• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

US Supreme Court will not hear......

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
arguments from the local sheriff regarding medical marijuana and chl....

http://www.kbnd.com/page.php?page_id=60248&article_id=11239

i know have 4 medical marijuana patients in my life..... all of the fine people and upstanding citizens, deserving of the ability to defend themselves...... also have a few dope smoking losers in my life who shouldnt be near a gun ever....

looks like the right thing is also the legal thing still
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
Definitely the right ruling within the current immoral and unconstitutional permit regime.

Have you heard anything about the BATFE harassing sheriffs who issued permits to medical MJ patients? I seem to remember reading something about it awhile ago but haven't seen anything recently. Beyond on a government list as a "non-approved chemical user" is something I have counseled others about as they considered getting cards...
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
And why would a sheriff give a rip what a federal bureaucrat thinks?

A sheriff worries because of federal funding and grants. It all boils down to money.

I can't wait until the first hold up of a Hostess Twinkie truck my a pot head with the munchies......the goverment will scream see I told you it would be pandomonium.

Seriously though anyone using a firearm while under the influence of any drug be it drink or smoked needs to be put down on the spot.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
Seriously though anyone using a firearm while under the influence of any drug be it drink or smoked needs to be put down on the spot.

So if some eighteen year-old kids get caught drinking some beers while target-shooting they should be summarily executed for their stupidity?

Sorry, I don't know if I can get on board that one...
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
So if some eighteen year-old kids get caught drinking some beers while target-shooting they should be summarily executed for their stupidity?

Sorry, I don't know if I can get on board that one...

Your taking it out of context. Using a firarm to protect yourself even if drinking would be ok, just like shooting at the range (18 and drinking while shooting is stupid not illegal).

I refer to someone drinking or smoking and using a weapon in a crime or just shooting it in the air were someone is killed by those actions. These are the people that should not waist any further O2 molicules.
 

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,098
Location
Leesburg, GA
Well, I believe this is still simply about the licence itself. Not ownership.

By the laws we have, its is not illegal to have the CHL being a medical mary jane user. However being a user makes it illegal via federal and Oregon state law to own or possess a weapon.

This doesn't change the possession of the weapon, simply points out that a laminated "card with writing on it" can be had and owned by a drug user.

Wasn't the sheriff simply fighting that aspect, that it was against the law for him to issue the licence based on that?
 

Teddybearfrmhell

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
348
Location
Cottage Grove, Oregon, USA
......
By the laws we have, its is not illegal to have the CHL being a medical mary jane user. However being a user makes it illegal via federal and Oregon state law to own or possess a weapon......

actually the form 4473 asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

unlawful being the key word here....

in oregon the ommp is NOT unlawfully using the drug, nor is the use necessarily addiction, altho federally ANY use of the drug would be illegal.

but since this is ONLY for a FFL licensed transaction it has NO bearing at all on the possession of a gun nor does it preclude a private party transaction. there are no laws, either federally or in oregon that prohibit a ommp patient from possession or ownership of a firearm.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
actually the form 4473 asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Also, what's a user? If a person smoked marijuana two decades ago, is he a user? Two years? Two months? Two days? Two hours? Maybe you're only considered a user if you have a lit joint in your mouth as you are filling out the form.
 

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,098
Location
Leesburg, GA
actually the form 4473 asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Regardless of what the form says, I could have sworn that Fed law said otherwise..

Then I went digging in the ORS and noticed this..

The amendments to 166.250 by section 11a, chapter 826, Oregon Laws 2009, become operative January 2, 2012. See section 14, chapter 826, Oregon Laws 2009, as amended by section 23, chapter 826, Oregon Laws 2009. The text that is operative on and after January 2, 2012, is set forth for the user’s convenience.

edit : Trying to clarify for myself now what I'm reading over again.
 
Last edited:

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,098
Location
Leesburg, GA
and did you find any law, federal or oregon prohibiting the possession or ownership of a firearm by a marijuana user?

Every hit I'm pulling up shows an unlawful user.

I guess this would end up under "opinion" of Fed law says all use is against the law, and Oregon law says we have legal medical users. Perhaps?
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
Your taking it out of context. Using a firarm to protect yourself even if drinking would be ok, just like shooting at the range (18 and drinking while shooting is stupid not illegal).

I did not take it out of context. You said:

Seriously though anyone using a firearm while under the influence of any drug be it drink or smoked needs to be put down on the spot.

According to that statement, using a firearm + intoxication = summary execution. If that is not what you meant to convey, then perhaps you should have been more specific.

By the way, 18 year-olds drinking is illegal in every state (outside of certain very limited exceptions in some).

I refer to someone drinking or smoking and using a weapon in a crime or just shooting it in the air were someone is killed by those actions. These are the people that should not waist any further O2 molicules.

Why does the intoxication matter? Is it really any different if the offender was stone-cold sober and kills someone with a gun?
 
Last edited:

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
I did not take it out of context. You said:



According to that statement, using a firearm + intoxication = summary execution. If that is not what you meant to convey, then perhaps you should have been more specific.

Calm down, you do understand we are on the same side unless you think it is ok to get drunk or stoned and kill someone....


By the way, 18 year-olds drinking is illegal in every state (outside of certain very limited exceptions in some).

I have no idea why you even brought this up, I think you just want to argue about something and the drinking age varies from state to state most being 21 years old.




Why does the intoxication matter? Is it really any different if the offender was stone-cold sober and kills someone with a gun?

Itoxication be it by drug or drink and killing someone does't matter to me but it seems to matter with the courts. I don't see a difference between someone killing someone after drinking in a bar and drunk driving then I do someone waiting at the end of your street set to run someone over as soon as they start to cross.

I see them both as PREMEDITATED as they both decided to kill someone. I know not every drunk driver kills people but the fact is they choose to drink and then drive to me is the same as choosing to run someone down. I guess your child will have to be killed by a drunk driver before you feel different or will you will you tell the guy with 13 DUI's that killed your wife it is ok I know you didn't mean to do it. BTW we have multiple people in Mountain Home with doubble diget DUI's, time bombs just waiting to go off.

The legal system doesn't see someone that intentionally drives or shoots a weapon into the air and kills someone as premenditated murder they see it as mansluaghter. I believe different but that is just my belief since I have seen a lot of people killed by stupid people that get high or drunk and kill people for no reason then get a couple years.....BUT THEY DIDN"T MEAN IT ARGUMENT.

The other person is still dead.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
Someone firing a gun into the air or driving drunk simply does not meet the standard for premeditation. Stupid, reckless, and negligent, yes. Manslaughter if convicted, yes. Potential death penalty? Sorry, no.

I understand that if you have lost someone due to those occurrences, you would be bitter and want harsher penalties. I get that. However, I for one am glad to live under a system that at least pretends to look at the circumstances instead of creating blanket rules.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
Someone firing a gun into the air or driving drunk simply does not meet the standard for premeditation. Stupid, reckless, and negligent, yes. Manslaughter if convicted, yes. Potential death penalty? Sorry, no.

I understand that if you have lost someone due to those occurrences, you would be bitter and want harsher penalties. I get that. However, I for one am glad to live under a system that at least pretends to look at the circumstances instead of creating blanket rules.

So getting drunk or stoned and running a bus load of pregnant nuns of a cliff is ok due to the fact the person didn't know what they where doing? I for one like to hold people accountable for their actions.

If you drive or shoot a weapon while high that is the persons choice, if someone dies due to their chioce of doing something a sane person knows is wrong to me means they need to stop using O2 and save it for people that can use it.

Taking a drug and killing someone due to the actions while high should be considered premeditated. I for one would like to live in a sociaty where people are held resposiable for what they do both good and bad.

We have a drunk that has 15 DUI's in town, drives without a liecense, and smiles about it. They keep letting him out, I guess until he kills a kid in a crosswalk then I guess it is just an accident...he didn't mean to kill the child.

Right.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,552
Location
SW Idaho
So getting drunk or stoned and running a bus load of pregnant nuns of a cliff is ok due to the fact the person didn't know what they where doing? I for one like to hold people accountable for their actions.

Where did I say it was OK? In fact, I specifically called for convictions in circumstances where a person is intoxicated and causes harm to persons and/or property. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

If you drive or shoot a weapon while high that is the persons choice, if someone dies due to their chioce of doing something a sane person knows is wrong to me means they need to stop using O2 and save it for people that can use it.

What about texting, doing makeup, reading the newspaper, etc. while driving that results in someone being killed? What about a 16 year old, young, dumb and full of courage, speeding around blind curve and killing someone? Those are all acts we all know are irresponsible and potentially dangerous, but they do not automatically result in a person's death - in fact, more often than not, no one is even hurt. Therefore, it does not rise to the standard of premeditated murder.

Taking a drug and killing someone due to the actions while high should be considered premeditated.

If the killing was premeditated, sure. If it was the result of an accident, that's life, and also can happen with people who are stone-cold sober. If it was the result of a clearly-preventable accident, with no premeditation or ill intent, that is negligent homicide or manslaughter. Society correctly recognizes that there is a significant difference in the evil quotient of someone who kills another with malice aforethought and one who kills another unintentionally.

I for one would like to live in a sociaty where people are held resposiable for what they do both good and bad.

Ummm...ok. I agree. Of course, you did advocate summary execution for anyone using a firearm while intoxicated; to me, that's not "holding people accountable." That's unacceptably harsh vigilantism to serve your own bitterness (understandable if you have suffered a loss), rather than justice.

We have a drunk that has 15 DUI's in town, drives without a liecense, and smiles about it. They keep letting him out, I guess until he kills a kid in a crosswalk then I guess it is just an accident...he didn't mean to kill the child.

If he kills any person while intoxicated, it is not as if he will go free. He will face a serious felony charge and do time. However, in a society says it reserves the death penalty for only the worst of the worst, yet often has a hard time sentencing intentional, sexually-motivated child killers to that punishment, it would be unreasonable to demand the death penalty for someone who has killed another unintentionally.

Also, how is it that you know that the drunk you mentioned drives without a license, but the police don't? Do you have psychic powers? If so, and if you believe so strongly in holding people responsible, I recommend you call the law on him.


Right.
 
Top