TexasCHLforum.com

RoyGBiv wrote:Oregon CHL is a State license
Medical MJ is a valid prescription in the same state.

State cannot take a valid license away if the only allegation is legal use of a prescription medicine.

That's my bet.,,., Any takers?

I'm with you on this one RGB, but I still think there would be a problem if one were under the influence or whose mental or physical abilities were impaired due to that substance and carrying a gun. I think it would be the same if I were popping prescribed hydrocodone pills for pain if I were carrying while under that influence.

considering the DEA frequently threatens land owners leasing their business space out to medical marijuana dispensaries.

This leads to another interesting question: Are state and local LEO's obligated to protect citizens from the feds when the feds accuse citizens of breaking federal laws deemed lawful within the state?

C-dub wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Oregon CHL is a State license
Medical MJ is a valid prescription in the same state.

State cannot take a valid license away if the only allegation is legal use of a prescription medicine.

That's my bet.,,., Any takers?

I'm with you on this one RGB, but I still think there would be a problem if one were under the influence or whose mental or physical abilities were impaired due to that substance and carrying a gun. I think it would be the same if I were popping prescribed hydrocodone pills for pain if I were carrying while under that influence.

For what its worth, I believe she said she didn't carry when under the influence.

That's good to know that she doesn't carry under the influence but the question still remains whether or not the term drug is being defined by the state or the federal government when purchasing a gun, if it is indeed the federal government I can see there being an issue.

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

considering the DEA frequently threatens land owners leasing their business space out to medical marijuana dispensaries.

This leads to another interesting question: Are state and local LEO's obligated to protect citizens from the feds when the feds accuse citizens of breaking federal laws deemed lawful within the state?

That is indeed an interesting issue, my guess would be no, especially there is no legal obligation for a LEO to protect or serve anyone... But it sure sounds good when you read it on the side of a car.

I wonder what George Washington did with his gun while smoking pot?

03Lightningrocks wrote:I wonder what George Washington did with his gun while smoking pot?

The 4473 asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Nobody is addicted to MJ. I ain't touched it in over 25 years, but the biggest doper I ever knew back then is a charter jet pilot now for walmart. I saw some English professor comment about this question and he said more or less, it's present tense, unless you have a fat boy hanging from your lips while you fill out the form it dont matter if you smoke now an then or even all the time, "are" means right now.

I know lots of people addicted to controlled substances, they're legal painkillers prescribed by doctors. I never heard of ATF going after someone with cancer or a bad back for saying "no" even though they really are addicted by the medical definition.

That as well depends on how one is going to define "addicted", people tend to alter their use of the word when considering something like heroin, and then comparing it to marijuana. They are going to make it to where only one definition of the word would be allowed, and I am positive they could prove that marijuana can cause addictive behavior.

Hell you can get a scientist to "prove" just about anything these days with enough money

Bullwhip wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I wonder what George Washington did with his gun while smoking pot?

The 4473 asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

Nobody is addicted to MJ. I ain't touched it in over 25 years, but the biggest doper I ever knew back then is a charter jet pilot now for walmart. I saw some English professor comment about this question and he said more or less, it's present tense, unless you have a fat boy hanging from your lips while you fill out the form it dont matter if you smoke now an then or even all the time, "are" means right now.

I know lots of people addicted to controlled substances, they're legal painkillers prescribed by doctors. I never heard of ATF going after someone with cancer or a bad back for saying "no" even though they really are addicted by the medical definition.

Cigarrettes?

"Controlled Substance" would not include tobacco. I'm sure the reference to controlled substance is tied to the Controlled Substance Act (& subsequent legislation).

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/802.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (6).

The term “controlled substance” means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Slowplay wrote:"Controlled Substance" would not include tobacco. I'm sure the reference to controlled substance is tied to the Controlled Substance Act (& subsequent legislation).

Although I think that, in addition to the federal law, some states have added additional substances to their own list.

The quote is...

any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance

If tobacco is either a depressant or a stimulant, the the "OR" clause above is true, regardless whether it's a controlled substance. Also, the precursor to that phrase is

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to,

So it would seem to me if you're addicted to tobacco, it would technically apply.

if it could be proved that it hindered your cognitive ability

sjfcontrol wrote:The quote is...

any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance

If tobacco is either a depressant or a stimulant, the the "OR" clause above is true, regardless whether it's a controlled substance. Also, the precursor to that phrase is

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to,

So it would seem to me if you're addicted to tobacco, it would technically apply.

One could argue the same for caffeine and coffee. Technically maybe, legally, no. Legal, is what is important.

jmoney wrote:if it could be proved that it hindered your cognitive ability

What if it improves it?