Gun Ownership + Medical Marijuana Use: Is it legal?

[phathom]

Since it's ran through a federal check and it is illegal under federal law (not by some state laws though) it will still get you denied as it is federally an illegal substance.

 

[bugeye]

We don't hate the government, we just despise the corrupt schmucks running it...

In my memory the corrupt schmucks are a constant, you're one of the dudes who badly needs some smoke, heck they should fly small crop dusting planes over your house blowing out thai stick, and while they are at it I'm getting low on Pomparo Rum.

 

[The B]

i think it's pretty simple.. the form says "are you an unlawful user of..."



if you're not an unlawful user of, then check no. pretty bubbleguming simple.

 

[Trlsmn]

The problem is by state standards MM users are lawful users, by Federal standards MM user are unlawful users. That form and the laws are Federal laws.


Now lets throw in a curve ball, the CHL program is a state law.

 

[The B]

well since the federal law is undeniably unconstitutional, and the state law is undeniably not, i think i'd go with the state on this one. i don't use marijuana, medically or recreationally, so i don't have to put as much thought into this as some guys- you're just gonna have to go with your sensibilities on this one.

 

[Trlsmn]

well since the federal law is undeniably unconstitutional, and the state law is undeniably not, i think i'd go with the state on this one. i don't use marijuana, medically or recreationally, so i don't have to put as much thought into this as some guys- you're just gonna have to go with your sensibilities on this one.

Though it sounds great to be able to pick and choose what laws we wish to have applied to us the reality is the police and the court system do not recognize that same ideal, so until those laws are tested and the conflict resolved the end result is the same.

 

[Chee-to]

Obviously your not a golfer...

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

So what is your opinion on this subject? If we are to stay focused on the topic...as Trlsmn said, the federal government does not recognize the states granting of MM cards...in their eyes, possession of canabis is illegal. End of story?...Ipso Facto Pepto Bismol, guns and pot don't mix?

With due respect to OP, the referred to post was not too far off topic, IMO.

This is a great thead Zach and I hope it continues within reach of topic.

Thanks,
Will

I agree guns and pot don't mix, just like guns and alcohol, if it's illegal to drive a vehicle with a BAC of .08 percent (2-4 beers) that should be applied to firearms also, right ?.....:drunk:

 

[ZachS]

Since it's ran through a federal check and it is illegal under federal law (not by some state laws though) it will still get you denied as it is federally an illegal substance.

Having had a MM card issued does not make you a user of the substance per federal law (the law is in the link in the first post).


If I lived in a state like California that had a more permissive standard for issuing cards, I'd probably pick one up just to protect myself from law enforcement - even though I'd only have the occasional puff every few months at a party.

But in Oregon, my "back pain" just isn't a good enough reason...

 

[phathom]

Personally I think it should be legal federally and let states say how legal they want it, just like it is with alcohol.
Also in states like California with legal dispensaries and legal patients, they have still had their troubles with the feds raiding their businesses and taking product, patient records, etc. and the local police, government, patients, and owners can't do anything about it.
I hate how there's a double standard on this stuff at a state and federal level.
I'm just saying, that you have a card that makes it legal in your state, the cops won't give you a problem, however you get DEA in there and it's a completely different story.

 

[willseeker]

In my memory the corrupt schmucks are a constant, you're one of the dudes who badly needs some smoke, heck they should fly small crop dusting planes over your house blowing out thai stick, and while they are at it I'm getting low on Pomparo Rum.

Pomparo Rum? Thai Sticks?




Hey, Zach! I think I'm starting to agree with you...maybe Buggy...I mean bugeye, is off track a bit.

And by the way Zach, if you've got a bad back, and it's been more than a few times, it could be diagnosed as chronic, therefore eligible for an MM card....but you should check with a professional before taking any of this advise.

Will

 

[Chee-to]

Having had a MM card issued does not make you a user of the substance per federal law (the law is in the link in the first post).


If I lived in a state like California that had a more permissive standard for issuing cards, I'd probably pick one up just to protect myself from law enforcement - even though I'd only have the occasional puff every few months at a party.

But in Oregon, my "back pain" just isn't a good enough reason...

PPPPPUFF ? Don't inhale ?...:cigar:

 

[The B]

Though it sounds great to be able to pick and choose what laws we wish to have applied to us the reality is the police and the court system do not recognize that same ideal, so until those laws are tested and the conflict resolved the end result is the same.

wow, that's a pretty cheap way of arguing your point. "pick and choose what laws we wish to have applied to us." when there's two separate sets of laws, what exactly are you supposed to do? you have no choice but to chose between the laws... and this is one of those moments where a big ol' duh is appropriate. the federal government can claim their "law" supersedes all they want- but case-law proves otherwise.

and this is alarmist attitude. nobody gets convicted of offenses declared legal within their state, unless other conditions exist. the feds do NOT prosecute individuals not engaging in other illegal behavior, because the very few times they've tried, they've been utterly unsuccessful. a jury of your peers will never return a guilty verdict against someone exercising an activity declared legal by their local government, federal court or not.

 

[Member 5605]

Last time I checked Federal law trumps State law.

State may say it's legal

Fed's say otherwise.

Not to mention you have to check a box on your application if you use illegal substance.. I guess that must be obedience to state laws only????

Yes I am 100% against the lawful use of marijuana, and even more so against the unlawful use of it.

 

[ZachS]

Pomparo Rum? Thai Sticks?




Hey, Zach! I think I'm starting to agree with you...maybe Buggy...I mean bugeye, is off track a bit.

And by the way Zach, if you've got a bad back, and it's been more than a few times, it could be diagnosed as chronic, therefore eligible for an MM card....but you should check with a professional before taking any of this advise.

Perhaps, but Oregon's law is clearly intended for folks with unmistakable serious chronic conditions. I've never found cannabis useful for any of my relatively minor complaints...

 

[bugeye]

well since the federal law is undeniably unconstitutional.......

Undeniably unconstitutional? Last time I looked no where in there did it say I have the right to pot. Though if they are going to put that in there I think they should drop using numbers and call it the Cheech and Chong Amendment.

 

[willseeker]

Yes I am 100% against the lawful use of marijuana, and even more so against the unlawful use of it.

You're entitled to your opinion, as archaic as it seems.

Interesting, that if a God given plant can relieve a citizens pain, that we as a nation persist in prescribing habit forming and dangerous narcotics such as oxycontin, vicodin, etc...

What a shame we don't stop our irrational prejudices.

Will

 

[Trlsmn]

wow, that's a pretty cheap way of arguing your point. "pick and choose what laws we wish to have applied to us." when there's two separate sets of laws, what exactly are you supposed to do? you have no choice but to chose between the laws... and this is one of those moments where a big ol' duh is appropriate. the federal government can claim their "law" supersedes all they want- but case-law proves otherwise.

If the Feds want to prosecute for the broken law they can and will. I'm not seeing where my post is unclear.

and this is alarmist attitude. nobody gets convicted of offenses declared legal within their state, unless other conditions exist. the feds do NOT prosecute individuals not engaging in other illegal behavior,

Are you willing to bet your freedom, bankroll your defense with your own money and suffer the disruption of your life on that statement?

because the very few times they've tried, they've been utterly unsuccessful. a jury of your peers will never return a guilty verdict against someone exercising an activity declared legal by their local government, federal court or not.

I'll let you test the law, the courts, and a jury of your peers. I'm of the opinion the best way to win a court case is to stay out of court in the first place.

The law is wrong, unjust, and in conflict, but until it is overturned it is the law.

And if you think there are no medical marijuana users in jail you are sadly mistaken.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jailed+medical+marijuana+users

 

[The B]

Undeniably unconstitutional? Last time I looked no where in there did it say I have the right to pot. Though if they are going to put that in there I think they should drop using numbers and call it the Cheech and Chong Amendment.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

this is one of only TWO sentences in the Constitution that grant the federal government the power to make laws, and their power to make laws is limited to the provisions of these two sentences. i don't remember what the other clause is, but it's the above clause that they've used to make basically EVERY law that effects private citizens in this country. they have abused this clause- this one sentence- so severely, and the SCOTUS has somehow allowed them to do it, for so long that we've completely forgotten, as a people, that the federal government can only make laws that direct effect trade relations between the states.

now how the **** does a private citizen's desire to sit down a smoke a joint have any effect on interstate commerce, friend?

i dont smoke marijuana, or even drink, and i'm morally opposed to both practices. but there are currently no federal laws that meet the above criteria. it's perfectly legal to smoke marijuana, being a peaceful activity, according to the Constitution, and i support the ability to do so on the ground that prohibitions against peaceful activities are ALL unconstitutional. but we've let the federal government convince us that they have the ability to make it illegal... boggles the mind.

smoke and mirrors, people.

 

[spider]

Washington county sheriffs went door to door recently to check on mm growers, to make sure they kept there limits on quantities of plants, if they find weapons of any kind, that weren't purchased by you from a dealer, you could not keep them unless you had correct paperwork/bill of sales with sn and the sellers information, that's some small tape that leaves things kinda clear on the mm side. I mean these peoples addresses are on file and placed on a map that is readily available, if anybody needed protection it'd be there green leaf loving mothers...

 

[Member 5605]

You're entitled to your opinion, as archaic as it seems.

Interesting, that if a God given plant can relieve a citizens pain, that we as a nation persist in prescribing habit forming and dangerous narcotics such as oxycontin, vicodin, etc...

What a shame we don't stop our irrational prejudices.

Will

Archaic: of, relating to, or characteristic of an earlier or more primitive time

Yes, we are entitled to our own views. My decisions are based in real life. I have seen lives ruined from what some do not call a gateway drug. Nobody can tell me that it's not. I've seen it. I'm glad though that my views are considered classic, possibly even conservative. Fine with me.

The debate goes on and on about why overlook a natural plant that eases minor pain. I cannot though in any way say that marijuana can and ever will have the pain relieving abilities of vicodin or oxy.

If we throw the 'same abilities' clause out the window we are left with what? A plant that you smoke which produces euphoria.

Let's look at Heroin. Heroin is an opiate. It's also similar to percoset, morphine, and if your allergic to the natural ones you can try darvocet (simulated opiate). Why don't we allow medical heroin as well? Try to get that one passed... You won't see fields of poppy flowers grown in back yards.

Common sense would say: "Well it alters ones mind and impairs their ability to function properly in society." Anything that alters the mind can be a hazard to another person.

I do believe that this has remained on topic.

For one to effectively judge within themselves if they believe that MM should be allowed they must look at benefits and costs (monetarily, psychologically, and physically).

In today's time: 2010 there are too many "gray" areas where there is no absolute right and wrong. Everything is based upon interpretation. We are turning into a relativist society where soon "everything will be permissible" because we are going further and further way from the absolute view of right and wrong.

I will get off my soap box now.