs who say federal law prevents those people from packing heat.


Advocates for the state's medical marijuana law countered Wednesday in the Oregon Court of Appeals that the sheriffs simply don't like the program and are looking for ways to undermine it.

Both sides now are looking to the courts to say definitively whether there's anything to prevent Oregon from issuing the concealed handgun permits to users of medicinal pot.

The head of the national marijuana advocacy group NORML said he's not aware of the issue being raised in the 13 other states that allow medicinal use of pot.

"It's kind of unique to Oregon that a couple of sheriffs there seem to want to defer to federal law when they really ought to be looking at enforcing state laws," Allen St. Pierre, NORML's executive director, said in an interview from Washington, D.C.

He also noted that the Obama administration in recent weeks has signaled that federal prosecutors will not go after people in those states who use medical marijuana legally.

"The administration is going to defer to local and state governments on these issues," he said.

Sheriffs from Washington and Jackson counties say, though, that they want clarification from the court on whether federal gun laws prohibiting illegal drug users from possessing handguns applies to people who have permits to use marijuana for medical reasons. Marijuana is still classified as a controlled substance under federal law, they said.

Lower courts had twice ordered the two sheriffs to give weapons permits to people who had lost them because they are medical marijuana users, and both appealed those rulings.

Attorney Elmer Dickens, representing Washington County Sheriff Rob Gordon, said the sheriff thinks he's in an untenable position.

"We don't think it's appropriate for the sheriff to be issuing a license to carry something that the federal government has said they are not even entitled to possess," Dickens said in court argumments.

A Portland lawyer for the advocates argued in court Wednesday that federal law doesn't trump Oregon's concealed handgun permit law.

Medical marijuana users who meet all other criteria cannot be deprived of the right to a concealed handgun permit, said Leland Berger, who helped write Oregon's medical marijuana law.

"What this is about is that the sheriffs don't like the medical marijuana law. Twelve years after it was approved by voters, the sheriffs want to discriminate against patients," he said.

Steven Schwerdt said he had a concealed handgun permit for six years before the Washington county sheriff's office revoked it when he became a medical marijuana user.

"I'm no criminal; I'm just a guy who can't physically run away from dangerous situations," said Schwerdt, who uses medical marijuana to relieve the symptoms of severe arthritis and gout.

Schwerdt got his gun permit back in May 2008 when a lower court judge overruled the sheriff's office on grounds that there was no legitimate reason to deny him one.


(Copyright 2009 The Associated Press)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,075 Posts
This is a disturbing trend. The relaxation of the criteria to deny arms purchases started with the domestic abuse criterion some years ago. I think the criterion should be whether you are a felon, and even then there should be recourse if you've lived a clean life for over, say, 10 years.

Marijuana? Just legalize it, despite the fact that the government employs thousands of people in the folly called "the war on drugs".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,740 Posts
You don't even need a conviction; just a restraining order against you, to lose RKBA. The requirements to issue a restraining order are intentionally lax to give the issuing judge latitude. But I've known of cases where it was requested with the malicious intent to deprive the other person of their RKBA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Btw, once denied a purchase by NICS, and certainly after loosing appeal, you are obligated legally to dispose of any previous firearms you may own as per state and federal regulations asap....leastwise, that is my understanding. Now there is a ghost that may come back to haunt.



..TM7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,494 Posts
You deny anyone the RTKBA you open the door to deny ANY right!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,405 Posts
The Right To Bear Arms--RTBA--on a FFL for ask about felonies and addiction/addictions.
I had to suffer thru the waiting before I got my CCW but not since.
I am of the opinion that a convicted felon should not have access to firearms---but we know that they do.
I think--thinking back--that probably half of my purchases, in my life, were face to face, with no form.
Those purchases are legal. If they are legal and the registrying of firearms is not required--then the guns are/were legal.
Blessings
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
williamlayton said:
The Right To Bear Arms--RTBA--on a FFL for ask about felonies and addiction/addictions.
I had to suffer thru the waiting before I got my CCW but not since.
I am of the opinion that a convicted felon should not have access to firearms---but we know that they do.
I think--thinking back--that probably half of my purchases, in my life, were face to face, with no form.
Those purchases are legal. If they are legal and the registrying of firearms is not required--then the guns are/were legal.
Blessings
.
Not exactly. NICS has taken it upon themselves to enforce state statutes as well. Given their computor record keeping resources this has been facilitated. Simple MJ possesion in NY is a misdemeanor...NY public law 291 (I believe buried in #291) precludes you from firearm purchase or ownership in NY state, even though the charge is scarcely more than a traffic ticket. NICS can and will deny you on this basis, which seems outside their provence; but will nonetheless if they catch it, and I have heard of it happening numerous times. You will need to have the judgement vacated if possible...LOL given you live long enough. Will they restore your right if you move out of state and have a new residence...!? Don't know. Don't give SS#'s for nics checks.


..TM7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
m-g said:
You deny anyone the RTKBA you open the door to deny ANY right!
Agreed
Even a convicted felon should have the ability to regain his rights in full.
To restrict them other wise makes them second class citizens.

As to the main topic of this thread. State and local governments are run by folks, who either do not understand the Constitution, or refuse to wield the power that is acknowledged by the Constitution to be theirs to wield.
Instead they run to the federal government and ask for permission or clarification, for things that plainly do not fall within the enumerated powers of privilege granted to the federal government by the Constitution. If we as a people would put as much effort into our local and state governments as we do the federal government this and most other problems would be non issues.

Pat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,494 Posts
williamlayton said:
.
I am of the opinion that a convicted felon should not have access to firearms---but we know that they do.
So your ok with the taking away of rights?
If someone is a convicted felon then that is proof they have no respect for the law.
How far are you willing to go to keep guns out the hands of people that have no respect for the law?
Doing illegal drugs? A DUI? or how about willfully driving 30 mph in a 25 mph speed zone?
These crimes are all done by those that show no respect for the law.

Gun control is in degrees.
1.Some think no one except LEO and military should have access to guns.(Even the military is banned guns on base,,notice Fort HOOD!)
2.Some think if you break the law you should lose your right to own a gun.
3.Some think you should have a permit (permission) to own a gun.
4.Some think some guns should be banned and others are ok.
5.American Patriots know that everyone that is free to walk the streets in this great country should never be banned the right to keep and bear arms.

It all depends on what group you want to stand with.

As for me I will stand with the American Patriot
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
heck imo do what i thinks best.. ive resigned myself to dieing an outlaw.. im one now..
so i don t care what THEY let us do anymore.. don t make a hoot to me..i won t hurt the innocent if i can help it
i ll either die in old age in misery as an outlaw an rebel.. or mabe die in glory with the adrenelin pumping like crazy as i do my last do..what ever that is..which sounds more attractive to you.slim
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top