Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue

Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 6:25:41 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_on_re_us/us_medical_marijuana_handguns I personally agree with the sheriff. Marijuana is an illegal substance on the federal level. Therefore it prohibits the ownership of certain weapons (arrows, knives, swords, and spears are still legal I believe) under federal law. If the Sheriff were to agree to the ownership, would he not be in collusion to violate federal law and should be duly arrested and prosecuted? I believe so. Now, if the state meets the following conditions, then the sheriff might not be in violation. 1 - Marijuana cultivated, packaged, and sold solely within the borders of the state. 2 - Weapons in question are produced within the state. 3 - Guarantee that the weapon will not be involved in interstate transport of any kind during the ownership of the individual involved (this is probably the hardest one to do).

DarkSteven -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 6:49:50 AM)
Wow, just wow. The HUGE implication here is that users of mmj are denied rights they would otherwise have. All other prescription drugs clearly state that the users are not to operate heavy machinery (and I assume firearms) while under the influence. In other words, they are responsible for determining whether they are able to use it or not. Nobody has introduced legislation stating that users of Contac should not be allowed guns. There should be no way this could work. Invoking a federal law to outlaw something at the state level that is otherwise perfectly legal in the state is just too convoluted.

KenDckey -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 6:54:10 AM)
Actually Steven it happens all the time (legal age of consent). And states have even been known to outlaw things that are perfectly legal on a federal level (like driving without a license).

truckinslave -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 6:56:46 AM)
DS, I'm pretty sure that operating heavy machinery is not a federal crime....

DarkSteven -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 6:59:57 AM)
The legal age of consent is state determined. AFAIK, the feds have never weighed in on that. This is not a case of a state making something illegal that the Feds have not addressed. This is the state taking one freedom that is Federally imposed (gun ownership) and fusing it with something that is illegal at the fed level but legal at the state level to create a new state level illegality. An mmj patient should have the same rights as a nonpatient under state law. Under federal law, they don't.

TheHeretic -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 7:08:46 AM)
The issue doesn't seem to be gun ownership by a medical marjuana user, (unless I'm missing something not mentioned in the brief article), but whether or not she can carry concealed in a state that requires a special permit to do so.

popeye1250 -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 7:49:49 AM)
Is something that grows naturally out of the ground a "pharmaceutical?" Especially if it doesn't require any further processing? Here we go again, law enforcement attempting to deny people their rights. There, I just excercised my first amendment rights, if I smoke a j-bar do I get them taken away from me?

DarkSteven -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 8:00:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave DS, I'm pretty sure that operating heavy machinery is not a federal crime.... truckin, you're right. I was thinking of the safety aspects of this, which are irrelevant.

flcouple2009 -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 8:55:13 AM)
Another sheriff with too much time on his hands.

KenDckey -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 9:32:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven The legal age of consent is state determined. AFAIK, the feds have never weighed in on that. This is not a case of a state making something illegal that the Feds have not addressed. This is the state taking one freedom that is Federally imposed (gun ownership) and fusing it with something that is illegal at the fed level but legal at the state level to create a new state level illegality. An mmj patient should have the same rights as a nonpatient under state law. Under federal law, they don't. And drug approval is under the perview of the Fed not the state

Termyn8or -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 9:48:44 AM)
FR Don't need a link to say what I have to say. Get this through your heads, and this is NOT RealOne or Hunky talking it is me. Everything that requires a license is illegal. A license is actually a permit to break the law. No argument is valid, that is the way it is. Look at it logically and it comes clear. And yes that means permits as well. Fixing the wiring in your own house is illegal. A contractor's license is a permit to break the law. If it were not so it would not be possible to impose fines or any other penalties. Talk to me, I want to hear the fucked up logic that disputes this fact. T

mnottertail -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 10:17:25 AM)
Oh, just off hand, for you to paint or remodel an older house in Mass you have to get licenses, because these historical houses are not wanting to be lost nor are their neighbors wanting to live shoed in next to you and stare at your lsd puke purple clapboards. not malum prohibitum, malum in se.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 11:33:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Wow, just wow. The HUGE implication here is that users of mmj are denied rights they would otherwise have. All other prescription drugs clearly state that the users are not to operate heavy machinery (and I assume firearms) while under the influence. In other words, they are responsible for determining whether they are able to use it or not. Nobody has introduced legislation stating that users of Contac should not be allowed guns. There should be no way this could work. Invoking a federal law to outlaw something at the state level that is otherwise perfectly legal in the state is just too convoluted. Federal pre-emption of state drug laws is quite clear. Enforcement/selective enforcement is another story.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 11:34:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Don't need a link to say what I have to say. Get this through your heads, and this is NOT RealOne or Hunky talking it is me. A distinction with little difference. Your posts are tl;dr.

Termyn8or -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 11:48:50 AM)
Just asking, sorry I have been involved in life in life, but what the hell does tl;dr mean ? T^T

TheHeretic -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 8:09:00 PM)
It means your posts scare him, Termy. [:)] This is an interesting question. I'm a proponent for both elements of the equation, but I'm not sure this is a chocolate in the peanut butter kind of combination. Either the applicant is gaming the pot card, or has a serious medical condition that requires treatment with a psychoactive drug. Oregon's concealed carry law (unless it has been reworked since it passed in the early 90's) is a "shall issue." The sheriff must have a good reason not to give it, instead of the previous standard where the applicant needed a damn good reason to receive one. I'd be curious to know if there is an Oregon precedent of denying based on opiate-based chronic pain management treatments.

tazzygirl -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/19/2011 9:25:52 PM)
quote: The legal age of consent is state determined. AFAIK, the feds have never weighed in on that. Not trying to derail the topic, but the Feds have weighed in on the topic of age of consent... that being 12 or more than 4 years age difference. There are other exceptions, such as being a ward, as the following link explains... http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C109a.txt

KenDckey -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/20/2011 5:00:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Is something that grows naturally out of the ground a "pharmaceutical?" Especially if it doesn't require any further processing? Here we go again, law enforcement attempting to deny people their rights. There, I just excercised my first amendment rights, if I smoke a j-bar do I get them taken away from me? Popeye you want to smoke my j-bar come on over, but I am pretty sure that steel bite will burn your lips. lol

BenevolentM -> RE: Ore. high court to decide handgun-marijuana issue (1/20/2011 6:39:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Everything that requires a license is illegal. A license is actually a permit to break the law. No argument is valid, that is the way it is. Look at it logically and it comes clear. And yes that means permits as well. Fixing the wiring in your own house is illegal. A contractor's license is a permit to break the law. If it were not so it would not be possible to impose fines or any other penalties. Talk to me, I want to hear the fucked up logic that disputes this fact. T What you wrote is compelling in that it has the appearance of a clean argument. I find your appeal to logic irritating, however. I intimidated this earlier when I spoke briefly about publishing in another thread. You are lacking a formal education in logic much in the say same attorneys are lacking a formal education in logic. The problem with your appeal to logic is that law is not self-consistent. In general you can use logic to solve a problem in mathematics, but not so in law. Law has a logical veneer. Logic is applicable to law in limited ways. You tend to believe that your knowledge transfers to subjects you know little about. You have some of the basics down, but you still have much to learn. I encourage you to engage in further study of the subject. I am your superior in this area. I am after all a Vulcan.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2026

Terms of Service

2.929688E-02