Quantcast
  1. Upgrade efforts paused for now. Thanks for your patience. More details in the thread in Tech Support for those who are interested.
    Dismiss Notice

Illinois proposes allowing medical pot users to keep guns

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by monotonous_iterancy, Apr 17, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,677
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    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.
     
  2. UpperAtmosphere

    UpperAtmosphere Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    207
    Location:
    Central IL
    Agreed on all counts.
     
  3. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,869
    Location:
    NC
    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?
     
  4. monotonous_iterancy

    monotonous_iterancy Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    894
    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.
     
  5. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,752
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    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.
     
  6. gym

    gym member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,901
    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.
     
  7. Trent

    Trent Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    25,151
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  8. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    21,029
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  9. ApacheCoTodd

    ApacheCoTodd member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Messages:
    8,609
    Location:
    Arizona
    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.
     
  10. Drail

    Drail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,419
    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:
     
  11. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    11,485
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    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.
     
  12. writerinmo

    writerinmo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    414
    Location:
    Missouri
    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.
     
  13. 9thchild

    9thchild Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Messages:
    240
    What does smoking pot have to do with owning guns? Whether recreational, medicinal, or not smoking at all? I'm confused.
     
  14. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,869
    Location:
    NC
    see form 4473
     
  15. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,752
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    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):

    4. And in U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009) the Sixth Circuit found that (at 355):
      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.
     
  16. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,677
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    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.
     
  17. sherman123

    sherman123 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    395
    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.
     
  18. Drail

    Drail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,419
    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.
     
  19. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,752
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    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.
     
  20. joshk1025

    joshk1025 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Messages:
    36
    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.
     
  21. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,752
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    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.
     
  22. WestKentucky

    WestKentucky Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2014
    Messages:
    12,281
    Location:
    Middle Tn
    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.
     
  23. Field Tester

    Field Tester Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,058
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    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****"
     
  24. Field Tester

    Field Tester Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,058
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    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:
     
  25. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,222
    Location:
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice