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

[rickt]

Guns or cannabis?

That's the choice facing some medical marijuana patients as the first legal cannabis dispensaries in Ohio begin to open.

Federal law prohibits gun purchases or the possession of firearms by illegal drug users or addicts.

Surely, that doesn't include registered medical marijuana patients in Ohio, does it?

Yup.

Federal law, which supersedes state statues, still classifies marijuana as an illegal Schedule 1 controlled substance.

Consequently, using or possessing marijuana and firearms at the same time is illegal, regardless of whether the state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes.

https://www.newarkadvocate.com/story/ne ... 068392002/

[M-Quigley]

From the article:

According to Thorp, his agency hasn't seen any issues arise, however if someone applying for their concealed carry permit says they've been prescribed medical marijuana, Thorp said the agency won't issue one to them.

The question is, since that question is not on the official license form, are the minions who run the Sheriff's department operation asking the question verbally?
If so, are they allowed to, and is a non answer grounds to not issue the license?

[DontTreadOnMe]

From the article:

According to Thorp, his agency hasn't seen any issues arise, however if someone applying for their concealed carry permit says they've been prescribed medical marijuana, Thorp said the agency won't issue one to them.

The question is, since that question is not on the official license form, are the minions who run the Sheriff's department operation asking the question verbally?
If so, are they allowed to, and is a non answer grounds to not issue the license?

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be allowed to ask every single applicant the question.
I don't know that a non-answer is grounds not to issue, but it's sure grounds to explain that having the license and owning firearms will (per the ATF) get them a federal charge of unlawful possession of firearms by a prohibited person, and probably also grounds to do a follow-up check of the state medical marijuana licensees to see if the person has in fact been issued one.

[bignflnut]

Find you a neighboring county sheriff. Right?
While there are some sheriffs in other states defending RKBA, there are other boot-lickers who will follow every jot and tittle the ATF lays down.

Immigration
RKBA
Marijuana
And Roe v Wade

These seem to be the issues that are being worked through in each county/State.

[JustaShooter]

From the article:

According to Thorp, his agency hasn't seen any issues arise, however if someone applying for their concealed carry permit says they've been prescribed medical marijuana, Thorp said the agency won't issue one to them.

The question is, since that question is not on the official license form, are the minions who run the Sheriff's department operation asking the question verbally?
If so, are they allowed to, and is a non answer grounds to not issue the license?

But it does ask the question:

Section III, Question 5: Are you prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm?

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?

If you are a medical marijuana user, both of those apply to you.

[ohiodff]

But being prescribed doesn't necessarily mean you use or possess. I'm not sure how they can enforce that in that regard. They should have to prove possession and/or use explicitly before denying.

[bignflnut]

Doesn't this prescription idea apply to Oxycontin, other opioids?
Why single out the ganga?

Here we go again with the debate on what defines sobriety and how sobriety and RKBA must never be separated.
Just like the "distracted driving" debate where all signs take away from focus on the road, sobriety has been so ill-defined that anything is a potential intoxicant when we run this idea to its logical conclusion.

[JediSkipdogg]

Doesn't this prescription idea apply to Oxycontin, other opioids?
Why single out the ganga?

Because one is illegal under federal law to use and possess regardless of reason and one you can legally possess and use with a valid prescription.

My wife wants to try CBD oil for a few things but since Ohio f'ed up and defined CBD oil in the same class as marijuana, it's illegal for her to do so and puts my job and such at risk. Yet I see nothing harmful or addictive about pure CBD oil, but alas, stupid Ohio.

[djthomas]

And by the way, nobody is actually prescribed medical marijuana ... or if you are, your doctor is going to jail soon. Some doctors will issue a recommendation for it pursuant to state law. Doctors who prescribe a schedule I substance risk having their DEA license revoked for prescribing outside the limits of their authorization.

A subtle distinction perhaps but an important one for as long as Congress sees fit to keep up its charade.

[bignflnut]

A subtle distinction perhaps but an important one for as long as Congress sees fit to keep up its charade.

Forgive me if I'm off here, not knowing the ins and outs of MEDICAL CUSH, but I thought we were specifically addressing those who had some prescription for MEDICAL GRASS - given the title of the OP.

It seems to me that if a State allows a substance banned by the feds to be prescribed, the citizen cannot win. Perhaps that's the point of all of this, another legal pretzel intended to ensnare the law abiding gun owner. However, if the CHL is being issued by a County employee, it would seem the contradiction in State / Federal Law would be up to the County/Sheriff to adjudicate in his policies (hence the ability to vote out or apply at neighboring county office)

============================================================================================

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?

That's just an opportunity for self-incrimination, is it not? Directly opposed to the 5th Amendment? How many Yes responses have they ever gotten there?

Again, are you addicted to the stimulant caffeine?

look up the US CODE link...anything and everything applies there, but the script takes it to the legal realm, doesn't it?

[JustaShooter]

the script takes it to the legal realm, doesn't it?

Not under Federal law for Schedule 1 drugs. According to federal law, no prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances.

You may use marijuana for medical purposes as *recommended* by your doctor, and may have a medical marijuana card that keeps the local gendarme from arresting you for its possession, but you do not have a prescription for it, and it remains illegal under federal law to possess or use.

[bignflnut]

Again, the citizen is in Licking County, right?
The story is about a state CHL, yes?

What does federal law have to do with the conversation, particularly if State law is in direct conflict with it?

Have you heard about the Kettler Case?

[djthomas]

In the context of getting an Ohio CHL while it's true the sheriff is the final authority on issuing a CHL, Ohio law is very clear, e.g. ORC 2923.125 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."

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.

[JustaShooter]

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.

[bignflnut]

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.

Which takes us back to the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates being exercised in the state of Washington and elsewhere: Sheriffs are upholding the concept of "...shall not be infringed" in the face of recent bills being passed.

If the power to issue in vested in the Sheriff...that's where it is, no? Let the State/Feds come against the Sheriff 's vested authority.

The entire point of Representative Republic is that the local authority can interpose against the schemes of the far off tyrant.

Printz may also apply.

Of course, IANAL.
Kettler will be interesting