Interesting question

I love exploring questions like this. “Common sense” laws that nearly everyone agrees with end up being in conflict with each other:

The Oregon Supreme Court Thursday debated whether a state statute is at odds with federal law in a case involving a Medford marijuana patient who was denied a concealed weapons permit.

Appearing before nearly 200 law school students, the seven justices convened at Willamette University College of Law in Salem and focused on whether the statute conflicts with the intent of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968.

4 thoughts on “Interesting question

  1. Oregon pot smokers have to open carry then.

    I haven’t tried shooting while stoned, but getting attacked while stoned probably sucks just as much as being attacked while sober. Just a hunch.

  2. I think the issue is that possession of marijuana is a federal crime, still a misdemeanor for the first two offenses, then usually considered a felony. Felons can’t own weapons, thus cannot have a concealed weapons permit.

    States have enacted laws that have made marijuana possession a misdemeanor if the amount is what is considered for personal use, and the feds haven’t really pushed that issue, however the fact that Oregon, Washington, California, etc. have allowed medical marijuana has not changed the federal laws regarding the substance. By federal statute, the third possession and each subsequent possession can be charged as felonies, regardless of the medical marijuana issue. It’s a stupid system, regardless of what viewpoint you take regarding drug use.

    Then the GCA of 1968 further complicates it with the “use of drugs” clause.

    Get rid of the stupid GCA, abolish the stupid Federal drug laws, and the problem goes away. Then the States can make their laws as appropriate, the way the Constitution intended.

    It comes down to following the intent of the Constitution…oh wait, that won’t happen!

  3. Don’t forget the language in the 4473 about being a habitual user. Is the possessor of a medical marijuana card a “habitual user”?

  4. The question on 4473 says; “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to…”

    One could make the case that since the home state does not consider it unlawful, and that regular use or medical prescription does not define addiction, a “No” answer could be justified.

    What needs to happen eventually is the constitutionality of federal drug laws (and gun laws) needs to be challenged. I don’t recall seeing the amendment granting the feds power to restrict such things as guns and drugs.

Comments are closed.