Thread: Supreme Court denies appeal on CHL-for-medical-marijuana case.

Yup, the possession of a medical marijuana card is no longer grounds for denying a concealed handgun license.

U.S. High Court Declines Oregon Pistol, Pot Case · OPB News

I think it wasn't before, not until the appeal went through and was reversed.

Good, now the state can dock the legal fees from that jackass sheriff's pension.

Good. While I see the whole medical marijuana thing as being greatly abused in OR, I don't see why someone who can pass every other aspect of the background check performed for a CHL should be denied one. I have a prescription for Oxycodone for pain from my recent reconstructive surgery, a drug that is arguable far more powerful than marijuana. Should that then be grounds for me to lose my CHL? I think not.

I am all for the legal use of marijuana. Having some experience with chemotherapy, I have witnessed first hand the benefits of it.

It still remains a federal crime and until the FDA, DOJ and the supremes get their act together (i.e. congress), I have one question; why would anyone knowingly put their name on a list where they admit to committing a federal crime?

Seriously, marijuana should be dropped from schedule one without delay...but it won't, too much money being made off it.

Well, the Feds aren't about to do another Prohibition with alcohol. They make too many tax dollars on it. Regardless of my opinion of pot smoking, the states and the Feds could make a lot of tax revenue if they'd license it like they do liquor. They wouldn't have the extreme costs of enforcing the laws and imprisonment either.

Winters got his butt kicked again at taxpayer expense. I guess we all got our butts kicked financially. I don't know why he is as he is. A lot of people already know I had to point my lawyer at him and it took me 13 months to get my CHL back and it never should have been taken in the first place, by law.

Then, in what felt like spite, I was required to start all over with the classes, references, etc., as if I never had it. Not only that, but the whole while, I was in the middle of the 4 years I had already paid for. Absolutely no right to take it, keep it, or make it hard to get back.

I have it now, and I suspect every LEO around is afraid to mess with me because I'd accuse them of revenge, and I'd believe it.

That case had no standing, I would get more surprised if it got accepted. Otherwise SCOTUS denies cert to majority of cases. In fact two good carry cases were denied cert this year.

I dont want to see pot legalized by no means.We have enough lazy welfare recipients already,thats not to say there are not hard working people who smoke it and thats fine with me I wont judge a guy for doing what he needs to stay grounded,I did it too when I was a kid.But to open the door to everyone on my jobsites and working around machinery stoned I dont see how it's a good idea.
However I am glad they didn't impose this on the people who use legally since it is still their right to bear arms if they have not committed a crime.

Originally Posted by doubletap007

I dont want to see pot legalized by no means.We have enough lazy welfare recipients already,thats not to say there are not hard working people who smoke it and thats fine with me I wont judge a guy for doing what he needs to stay grounded,I did it too when I was a kid.But to open the door to everyone on my jobsites and working around machinery stoned I dont see how it's a good idea.
However I am glad they didn't impose this on the people who use legally since it is still their right to bear arms if they have not committed a crime.

Do you have a lot of drunk people working with you ? Alcohol is legal, but does that mean one is allowed to get drunk and drive ? Sure it happens all the time, but nobody says it's okay.

Second thing to point out - one may have a valid CHL while being a pot user, but per federal law such person is not allowed to possess a firearm. Well, to be more accurate one can't buy from an FFL, and one can't be in possession of a firearm while committing a crime (pot = federal misdemeanor).

As fd15k suggested, and as pretty much every story I've read on this has gotten wrong, the Supreme Court did not uphold anything; they merely denied certiorari, which is what happens to the vast majority of all cases appealed to the US Supreme Court. I concur that neither party had standing. I'm frankly surprised that Winters even filed for cert in the first place.

Just having a medical MJ card does not mean you are using, possessing, or admitting to using or possessing. It just means that under state law you are allowed to use or possess.

So I don't see how anyone can make the case that ALL people who own a MJ card are in violation of the drug possession and use exceptions for gun laws.

Originally Posted by pchewn

Just having a medical MJ card does not mean you are using, possessing, or admitting to using or possessing. It just means that under state law you are allowed to use or possess.

So I don't see how anyone can make the case that ALL people who own a MJ card are in violation of the drug possession and use exceptions for gun laws.

The biggest question right now is whether the feds will go after the MJ lady, using her card for getting a search warrant.

Originally Posted by Malibu38368

As fd15k suggested, and as pretty much every story I've read on this has gotten wrong, the Supreme Court did not uphold anything; they merely denied certiorari, which is what happens to the vast majority of all cases appealed to the US Supreme Court. I concur that neither party had standing. I'm frankly surprised that Winters even filed for cert in the first place.

You're right of course. Bottom line is that Winters lost the case.

Originally Posted by Malibu38368

... I'm frankly surprised that Winters even filed for cert in the first place.

LOL...

it will be interesting to see what the total bill for all 4 cases that the Sheriff has racked up on "our" behalf.

Originally Posted by evltwn

it will be interesting to see what the total bill for all 4 cases that the Sheriff has racked up on "our" behalf.

We'll never know. Although a local law firm was hired, a lot of the work was done by county employed counsel. I read a number "so far" just before the appeal, and based on my experience I thought it was way low. I don't remember what it was.

That case had no standing, I would get more surprised if it got accepted.

Correct. This is about a Concealed Handgun License and not about who can and who can not own a gun.
This person qualifies under the current rules to be issued a CHL - that's it.

Originally Posted by doubletap007

I dont want to see pot legalized by no means.We have enough lazy welfare recipients already,thats not to say there are not hard working people who smoke it and thats fine with me I wont judge a guy for doing what he needs to stay grounded,I did it too when I was a kid.But to open the door to everyone on my jobsites and working around machinery stoned I dont see how it's a good idea.
However I am glad they didn't impose this on the people who use legally since it is still their right to bear arms if they have not committed a crime.

News flash:

You already have potheads on your Jobsites and legalizing it won't change a thing except save you some tax money.

I just can't understand why people think alcohol is AOK but pot is so damn harmful and why you want your rights to own a gun but want to take someone else's right to light up a joint.

My thoughts are the thoughts of a non smoker who supports legalization.

To those miffed at Winters, try placing the taxpayer $ wasted blame where it belongs - the conflicting laws involved. This is the only problem I have with Med MJ. The Fed/State laws are screwed-up jokes. It can't be okay here but not there, and what law trumps the other? The sheriff is stuck in the middle and, IMO, is only trying to do the right thing. The laws need fixing, and it sounds to me like the Feds are once again asleep at the wheel.