Up in Smoke: Can Medical Marijuana Users Pack Heat? (Carry guns?)

[RamboLiberal]

-----

Cynthia Wills, 54, has a medical marijuana permit to treat arthritis and muscle spasms. She also has a permit to carry a concealed handgun.

Oregon police, AP reports, have tried to take away Willis’s gun, prompting Willis to fire back with a lawsuit, joined by three co-plaintiffs. The case is pending in the Oregon Supreme Court.

“Under the medical marijuana law, I am supposed to be treated as any other citizen in this state,” said Willis, a retired school bus driver whose gun of choice is a Walther P-22. “If people don’t stand up for their little rights, all their big rights will be gone.”

State sheriffs, according to AP, say that federal gun laws prohibit firearm sales to drug addicts, a term that includes medical marijuana users, they contend.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/04/04/up-in-smoke-can-marijuana-users-pack-heat/

Cynthia Willis calls up and down the firing range to be sure everyone knows she is shooting, squares up in a two-handed stance with her Walther P-22 automatic pistol and fires off a clip in rapid succession.

Willis is not only packing a concealed handgun permit in her wallet, she also has a medical marijuana card. That combination has led the local sheriff to try to take her gun permit away.

She is part of what is considered the first major court case in the country to consider whether guns and marijuana can legally mix. The sheriffs of Washington and Jackson counties say no. But Willis and three co-plaintiffs have won in state court twice, with the state's rights to regulate concealed weapons trumping federal gun control law in each decision.

With briefs filed and arguments made, they are now waiting for the Oregon Supreme Court to rule.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=135105875

I'm with Cynthia - why the hell shouldn't she be able to carry? She's doing nothing illegal!!!!! And this doesn't make her an addict!

[Taverner]

1. IWC

I'm With Cynthia :thumbsup:

[HillbillyBob]

2. Most folk would be less likely to shoot someone while stoned

well unless someone is trying to steal the Doritos..

[slackmaster]

3. Under a strict reading of federal law, there is no such thing as a lawful medical MJ user, except...

...someone who happens to be a subject in a federally-funded drug study.

As a federal firearms licensee, my interpretation of the law is that getting a medical MJ card would put me at risk of having my FFL pulled.

[rfranklin]

4. They let drinkers have guns...why not smokers?

In fact, the smokers are probably much less of a risk. When is the last time you heard of an "angry pothead?"

[Katya Mullethov]

5. First I heard of 'em was

1978 or 1979 maybe , 7th or 8th grade . We were shown an entire set of reefer madness styled educational films by a science teacher who was a chronic alcoholic and so he ran the projector every day . It was the same half dozen films over and over and over and over , and there were plenty of maniacal mother stabbin' father rapin' hopheads in there amongst the amorous negro jazz musicians .
Oh yeah ! And Charlie Hill snorting black mollies off his desk ! lol . Whatsa matter Charlie ...You want some water ? AHahhahaaaaaa .... good times . Ironic times .

To answer your question , and based solely on the carefully prepared educational materials they used to deftly form a skull of mush into what you have before you .....I would say...oh 1940 would be last documented case of an epic raging reefer man .

[RSillsbee]

11. angry pothead

run out of M&Ms half way through Pink Floyd's "the Wall" and i'll show you an angry pot head

[Euromutt]

12. I've been on the wrong end of an aggressive cannabis user

Though most likely he'd been smoking hashish, not marijuana, and judging by his behavior, he had a shitty personality to begin with.

[slackmaster]

16. The question concerns carrying guns, not owning them

HTH

[Euromutt]

17. Actually, it concerns both

The case of the sheriffs of Washington and Jackson counties relies on 18 USC §922 which prohibits "any person who is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana" from possessing a firearm.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. If you are wondering if that is a logical conclusion....

[provis99]

7. there's also a larger issue here.

Why would drug users be banned at all from having a gun? What does one have to do with the other? Frankly, because of the rotten neighborhoods that junkies are forced to live in, and the crooks they associate with, it is more important for a drug addict to carry a gun than a person who is not vulnerable to such circumstances.

[PavePusher]

8. Perhaps....

just perhaps, it is past time to take certain Federal laws, fold them until they are all sharp cornors, and insert them at a high rate of speed up the excretory canal of the nearest Federal busy-body....

Just sayin...

[burrfoot]

9. She shouldn't lose her CCW simply for

having the MJ card....but I do think she should lose it if she's ever carrying while under the influence, just the same as she would (I'd hope) if she were carrying and drunk.

YMMV


:toast:

[mvccd1000]

10. Agreed. nt

[Euromutt]

14. Fair enough.

I'm all for legalizing marijuana (actually, I'm in favor of legalization across the board) and treating drugs like we do alcohol, but I don't think it should be legal to operate a motor vehicle, perform surgery or control air traffic while stoned, any more than it should be legal to perform those activities while drunk.

[Euromutt]

13. Are violations of federal law the sheriff's business?

Ms Willis has an Oregon state medical marijuana card, so as far as state law is concerned, she's a lawful user of marijuana, not an unlawful one. She may be an "unlawful user" under federal law, but is that the business of a local law enforcement official concerning a state-issued permit? I don't really see it.

It also raises the question whether there can be such a thing as an "unlawful user" of marijuana, as outlined in 18 U.S. Code §922. To the best of my understanding, it's not the consumption of cannabis that's illegal, but the possession. Going over 21 U.S. Code Chapter 13-I Part D (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode21/usc_sup_01_21_10_13_20_I_30_D.html), I can't find anything stating that taking a controlled substance is an offense. Manufacture/production, importation, distribution and possession, yes, but consumption, no. If I'm correct, that means the notion of an "unlawful user of marijuana" is a legal fiction. And it had better be a legal fiction, because otherwise the ATF Form 4473 is in violation of the Fifth Amendment provision against self-incrimination.

[one-eyed fat man]

15. That brings up an interesting point.

If the question about being an unlawful user of marijuana question runs afoul of Fifth amendment protections, how about the one that asks if you are an alien illegally in the country?

In theory, if one to provided any answer which was disqualifying the sale would be stopped. If a prospective buyer were to lie about any of them, which ones would the Fifth Amendment cover?

It's not as if there are three choices on the form, yes, no, or I decline to answer.

[WatsonT]

18. Anyone who can be considered legally intoxicated should not be armed

at that time.
That's the law regardless of the intoxicant.

[Glassunion]

19. As long as she is not intoxicated when carrying, I see it as the same rules as alchohol.

If your stoned you should not carry, and if your carrying, you should not be stoned.
Why do they call it being stoned?
In the bible being stoned sucks ass.
People throwing rocks at you and shit.
What kind of person could just throw rocks at someone?
I like throwing rocks, but not at people. That's just rude.
This dude in line at Micky Dee's was real rude to the cashier cause they gave him the wrong order.
I get it that it sucks, but dude, chill... They will fix your order.
This one time at the drive through they gave me and Pete the wrong order, but we did not notice.
We were just skimming the fries off the top till we got back to his place.
When we got home we opened the bag and there was like way too much food.
They hooked us up with like enough food for a family of ten. Jackpot!
My magic number of happy meals I can put down is 6.
You know they don't put toys in the bag any more?
That sucks.
I remember as a kid you could get all kinds of cool shit in a happy meal.
Of course it would break in like ten minutes, but it was a cool ten minutes.
I guess they are getting cheap.
With the price of gas to run the trucks full of the toys, I guess it makes sense.
Why is gas so expensive?
Are dead dinosaurs and jungles from like a billion years ago suddenly worth more?
I mean think about it...
Like 5 billion years ago, the universe started with a huge bang and all the energy in all the universe was created at that moment.
The shit was just floating around in clouds until gravity pulled it together.
Then that mushed down into our sun and it started generating nuclear energy billions of years ago.
Then on earth that energy came down as sunshine which made the plants grow.
Then they died and were buried under mountains and stuff for a couple billion years.
Until some dude found it cause he was digging a hole.
Then someone decided to run a Chevy on it and Boom! We have cars and stuff.
And they can bring us our toys in the Happy Meals.
It's billions of years old.
The price should have been fixed back then, but some dude making a billion a year want's to make more so he jacks up the price of energy that has been floating around in the universe for like ever.
So now the kids growing up don't get toys in their Happy Meals... What a greedy ass hole.



Yeah... What were we talking about?

[burrfoot]

21. hahaahhahahahaha

very well done :)

[krispos42]

20. As long as she was not impaired while carrying, I don't see a problem

Well, I can see the legal issue. And of course, God forbid anybody in authority actually question the sanity of just relaxing the law on pot instead.