Licking County won't issue CHLs to med. marijuana users

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Licking County won't issue CHLs to med. marijuana users

Post by bignflnut »

JustaShooter wrote:
bignflnut wrote:Again, are you addicted to the stimulant caffeine?
Caffeine is not considered a stimulant under 21 U.S. Code § 802. so its use or your addiction to it is not applicable.
Let's try this again:

Section IV, Question 4: Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug,











or any other controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802?


I'm not asserting that caffeine is a controlled substance in 21 USC 802. As a layman, non-lawyer, I'm asserting caffeine is any stimulant and that an addiction to caffeine or other "any stimulant" would disqualify the citizen, IRregardless of it's status on 21USC802
Last edited by bignflnut on Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: Licking County won't issue CHLs to med. marijuana users

Post by djthomas »

Let's see...

Ohio sheriffs are not constitutional officers. That is, the office of sheriff exists only at the pleasure of the Ohio General Assembly having passed statutes creating them. As such they have only the powers and duties given to them by the General Assembly.

Ohio CHLs are also creatures of statute, they only exist because the Ohio General Assembly says they do. The General Assembly has granted sheriffs the authority to issue CHLs on behalf of the state under certain conditions, one of those being that the person is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law.

Sheriffs take an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States, and the constitution and laws of the State of Ohio. There is no state or federal constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon, and by extension, to have a CHL. Federal law is silent on the matter. All there is is a state law saying that the sheriff shall issue a CHL under certain conditions, one of which is that the sheriff follow federal law in certain respects. For all intents and purposes those federal disqualifiers have been adopted as part of state law with respect to obtaining a CHL.

Under your theory a sheriff would be justified in ignoring a clear command from the very body that grants his authority to exist. Fine ... but what would your opinion be if all 88 sheriffs in Ohio said we fundamentally disagree with the idea of allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons, therefore we are going to refuse to issue any CHLs?

In any event, I'm about tapped out. G'nite all.
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Licking County won't issue CHLs to med. marijuana users

Post by bignflnut »

djthomas wrote:Let's see...

Ohio sheriffs are not constitutional officers. That is, the office of sheriff exists only at the pleasure of the Ohio General Assembly having passed statutes creating them. As such they have only the powers and duties given to them by the General Assembly.

Under your theory a sheriff would be justified in ignoring a clear command from the very body that grants his authority to exist. Fine ... but what would your opinion be if all 88 sheriffs in Ohio said we fundamentally disagree with the idea of allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons, therefore we are going to refuse to issue any CHLs?

In any event, I'm about tapped out. G'nite all.
If they were standing for our RKBA, I'm in! Justice is what I'm looking for, not simple parchment + ink.
I am astonished at this action and disappointed that our governor has no seeming knowledge or understanding of our U.S. Constitution, and our right to carry without infringement from government of any type,” Keller said. “I’m asking all county sheriffs to completely ignore this executive order. Executive orders are not a law-making tool. We have an un-infringed right to carry. Executive orders are not a tool to make law. It is only tool to enforce the existing law. That is why it’s called an executive order.”
The Sheriff was originally an Ohio Constitutional office. Agreed, it is not today, but the history of this office and function is undeniable in American Legal History. (beautiful slight of hand erasing them from the Constitution in the 1800s)
ARTICLE VI. OF CIVIL OFFICERS.

section 1. There shall be elected in each county one sheriff and one coroner by the citizens therof who are qualified to vote for members of the assembly; they shall be elected at the time and place of holding elections for members of assembly; they shall continue in office two years, if they shall so long behave well, and until successors be chosen and duly qualified; provided, that no person shall be eligible as sheriff for longer term than four years in any term of six years.

sec 2. The State Treasurer and Auditor shall be triennially appointed by a joint ballot of both Houses of the Legislature.

sec 3. All town and township officers shall be chosen annually by the inhabitants thereof duly qualified to vote for members of Assembly, at such time and place as may be directed by law.

sec 4. The appointments of all civil officers, not otherwise directed by this constitution, shall be made in such manner as may be directed by law.
Ironic that I'm here defending a LEO office and others are decrying it as a simple rubber stamp of the legislature.
Last edited by bignflnut on Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Licking County won't issue CHLs to med. marijuana users

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

bignflnut wrote:I'm not asserting that caffeine is a controlled substance in 21 USC 802. As a layman, non-lawyer, I'm asserting caffeine is any stimulant and that an addiction to caffeine or other "any stimulant" would disqualify the citizen, IRregardless of it's status on 21USC802
That's a fair point, but it's a theoretical problem unless a person is actually diagnosed as having an addiction to caffeine. I myself was a heavy drinker of caffeinated beverages for years. Decades actually. I probably had caffeine in my system most of the time. Recently I've quit caffeine almost completely. I go several days, even a week, without having any at all. When I switched from caffeinated to non-caffeinated beverages I never experienced headaches or other supposed withdrawal symptoms.

So, while you're technically correct the reality is it doesn't matter because there's no practical way for caffeine addiction to be proven. By the ATF's guidance someone has proven being an unlawful user of marijuana by getting a medical marijuana license, and the ATF's guidance is the one that local law enforcement is going to follow in terms of interpreting the federal form.
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: Licking County won't issue CHLs to med. marijuana users

Post by JustaShooter »

bignflnut wrote:
JustaShooter wrote:
bignflnut wrote:Again, are you addicted to the stimulant caffeine?
Caffeine is not considered a stimulant under 21 U.S. Code § 802. so its use or your addiction to it is not applicable.
Let's try this again:

Section IV, Question 4: Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug,
or any other controlled substance as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802?
I'm not asserting that caffeine is a controlled substance in 21 USC 802. As a layman, non-lawyer, I'm asserting caffeine is any stimulant and that an addiction to caffeine or other "any stimulant" would disqualify the citizen, IRregardless of it's status on 21USC802
And I'm saying you are parsing it incorrectly. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless. But since it serves your purposes...
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
M-Quigley
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Licking County won't issue CHLs to med. marijuana users

Post by M-Quigley »

On the one hand, the article says
Shelby County Sheriff also encouraged those with concealed carry and medical marijuana permits to be cautious.

"If I had a concealed carry (weapons permit) and medical marijuana, I would be very careful,'' said Shelby County Sheriff John Lenhart, who sits on Ohio's medical marijuana advisory committee. “I think citizens need to know there’s a possibility of getting into harm’s way.''

Most medical marijuana patients are unlikely to face charges for simply owning a gun and keeping it in their home, Lenhart said.
however
But he advised those patients applying to purchase firearms or carry concealed handguns to tread carefully.
and
Form 4473 used by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for background checks on firearm purchasers - carries a warning that medical marijuana is still considered federally illegal, without exception.

But the Ohio application for a license to carry a concealed handgun does not.
Is this going to be a case of don't ask don't tell for some counties?
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: Licking County won't issue CHLs to med. marijuana users

Post by WhyNot »

Is this going to be a case of don't ask don't tell for some counties?
My best guess is about 87 of them :P
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
bignflnut
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 8135
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Under Naybob Tinfoil Bridge
Contact:

Re: Licking County won't issue CHLs to med. marijuana users

Post by bignflnut »

djthomas wrote: Emphasis mine. So the sheriff is actually obligated to follow the list of federal disqualifiers, and that includes what the feds consider to be unlawful drug use.
In Printz, Justice Scalia reinforced that concept. “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program,” Scalia said. “Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
2923.125 Application and licensing process
It is the intent of the general assembly that Ohio concealed handgun license law be compliant with the national instant criminal background check system, that the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives is able to determine that Ohio law is compliant with the national instant criminal background check system, and that no person shall be eligible to receive a concealed handgun license permit under section 2923.125 or 2923.1213 of the Revised Code unless the person is eligible lawfully to receive or possess a firearm in the United States.
This is fine, as far as intent goes, but it does not bind the Sheriff "to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program". If the Sheriff finds the feds (or the state) out of line, he has a duty to interpose. Otherwise, he betrays his oath.
“It’s not that we don’t have enough scoundrels to curse; it’s that we don’t have enough good men to curse them.”–G.K. Chesterton-Illustrated London News, 3-14-1908

Republicans.Hate.You. See2020.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams to Mass Militia 10-11-1798
User avatar
DontTreadOnMe
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1750
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 11:11 am
Location: SW Ohio

Re: Licking County won't issue CHLs to med. marijuana users

Post by DontTreadOnMe »

But in this case our state has chosen to do so. We're administering/participating in a federal program - namely the NICS background check - as part of our state's CHL application process.

The Scalia quote you reference isn't on point because you're suggesting that we get to pick and choose - we get to participate in the federal program but ignore guidelines issued by the agency that administers that program. You're trying to have it both ways - to get the benefit of the federal program (nics check on chl means no need to do that on every firearms purchase) while ignoring the ramifications of the program you don't like.
Post Reply