Illinois proposes allowing medical pot users to keep guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
larryh1108 said:
And I will still contend that if you are on the medical marijuana "list" and you are also on the FOID "list" that the day will come when it bites you in the backside. Anyone who believes IL is looking out for their rights is just in way over their head.
Click to expand...
That is the whole point of firearms registration. To take away the guns from the people who have registered their firearms as soon as something pops up that makes their possession illegal, including simply a new law passed that suddenly makes possession of the registered firearm illegal.
 
And I will still contend that if you are on the medical marijuana "list" and you are also on the FOID "list" that the day will come when it bites you in the backside. Anyone who believes IL is looking out for their rights is just in way over their head.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all counts.
 
Correct, sir. As a long time IL resident, I know how they operate. They want the tax revenue from the sale of marijuana, no doubt about it.

However, the way they were the last state to allow carrying legal and the way they fought it to the bitter end and the way they tried to make it nearly impossible to get one (initially) you can see that they (IL govt) will not do a single thing to make owning and carrying a gun in IL easy. They may be banking on the fact that federal law does not recognize the state's marijuana law and it will then turn it around onto the backs of FOID owners who use marijuana.

IL politics is so slimy that anyone who thinks it's smart to get a medicinal marijuana card while also carrying a FOID card is in for a big surprise. Remember, the govt in IL has very close ties to Obama and we all know his thoughts on gun rights. Obama is also the CEO of the federal govt. See any connection, IL residents?
 
Frank Ettin said:
So have you written you Congressional representatives?
Click to expand...

Does writing our federal representatives actually accomplish anything? Most of them are answered by a secretary, or auto-responder. And unless you're a prominent person, or part of a campaign of thousands hammering on the same message, will they really pay attention?

Perhaps a better way to get your concerns out would be sending letters to the editor of your local paper? Someone who votes might read it and change their mind, maybe even some businessman or local official.
 
monotonous_iterancy said:
Frank Ettin said:
So have you written you Congressional representatives?
Click to expand...

Does writing our federal representatives actually accomplish anything?...
Click to expand...
One letter, probably not. But I know most people in public office have staff keep track by subject of constituent letters received. When some number of letters show up on a given topic, he/she will start to get interested. A bunch of letters will suggest that his/her constituents care about a particular issue, and it therefore becomes important for him/her to care about it also.
 
Any list you are on is a bad list. That's why they make lists, so some day they can come to your house, and say, You're on the list, give me your guns.
 
Completely agree about the "lists" thing.

If you have an FOID and get a medical marijuana prescription, at SOME point it's going to bite you in the butt.

And I bet that is *exactly* what they are counting on.

Combined with the new IL "Surrender firearms on revoked FOID" law, you'd have 48 hours to surrender your guns and provide a full disposition inventory to the police, or face a SWAT raid.

No joke.
 
I think a better way of putting it is not that IL is proposing to allow pot heads to own guns but that the state just won't be worrying a whole lot about such use WRT firearms ownership.

The feds are still welcome to enforce federal law on this point.

Personally, I have wondered if the feds could conceivably charge state officials who are involved in regulating these activities with conspiracy to distribute. It certainly is not all that far off.
 
Really? Well thank you very much Illinois.

I too had no idea that this might be an issue.

These "mother may I?" governments really get tiresome.
 
In my opinion the Federal Govt. has absolutely no authority or reason to tell "we the people" what we can or cannot eat, drink or smoke any more than what type of firearms we may possess. Not legally or morally. In 1971 I took an oath to defend the Constitution and I have no intention of violating that oath like most of the politicians in Washington do every day.:fire:
 
monotonous_iterancy said:
Does writing our federal representatives actually accomplish anything? Most of them are answered by a secretary, or auto-responder. And unless you're a prominent person, or part of a campaign of thousands hammering on the same message, will they really pay attention?

Perhaps a better way to get your concerns out would be sending letters to the editor of your local paper? Someone who votes might read it and change their mind, maybe even some businessman or local official.
Click to expand...

So, people shouldn't write the representatives that that the people voted into office?

*scratches head*

That sounds like a defeatist attitude. Representatives can't represent unless the people tell them what to represent. If nobody steps up to the plate, then don't be surprised if the representatives aren't representing anybody's interests in particular. If lots of other people step up to the plate, then don't be surprised if the representatives are representing THEIR interests.

And certainly movements like writing letters to the editor may help influence others and get a movement going. Good idea. But never, ever, disparage writing any representative.
 
Feds will change their laws on marijuana just to get in on the cash bonanza. When was the last time you saw someone go on a rampage after smoking a joint? Never...

Decriminalize it, tax it, do that and you take control of the pot away from those who are smuggling it in.
 
What does smoking pot have to do with owning guns? Whether recreational, medicinal, or not smoking at all? I'm confused.
 
9thchild said:
What does smoking pot have to do with owning guns? Whether recreational, medicinal, or not smoking at all? I'm confused.
Click to expand...
Having a gun and/or ammunition and also using marijuana makes you eligible for up to five years in federal prison (plus a lifetime loss of gun rignts).

  1. Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC 801, et seq.), marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance which may not, therefore, be lawfully prescribed or used. Therefore, any user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is, under federal law, an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

  2. Under federal law, a person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance is prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition (18 USC 922(g)(3)). Therefore, anyone who is a user of marijuana, even if legal under state law, is a prohibited person and commits a federal felony by possessing a gun or ammunition.

  3. Federal law defines "unlawful user" as follows (27 CFR 478.11):
    Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.
    Click to expand...

  4. And in U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009) the Sixth Circuit found that (at 355):
    ...the regular use of a controlled substance either close in time to or contemporaneous with the period of time he possessed the firearm...
    Click to expand...
    would support conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3).

  5. Being a prohibited person in possession of a gun or ammunition is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine. And since it's a felony, conviction will result in a lifetime loss of gun rights.
 
9thchild said:
What does smoking pot have to do with owning guns? Whether recreational, medicinal, or not smoking at all? I'm confused.
Click to expand...
Actually - nothing. It is not illegal to own guns and smoke pot. It is, however, illegal to be in possession of the guns that you own if you are an active user.
 
It's a great step for general freedom and human rights but I can see where folks would be extremely hesitant to have both an FOID and a medical cannabis card in their names given the federal law and what still appears on a 4473 form. Hopefully laws change on a federal level very soon. With these grey areas causing shops in Denver to have to deal in large amounts of cash, it has certainly crossed my mind many times that the grey areas with having guns on those premises could make things even scarier for shop owners. The fact that people can be regular users of alcohol,opiates and SSRIs and it not affect their gun rights while cannabis use bars them leaves me absolutely speechless.
 
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Govt. may regulate what you eat drink or smoke (or what type of firearms you may possess, manufacture or sell or to collect taxes on your personal income. The Feds just gave themselves that authority without the permission of the people. And no one noticed.
 
Drail said:
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Govt. may regulate what you eat drink or smoke (or what type of firearms you may possess, manufacture or sell or to collect taxes on your personal income...
Click to expand...
The Constitution was amended to authorize the federal government to tax income (the Sixteenth Amendment). As to the other, the courts have expanded the Commerce Clause to support many such laws. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).You might not agree, but the Founding Fathers gave the federal courts the authority to make such decisions (Constitution, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ...​

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...​
Click to expand...

The opinions of courts on matters of law (including the interpretation and application of the Constitution) affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on such things don't matter.
 
Frank Ettin said:
The Constitution was amended to authorize the federal government to tax income (the Sixteenth Amendment). As to the other, the courts have expanded the Commerce Clause to support many such laws. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).You might not agree, but the Founding Fathers gave the federal courts the authority to make such decisions (Constitution, Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
​

The opinions of courts on matters of law (including the interpretation and application of the Constitution) affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on such things don't matter.
Click to expand...

As I think Thomas Jefferson said, and i paraphrase, the constitution is clay in the hands of the judiciary. The ways in which the commerce clause has been twisted are beyond belief.
 
joshk1025 said:
As I think Thomas Jefferson said, and i paraphrase, the constitution is clay in the hands of the judiciary. The ways in which the commerce clause has been twisted are beyond belief.
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, decisions in future cases will be built on the foundation laid in past cases.

And even we you and I can agree that the courts have permitted Congress to over-stretch the Commerce Clause, others do not agree. And when that disagreement leads to a justiciable dispute it will be up to the courts to resolve things. That's what courts do.

Whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests. There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the public Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.
 
As with all things, regulation breeds regulation. These people should not be forced to choose between treatment of their illness or possession of a weapon. If they exhibit behavior that otherwise would cause the 2A not to apply to them then fine, deny their rights, but until then it is no different than a person who drinks alcohol, takes a prescription antidepressant, or eats too much. They are all legal behaviors and as such the "shall not be infringed" should stand. Making calls on who is and is not fit to own opens us up to say that this group, that group, and others can't own. Pretty soon if you have a speeding ticket you wouldn't be able to own based on the premise that you were reckless with your car and are an unsafe member of society, and would be a danger to yourself or others if allowed to own. It's a slippery slope with a cliff on all sides. Shall not be infringed must be just that.
 
wally said:
If that is indeed the federal "loophole", I've never heard of it before. Does Washington or Colorado or California have such on-going "experiments"?

IF the loophole is real, then they are not illeagal users, and assuming they are not addicts, then there would be no perjury on the 4473 question.
Click to expand...
To my understanding there is only 5 medical marijuana users that are legal on a Federal level. The rest have died. Penn & Teller did a segment about one of them on their Showtime show "Bull****"
 
Field Tester said:
To my understanding there is only 5 medical marijuana users that are legal on a Federal level. The rest have died. Penn & Teller did a segment about one of them on their Showtime show "Bull****"
Click to expand...
BTW,
It was a sight to behold to see this guy toking up legally in front of the Capital Building. It was a great episode, I believe it was called "The War on Drugs". Must have been within the first 4 Seasons. I just re-rented from my library and am watching them all again.

Also it was stated earlier and many times before that the President has been pretty relaxed with Medical users. In fact he made such a statement during his campaign. However dispensaries have been raided here quite a few times in the past year. It's quite a sad sight to see Cancer patients going without their medicine.

I don't touch the stuff but I have a friend that does. He's quite possibly the brightest person I know. He's a Master Electrician and is always in full control of his faculties. He uses medicinally. One of his biggest fears was losing his rights.

So he had to go without his medicine for some time so, in his mind he didn't commit perjury on his 4473. I didn't ask how long he went because in my mind it's an arbitrary number. How long would the Government consider before you're lying on the form?
I certainly know he didn't want to be a test case.

The man had to go without his medicine. :banghead: :mad: :barf: :banghead:
 
Oh, the ongoing folly of Illinois not knowing how to mesh with the Federal Gov in subverting its own laws on a lark 'cause this administration feels like groooovin'.

While I don't believe its the government's right to tell the citizen what molecules she may or may not ingest, I do believe in the rule of law. The further down this 'nudge and wink' road we go without actually changing the applicable laws, the more of a joke we become as a society.

Besides, I'm bitter that Illinois decided that some citizens are more equal than others and prohibited medical pot for the 'lesser' ones who serve as LE, Firefighters, and EMT's----guess we settle for highly addictive pharma options when ill or injured. Until the Federal law is changed to allow RX pot, this is all just so much non-sense in my book.
People will be forced into living in a gray area where they are not sure if they retain firearm rights when using medical pot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Old Hobo
  • Locked
Medical cannabis + gun ownership = Fed felony
Replies
23
Views
1K
hso
hso
S
  • Locked
Medical Marijuana and Gun Ownership
Replies
11
Views
570
Jorg Nysgerrig
J
M
  • Locked
Med Marijuana Causes Denial Of CCW In WA State
Replies
3
Views
427
Robert
Robert
6
  • Locked
Medical Marijuana
Replies
11
Views
2K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Justin
  • Locked
Medical marijuana user regains handgun license
Replies
14
Views
834
Lone_Gunman
L
Back
Top