Open Carry and State Registered Medical Cannabis

[marshaul]

No. There is no prescription for medical marijuana because of federal law. There is only a Recommendation by a physician.

Yup. The Feds regulate "prescriptions".

 

[since9]

Without a prescription (merely a recommendation), then it appears it's still illegal to possess under federal law, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[marshaul]

Without a prescription (merely a recommendation), then it appears it's still illegal to possess under federal law, regardless of the circumstances.

Yup, this is why Virginia's medical marijuana law never had any effect:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+18.2-251.1+702188

§ 18.2-251.1. Possession or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes permitted.

A. No person shall be prosecuted under § 18.2-250 or § 18.2-250.1 for the possession of marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol when that possession occurs pursuant to a valid prescription issued by a medical doctor in the course of his professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.

B. No medical doctor shall be prosecuted under § 18.2-248 or § 18.2-248.1 for dispensing or distributing marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol for medical purposes when such action occurs in the course of his professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.

C. No pharmacist shall be prosecuted under §§ 18.2-248 to 18.2-248.1 for dispensing or distributing marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol to any person who holds a valid prescription of a medical doctor for such substance issued in the course of such doctor's professional practice for treatment of cancer or glaucoma.

(1979, c. 435.)

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

What are the implications of legally carrying cannabis while legally openly carrying a pistol? From what I can gather- technically- these two cannot be combined and misconstrude as a crime.

(Amendment 20) Both are Constitutionally protected rights.

What are your opinions all around?

NOT a very intelligent thing to do.:cuss:

 

[Kingfish]

NOT a very intelligent thing to do.:cuss:

Why? I believe he was talking about possession not USE.

 

[Kingfish]

Going to bump this one.

Has anyone heard anything recent about people being denied carry permit or having permit revoked (besides the RMGO "FAQ") because of being a registered user of medical?

 

[since9]

Going to bump this one.

Has anyone heard anything recent about people being denied carry permit or having permit revoked (besides the RMGO "FAQ") because of being a registered user of medical?

Yes, and several threads on this forum have been started to that effect. As I am neither a user nor an interested party, I've not kept track of the threads. A few posts, but that's all.

 

[cscitney87]

Bump back. Basically to clarify, caregivers are due the same protections (rights) as any other. Both rights are constitutional so their validity is undying. Thus the point of the inquiry.

So it is set forth.

 

[JamesB]

New News

Just found this one...

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...-court-medical-pot-users-can-have-ccw-permits

Now I realize it's not exactly on the topic of open carry vs, whatever.

But:

The Oregon Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that people who use medical marijuana cannot be denied concealed weapons permits, noting that there is nothing in the 1968 federal gun control act that specifically preempts a state’s concealed carry licensing statute.

 

[MKEgal]

The Oregon Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that people who use medical marijuana cannot be denied concealed weapons permits

Ummmm... isn't there something in federal law to the effect of being a prohibited person if you're an illegal user of or addicted to a controlled or illegal drug?
And don't most states include a "you're not a prohibited person" test in their permit background check?
And since pot is illegal under federal law, wouldn't using pot be mutually incompatible with having a carry permit?
(The Giffords shooter used pot, the Army screwed up by not noting it in his record, so he passed a background check to buy from a dealer.)

 

[JamesB]

Ummmm... isn't there something in federal law to the effect of being a prohibited person if you're an illegal user of or addicted to a controlled or illegal drug?
And don't most states include a "you're not a prohibited person" test in their permit background check?
And since pot is illegal under federal law, wouldn't using pot be mutually incompatible with having a carry permit?
(The Giffords shooter used pot, the Army screwed up by not noting it in his record, so he passed a background check to buy from a dealer.)

Or does it? The portion of the Federal Gun Control Act cited by the court, 922(g)(3), prohibits possession by anyone "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance ...;". But someone with a prescription for medication is arguably not "an unlawful user", and the legal definition of addiction specifically exempts "medically warranted purposes."

Then again, as previously discussed, it is not a prescription...

This really does not nor ever will effect my life, but I'll still throw two cents at it. Two cents is worthless anyway.

 

[IA_farmboy]

(The Giffords shooter used pot, the Army screwed up by not noting it in his record, so he passed a background check to buy from a dealer.)

The Army did not "screw up", they followed policy. I believe this was an Attorney General decision from many years ago that held that voluntary drug tests could not be used against a military recruit. The logic was that recruiting would be affected if people that went in to apply were taken out in handcuffs because they failed a drug test.

That logic may have seemed valid at the time but times change. It was only 40 years ago or so when marijuana use was made illegal. Now we are discussing the medical benefits of marijuana and so i would seem to many that the desire to keep use and possession of marijuana illegal is waning.

And since pot is illegal under federal law, wouldn't using pot be mutually incompatible with having a carry permit?

The court ruled that the laws that determine the eligibility of obtaining a permit to carry weapons says nothing about the possession or use of marijuana, therefore the permit is not incompatible with the marijuana use. What is incompatible is the possession of a firearm and the marijuana.

I don't know how the law works exactly where you are but where I am the law requires a permit to carry a "dangerous weapon". A "dangerous weapon" includes many things besides firearms, such as knives, stun weapons, and pepper spray. I am not aware of any federal law that prohibits marijuana users from owning pepper spray.

 

[Aknazer]

Ummmm... isn't there something in federal law to the effect of being a prohibited person if you're an illegal user of or addicted to a controlled or illegal drug?
And don't most states include a "you're not a prohibited person" test in their permit background check?
And since pot is illegal under federal law, wouldn't using pot be mutually incompatible with having a carry permit?
(The Giffords shooter used pot, the Army screwed up by not noting it in his record, so he passed a background check to buy from a dealer.)

And if the state ignores the federal law on Mary Jane (easy if they view it as unconstitutional) then the person wouldn't be a prohibited person. And that is really what it comes down to. The state might do a "prohibited person" check, but that doesn't mean that they view a "prohibited person" the same way the feds do.

Also in regards to the Giffords comment. What you tell the recruiter isn't forwarded on to other agencies because they don't want people to lie to them and end up with various drug addicts in the military. So in order to increase the health of the overall service they don't penalize people for telling the truth. Had they reported on what is told to them then people would simply lie.

 

[marshaul]

Ummmm... isn't there something in federal law to the effect of being a prohibited person if you're an illegal user of or addicted to a controlled or illegal drug?
And don't most states include a "you're not a prohibited person" test in their permit background check?
And since pot is illegal under federal law, wouldn't using pot be mutually incompatible with having a carry permit?
(The Giffords shooter used pot, the Army screwed up by not noting it in his record, so he passed a background check to buy from a dealer.)

Ummmmmm..... maybe you should read the Oregon Supreme Court decision.

 

[marshaul]

The court ruled that the laws that determine the eligibility of obtaining a permit to carry weapons says nothing about the possession or use of marijuana, therefore the permit is not incompatible with the marijuana use. What is incompatible is the possession of a firearm and the marijuana.

I don't know how the law works exactly where you are but where I am the law requires a permit to carry a "dangerous weapon". A "dangerous weapon" includes many things besides firearms, such as knives, stun weapons, and pepper spray. I am not aware of any federal law that prohibits marijuana users from owning pepper spray.

Close, but not quite. In Oregon, permits are for concealed handguns. See ORS 166.291.

This is what they actually said:

Invoking a distinction drawn in Emerald Steel between provisions that "affirmatively authorize" conduct that federal law prohibits and provisions that exempt conduct from criminal prosecution, the Court of Appeals held in Willis that Oregon's concealed handgun licensing statute is not preempted by federal law, because it does not affirmatively authorize what the federal statute prohibits -- i.e., possession of firearms by unlawful drug users -- but, instead, merely exempts licensees from state criminal liability for the possession of a concealed handgun. 235 Or App at 627.—Oregon Supreme Court

In fact, it is possible that the sheriffs in this case could themselves enforce section 922(g)(3) of the federal Gun Control Act against medical marijuana users who possess guns in violation of federal law. The federal act makes such possession illegal, the sheriffs generally are authorized to enforce federal as well as state law, and no state law prohibits the sheriffs from taking such enforcement actions.

Additionally, the court ruled that the Federal government has no constitutional authority to require Oregon to enforce its laws through state licensing schemes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110519/ap_on_re_us/us_pistols_and_pot

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S058645.htm

 

[marshaul]

The Giffords shooter used pot...

Evidently not frequently enough.

 

[IA_farmboy]

Close, but not quite.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

In other words, the permit is a state issue and will remain a state issue. If the federal law conflicts then so be it. The sheriff may enforce federal law if they so choose but that would remain a federal offense.

 

[marshaul]

I stand corrected. Thank you.

In other words, the permit is a state issue and will remain a state issue. If the federal law conflicts then so be it. The sheriff may enforce federal law if they so choose but that would remain a federal offense.

Nailed it.

 

[bomber]

Evidently not frequently enough.

shaZAM!

good call

 

[since9]

In other words, the permit is a state issue and will remain a state issue. If the federal law conflicts then so be it. The sheriff may enforce federal law if they so choose but that would remain a federal offense.

Yep. Called a friend of mine in the sheriff's office this morning and he said the proper procedure is entitled "remanding into Federal custody." He said it's standard procedure to check for federal warrants, and if present, to simply do so should they not be able to hold someone locally. Even if they can hold someone locally, they still check and depending on the circumstances will then decide to either hold locally or remand to federal custody.