Sherriff denies CHL to medical marihuana user

[Katya Mullethov]

Oregon high court to decide concealed handgun/medical marijuana issue


Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters faces a showdown at the Oregon Supreme Court on March 3 with a local medical marijuana patient who was denied a concealed handgun permit.

The patient, Cynthia Willis, has allies in her fight for the permit, including Attorney General John Kroger and the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon.
But the county's attorney says the sheriff has federal law on his side.

The state Supreme Court will hear Willis' case, which has been combined with a similar case in Washington County, at the Willamette University College of Law in Salem at 10:30 a.m., March 3.
Winters denied Willis' gun permit in 2008, arguing that granting the permit would violate federal laws prohibiting drug users from legally possessing guns.

Willis so far has won every legal battle against Winters, with the Jackson County Circuit Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals siding with her last year.Willis volunteers with Patient Services, a nonprofit group that helps people obtain medical marijuana cards.

[Euromutt]

1. Oooh, this does raise some interesting questions

On the face of it, the sheriff's got a point: it's illegal under 18 USC §922 (g)(3) to possess a firearm if one is "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." Everyone who's filled out an ATF form 4473 is familiar with that particular question (question 11.e. http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf).

But here's the problem: as far I can make out, the Controlled Substances Act prohibits manufacturing, distributing, dispensing and possessing controlled substances, but it does not prohibit their use. To the best of my knowledge, the default drugs charge is possession. If so, then there is, under federal law, legally no such thing as an "unlawful user."

If there were, incidentally, that would make the aforementioned question 11.e. on the ATF form 4473 a flagrant violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

And if there is no such thing as an "unlawful user," you can't be one, and thus you can't be disqualified from possessing a firearm.

[SteveM]

2. I'm glad to see this portion of 4473 challenged in court!

Singling out "marijuana" in the NICS Form 4473 is a rather blatant method of grafting one prohibition onto another. Since the W.O.D. was nationalized, the Feds have tried to reach into every aspect of one's activities, including the exercise of their constitutionally-protected rights, even where the issue is local. I don't endorse this perverse scheme. The Feds have no business restricting one's rights based on essentially local statutes; they don't have that authority.

One of my gripes about the NRA is that they have murmured and side-stepped the 4473-pot connection, but then they are rather sheepish about going into court anyway.

Kudos to the ACLU and AG Kroger. It is telling that even when a state's AG is on the side of a citizen, that this kind of abuse continues. That is the way of prohibition: long on repression and animosity, short on civil liberties.