Ohio bans right to bear arms for misdemeanor crimes of drug possession

[Juggalo Reign]

You heard it right. If your an ohio resident, I hope you never got caught smoking pot when you were 18.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/can-a-minor-offense-eliminate-your-right-to-bear-arms/

 

[leadcounsel]

I've often said that the "war on drugs" has and will be the worst enemy of the 2nd Amendment.

Prohibition to the various gun control acts to the AWB of 1994 to these types of rulings.

Vote in favor of legalization -

 

[JDBoardman]

Ohio bans right to bare arms for misdomeaner crimes of drug possession

Does this mean that if you get busted for pot use/possession, you must thereafter wear long sleeve shirts or a jacket?

 

[henschman]

Unbelievable. It is already going too far to broadly prohibit all felons from owning guns IMO... but to ban people from owning guns for life for a misdemeanor? Especially drug possession?! There is absolutely nothing about that offense, by itself, that makes a person a danger to the rights and liberties of others.

This is just inviting people to break the law. Whether the law recognizes it or not, people DO recognize that they have a right to live, and they like their life a lot more than they fear any government. So whether somebody was busted for pot in the past or not, if they are a rational person, they WILL acquire the means to defend their own life... and I fully support it. I would definitely disobey that law if I were in that situation too.

My life is a lot more important than a bunch of do-gooder politicians demagoguing with their idiotic anti-drug platforms.

 

[Juggalo Reign]

Ohio bans right to bare arms for misdomeaner crimes of drug possession

Does this mean that if you get busted for pot use/possession, you must thereafter wear long sleeve shirts or a jacket?

Yes! Mandatory long sleeve tshirts to every US citizen effective immediately. lol. What makes this so ridiculous though is the fact that the court said they can pass law to bar ownership for a conviction of ANY crime. 26mph in a 25mph? Your too dangerous to own a firearm, your not even responsible enough to obey the speed limit. How can you be trusted to own a gun? I for one am grateful that we have such an amazing government that can put these laws in place to protect us defenseless citizens. Next thing these pro gun nuts will want to be able to buy military assault weapons like ak47's. Good thing those are illegal, am I right? :sarcasm:

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I think that the only people that shouldn't own guns are violent felons and repeat offenders. I think that a 5 year probation of good behavior and proving that someone has turned their life around would grant any other felon their rights back.

Is this just in Ohio so someone could move to another state and get their rights back?

 

[Bobson]

Deleted.

 

[henschman]

Is this just in Ohio so someone could move to another state and get their rights back?

Yes, this law could only be enforced in Ohio.

 

[Ryanxia]

Let's hope other States don't try to follow suit. I don't like drugs in the least but this is ridiculous. Next it will be speeding tickets and bad credit (which was trying to get passed at one point in NYC I think) and you lose your right to defend your life.

 

[Malachi Leviticus Blue]

Maybe voters in Ohio will pay a little more attention to who they vote for and who is being appointed this November.

 

[armoredman]

Since the 2A has been affirmed as a fundamental individual right in SCOTUS, and applicable to the states, I could see a court challenge rocking this Ohio court back on their heels in dismay. They might discover the law doesn't survive.

 

[tyeo098]

I guess its better than the alternative:

 

[Claymore1500]

Here is the passage from the law in question:

(3) The person is under indictment for or has been convicted of any felony offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse.

Honestly, I'm not seeing the same thing the report is claiming.

 

[krupparms]

This law will not hold up in court. The Sheriff in Jackson Co.here in Oregon just wasted $500,000 to take a case to U.S.SUPREME COURT against a women that had MEDICAL MARIJUANA PERMIT! She had applied for a CC PERMIT. All of the lower courts upheld her right to carry concealed or openly. The Supreme Court refused to hear case, said lower courts were right. She has the RIGHT TO CARRY A GUN even though she has Med. M.J.permit. This is a huge victory for 2Amendment rights. Backdoor gun control needs to be stopped at all cost! I would think that a leagle challenge in court will deal with it from now on!! Good luck Ohio!

 

[Onward Allusion]

I'm not quite understanding this. He was convicted of a misdemeanor in 2006 and then the DA filed charges against him for felony gun possession. Did this law exist in 2006? Otherwise, did the DA file charges against P. Stone after the amendment was passed during the 129th session?

 

[Claymore1500]

Near as I can tell, from what I just read, (I don't follow marijuana laws because I don't mess with marijuana) He was convicted of a minor misdemeanor, which is possession of 100 grams or less, it takes 201 grams or more to constitute a felony, the revised code as quoted by me above, calls for a felony conviction.

I think that someone may have their facts wrong, or the D.A. is over stepping his powers.

 

[Sevenfaces]

Unbelievable. It is already going too far to broadly prohibit all felons from owning guns IMO... but to ban people from owning guns for life for a misdemeanor? Especially drug possession?! There is absolutely nothing about that offense, by itself, that makes a person a danger to the rights and liberties of others.

This is just inviting people to break the law. Whether the law recognizes it or not, people DO recognize that they have a right to live, and they like their life a lot more than they fear any government. So whether somebody was busted for pot in the past or not, if they are a rational person, they WILL acquire the means to defend their own life... and I fully support it. I would definitely disobey that law if I were in that situation too.

My life is a lot more important than a bunch of do-gooder politicians demagoguing with their idiotic anti-drug platforms.

I don't object to restricting convicted Felons from legally owning firearms, particularly violent felons. I'm aware that the criminal has no regard for laws, including ones about them possessing firearms, but I'm sure there are some felons who out of fear of legal retribution, avoid being near firearms which might be construed as in their possession.

As far as for misdemeanor charges, especially non-violent ones, I think that is a bit much. I could understand a law that is more severe if a firearm is found in your possession during a criminal act, but thats a far cry from what they've deemed law.

 

[bigfatdave]

but I'm sure there are some felons who out of fear of legal retribution, avoid being near firearms which might be construed as in their possession.

do you think they worry about that while committing violent felonies?

 

[Art Eatman]

According to the article in the link of the opening post: "Specifically, Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13 prohibits gun possession by any person who “has been convicted of any offense involving the illegal possession … in any drug of abuse.”

"...convicted of any offense..." seems to be the operative phrase. Stupid and cruel, but there it is.

 

[armoredman]

The deal about the marijuana card is that line in the 4473 that says "are you and unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or other..." Since marijuana is an illegal drug according to federal law, the body that unconstitutionally controls FFL firearm sales, then they can/will deny sales based on your admittance, with a card giving you medical weed, to be an unlawful user of pot, according to federal law. That will play out in the courts poorly, my guess.

 

[Birch Knoll]

According to the article in the link of the opening post: "Specifically, Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13 prohibits gun possession by any person who “has been convicted of any offense involving the illegal possession … in any drug of abuse.”

But that's not what it says. It says:

2923.13 Having weapons while under disability.

(A) Unless relieved from disability as provided in section 2923.14 of the Revised Code, no person shall knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use any firearm or dangerous ordnance, if any of the following apply:
(1) The person is a fugitive from justice.
(2) The person is under indictment for or has been convicted of any felony offense of violence or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense of violence.
(3) The person is under indictment for or has been convicted of any felony offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for the commission of an offense that, if committed by an adult, would have been a felony offense involving the illegal possession, use, sale, administration, distribution, or trafficking in any drug of abuse.
(4) The person is drug dependent, in danger of drug dependence, or a chronic alcoholic.
(5) The person is under adjudication of mental incompetence, has been adjudicated as a mental defective, has been committed to a mental institution, has been found by a court to be a mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order, or is an involuntary patient other than one who is a patient only for purposes of observation. As used in this division, “mentally ill person subject to hospitalization by court order” and “patient” have the same meanings as in section 5122.01 of the Revised Code.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of having weapons while under disability, a felony of the third degree.

Gotta be a felony.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Since the 2A has been affirmed as a fundamental individual right in SCOTUS, and applicable to the states, I could see a court challenge rocking this Ohio court back on their heels in dismay. They might discover the law doesn't survive.

Wrong, misdemeanor domestic violence divests you of your 2nd Amendment rights forever.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Name one other right enumerated in the first ten amendments that you lose forever over a victimless misdemeanor. In fact there are NO OTHER constitutional rights that you lose for any reason. Even convicted murders do not lose their constitutional rights.

 

[Guns4Fun]

Interesting point you bring up about DV. One can in most if not all states request that their prior DV conviction be expunged, thereby restoring one's gun rights. In the State of Washington, however, the expungement process does not fully satisfy Federal standards of expungement, and so in Washington, if one is to get their rights to gun ownership restored in the State, they're still illegally possessing a gun under Federal statute.

The obvious consequence to this is that when the person who's got an expunged DV conviction in Washington State commits a crime investigated and charged by the Federal government, the Feds can and will prosecute with enhanced charges resulting in more severe punishment.

 

[Juggalo Reign]

Name one other right enumerated in the first ten amendments that you lose forever over a victimless misdemeanor. In fact there are NO OTHER constitutional rights that you lose for any reason. Even convicted murders do not lose their constitutional rights.

Actually, with the passing of the patriot act you have lost your freedom of speech, unlawful searches and seizures, and right to form and maintain a well regulated militia (as an group whom opposes and promotes propaganda against the government is a terrorist). Also with the recent passing of the NDAA you no longer have a right to due process. Now its only a matter of time before congress passes the anti piracy laws and sites like these will not exist. Don't believe me? How many links do you think are in these forums that show other companies products? Gun reviews, ammo comparisons. So lets recap. You as an American citizen NO longer have the right to: Speech, privacy, protection from searches, a trial by jury, and soon the right to BEAR arms and a fair media. And if you say that's not right or try to change it by force, you are going against the American government, and if you do not support your government, your are a terrorist. Welcome to 1944 Germany my friends. Heil America!