Friday, June 18, 2010

Medical Marijuana and Guns

From The Volokh Conspiracy, link provided by FishyJay.

Respondent, the Jackson County Sheriff, appeals a judgment of the circuit court that ordered him to renew a concealed handgun license issued to petitioner, a medical marijuana user. The sheriff concedes that petitioner met the requirements for issuance of a concealed handgun license set forth in ORS 166.291. He nevertheless asserts that Oregon’s concealed handgun licensing statutes are preempted by federal law in this instance, because “an unlawful user * * * of any controlled substance” cannot lawfully possess a firearm under 18 USC section 922(g) of the federal Gun Control Act. The circuit court rejected the sheriff’s preemption argument and ordered him to issue a renewal of petitioner’s concealed handgun license. We agree with the circuit court’s conclusion that federal law does not preempt this state’s concealed handgun licensing statutes, and we therefore affirm....

I hate the way lawyers write. Does it mean that using medical marijuana in Oregon does not interfere with one's right to have a concealed carry permit?

It is a fascinating question. Most places, I believe, allow gun owners to drink as long as they stay under the legal limit. If they want to drink more I suppose they have to leave their guns at home along with the car keys. The problem is the need to be responsible with guns doesn't end at the front door, in fact the greatest need is in the home. For that reason I've often questioned gun owners about their drinking habits, inferring, in spite of their righteous indignation, that if they drink at all, they are not being responsible.

But, with pot it's even worse. Most guys can have one beer and not be impaired enough to lessen his ability to act right. The pot smoker on the other hand, if the dope is any good, gets loaded enough to be a danger to himself and others, at least where guns are concerned.

At the risk of sounding extreme in my views, since we're talking about a life or death situation whenever we deal with guns, in order to be licensed to own a gun, one must be completely abstemious - no drinking, no drugs. Just like my "one strike you're out" concerning accidents, I say one beer or one joint, you lose your right.

If a person is serious about protecting his family and his home, he'd be glad to follow this regimen. Imagine the wonderful world it would be if we knew that gun owners are sober and responsible people who are serious about their right to bear arms rather than what we have now.

What's your opinion?

3 comments:

  1. MikeB: “Most places, I believe, allow gun owners to drink as long as they stay under the legal limit. If they want to drink more I suppose they have to leave their guns at home along with the car keys. “

    Do you mean “gun owners” or “concealed carriers”? I think most states have a zero tolerance on drinking while carrying. This goes hand in hand with the no-guns-where-alcohol-is-served laws. I believe very few states allow carrying and consumption while maintaining a BA below the legal limit, but others here would know better than me.

    MikeB: “…in order to be licensed to own a gun, one must be completely abstemious - no drinking, no drugs. Just like my "one strike you're out" concerning accidents, I say one beer or one joint, you lose your right.”

    Are you serious? I’m drunk right now. I’m also 400 miles away from my nearest gun. And you wonder why we object to your “reasonable regulations”.

    ReplyDelete
  2. At the risk of sounding extreme in my views, since we're talking about a life or death situation whenever we deal with guns, in order to be licensed to own a gun, one must be completely abstemious - no drinking, no drugs. Just like my "one strike you're out" concerning accidents, I say one beer or one joint, you lose your right.

    Hahahahahaha!

    That's classic!

    That means probably over 90% of the police, and a greater percentage than that of the military, would have to somehow do their jobs unarmed. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  3. TS, I've been meaning to ask how could you be drunk and 400 miles away from your nearest gun? The first part's not so bad, but the second part makes you down right irresponsible. What if something should happen?

    ReplyDelete