Misdemeanor Marijuana Possession = No Guns in Ohio [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Misdemeanor Marijuana Possession = No Guns in Ohio


Donn57
07-25-2011, 09:43
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/can-a-minor-offense-eliminate-your-right-to-bear-arms/

This kind of sucks.

Angry Fist
07-25-2011, 09:59
It's only weed, man.

amazon
07-25-2011, 10:24
Just like MA.

Gunnut 45/454
07-25-2011, 11:43
Well what do you want- to smoke MJ or be able to own firearms? Life is about choices! If getting stoned is more important to you give up your guns! Just like if drinking is more important to you then you don't drive or you get busted for DUI! It is still illegal in most states! Just cause you make it legal doesn't mean it makse it alright to do! Look at Komifornia - they are now searching for a way to charge drivers for being under the influence of MJ an driving as the stoners are killing a bunch of people now since they like to drive stoned! Also don't forget that little form you sign when buying a gun- Asks are you a habitual user! So if you use MJ regularly then you are a Habitual user!:rofl:

Jerry
07-25-2011, 12:36
In Louisiana you must swear you don’t do drugs, including weed, to qualify for CCW. If you are convicted of drug possession you lose your CCW. Whether weed should be legalized is open to debate. However if one is convicted of DWI they looses their CCW also so at least the law is consistent. If you are arrested you must surrender your CCW pending the outcome.

scorpio2011
07-25-2011, 17:39
same in minnesota

Angry Fist
07-25-2011, 18:08
In Louisiana you must swear you donít do drugs, including weed, to qualify for CCW. If you are convicted of drug possession you lose your CCW. Whether weed should be legalized is open to debate. However if one is convicted of DWI they looses their CCW also so at least the law is consistent. If you are arrested you must surrender your CCW pending the outcome.
I think you can have up to 2 DUI's in MO before they take your CCW. Makes no sense.

PawDog
07-25-2011, 18:56
No one wants to deal with known armed drunks or dopers........

alexanderg23
07-25-2011, 19:01
It's a federal law too, arrested for MJ can't buy guns for a year. Or at least not through a FFL.

MedicOni
07-25-2011, 19:02
I hope that the state says one DUI and lose firearm rights. Otherwise it's stupid.

glockeglock
07-25-2011, 21:02
.....

Brucev
07-26-2011, 09:46
To put the entire matter in perspective, up conviction of perjury let politicians be stripped of office and barred from ever again serving in elective office or lobbying, etc. anyone or any company doing business with any level of government. Strip them of their right to vote. Strip them of their right to speak in public on any political, social or legislative issue. If a misdemeanor conviction for marijuana or alcohol is sufficient to strip you of your 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights, then why should anyone's Constitutional rights even those of politicians be considered beyond touch?

Donn57
07-26-2011, 11:28
Well what do you want- to smoke MJ or be able to own firearms? Life is about choices! If getting stoned is more important to you give up your guns! Just like if drinking is more important to you then you don't drive or you get busted for DUI! It is still illegal in most states! Just cause you make it legal doesn't mean it makse it alright to do! Look at Komifornia - they are now searching for a way to charge drivers for being under the influence of MJ an driving as the stoners are killing a bunch of people now since they like to drive stoned! Also don't forget that little form you sign when buying a gun- Asks are you a habitual user! So if you use MJ regularly then you are a Habitual user!:rofl:

Well, the only problem I see with your argument is that a misdemeanor possession charge five years ago is not proof that he currently smokes marijuana. Many folks smoked a little weed in their misspent youth. Doesn't mean they still do.

Your analogy about DUI doesn't really make sense either. Getting a DUI may prevent one from receiving a CCW in some states, but it doesn't make one ineligible to own a gun - that is generally reserved for convicted felons.

And the Form 4473 says nothing about habitual use.

Donn57
07-26-2011, 11:36
It's a federal law too, arrested for MJ can't buy guns for a year. Or at least not through a FFL.

Can you cite the source for this? There is no question that indicates such a restriction on the Form 4473.

Donn57
07-26-2011, 11:40
In Louisiana you must swear you donít do drugs, including weed, to qualify for CCW. If you are convicted of drug possession you lose your CCW. Whether weed should be legalized is open to debate. However if one is convicted of DWI they looses their CCW also so at least the law is consistent. If you are arrested you must surrender your CCW pending the outcome.

There is a rather large difference between being denied a CCW or having a CCW revoked and being charged with felony possession of a gun after having gone through the proper steps to obtain one.

Jerry
07-26-2011, 12:19
I hope that the state says one DUI and lose firearm rights. Otherwise it's stupid.



That I cannot agree with. Which other Constitutional right would one loose? Somewhere along the line people and the government lost the reality that the Constitution EXPRESSLY FORBIDS the government from taking people’s unalienable rights. Should people be punished for their transgressions? Yes! But rights of free men should be off-limits.

There is a rather large difference between being denied a CCW or having a CCW revoked and being charged with felony possession of a gun after having gone through the proper steps to obtain one.

I don’t disagree with that. That’s underhanded and should be criminal. But then we are talking about Ohio.

The point of my original post was that one looses the “privilege” if convicted.

One loses the “privilege” if arrested but regains it if acquitted. I understand the reasoning behind such a law but it FLIES in the FACE of INNOCENT until proven guilty

Gunnut 45/454
07-26-2011, 12:26
Don57
You are wrong sir look at this link to the form you will plainly see Question E. Yes it doesn't say Habitual user - it states USER so that means ANY USE! Answering yes means denial of purchase!

http://ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/ATF-FORM-4473-pg1bg.gif

:whistling:

glockeglock
07-26-2011, 14:25
.....

Gunnut 45/454
07-27-2011, 11:16
glockeglock
You just go with that when your put in prison I'm sure that will work real well for you! I don't think a judge will except that as an excuse for not following a law! Also making a false statement IE check NO on that form could net you a felony charge if you needed to check YES! If you smoke MJ it has to be a yes answer!:whistling:

glockeglock
07-27-2011, 11:36
.....

Bren
07-29-2011, 11:46
Can you cite the source for this? There is no question that indicates such a restriction on the Form 4473.

Yes, there is:
"e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled
substance?"
Under 18 USC ß 922(g):
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person--
* * *
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); * * *
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

One loses the “privilege” if arrested but regains it if acquitted. I understand the reasoning behind such a law but it FLIES in the FACE of INNOCENT until proven guilty

Innocent until proven guilty is a principle courts and juries are supposed to follow at trial, if a case gets that far. There are many rights you can lose by being arrested - the right not to be locked up in jail by the government, for instance.

Gunnut 45/454
07-29-2011, 12:22
glockeglock
So you think you have the right to be stoned while carring a firearm? Do you think being drunk or stoned is OK while exersising the right to carry /own firearms? Yea in a perfect world you'd have no restrictions at all but last I seen this world isn't perfect!

PawDog
07-29-2011, 15:12
glockeglock
So you think you have the right to be stoned while carring a firearm? Do you think being drunk or stoned is OK while exersising the right to carry /own firearms? Yea in a perfect world you'd have no restrictions at all but last I seen this world isn't perfect!

Some folks feel it's their Constitutional right to smoke dope, and stay high or drunk.....Guess I missed that part in the Constitution. :upeyes:

Personally, I don't want to be around drunks or stoners who are handling firearms.

Gunnut 45/454
07-29-2011, 15:27
PawDog
Agreed I have no problem with people drinking just not carring at the same time! You want to drink/smoke MJ go ahead -just don't put Firearms into the mix! But we all know that common sense is the first thing you loose when you do either -smoke or drink!:whistling:

NEOH212
08-01-2011, 00:41
No one wants to deal with known armed drunks or dopers........

+1 :perfect10:

Hyksos
08-03-2011, 18:40
Petition the Supreme Court of Ohio with a writ of certiorari and hope the Supreme Court sides with gun owners on this. Otherwise, there will be sections of Ohio where the precedent is that weed possession = no guns. It's not binding nationwide, and it surely hasn't passed Supreme Court of Ohio constitutional muster.

Davegrave
08-03-2011, 18:58
Some folks feel it's their Constitutional right to smoke dope, and stay high or drunk.....Guess I missed that part in the Constitution. :upeyes:

Personally, I don't want to be around drunks or stoners who are handling firearms.

The Constitution doesn't "grant" rights. It just protects them. Not everything that a person (should) have the right to do is spelled out in the constitution.
I think it is a god given, natural right for a person to put whatever they want into their own body. Now, if what they put into their body causes them to commit some other crime or act harmful to another...then there should be repercussions. But I don't know where anyone gets off telling another person what he can't put in his body, be it a drug, a bullet, or a dong...it's no one else's business.

PawDog
08-03-2011, 20:31
The Constitution doesn't "grant" rights. It just protects them. Not everything that a person (should) have the right to do is spelled out in the constitution.
I think it is a god given, natural right for a person to put whatever they want into their own body. Now, if what they put into their body causes them to commit some other crime or act harmful to another...then there should be repercussions. But I don't know where anyone gets off telling another person what he can't put in his body, be it a drug, a bullet, or a dong...it's no one else's business.

You're completely off the mark.....I never made any comment or implied the Constitution "granted" rights. :upeyes: If someone wants to blow their brains out, sniff glue, smoke weed, mainline heroin, drink rubbing alcohol, that's their choice, it doesn't change my life, and they're free to do as they want.

But, if they're handling firearms or driving a car stoned, high, or drunk out of their mind, then it becomes an issue with me and can impact my life when they negligently discharge a firearm or cause a wreck while stoned.

And there are many stoners and reefer brains out there who will wrongly tell you it's their Constitutional "right" to smoke weed. I've seen some of them post on GT in the past.

Davegrave
08-03-2011, 20:46
You're completely off the mark.....I never made any comment or implied the Constitution "granted" rights. :upeyes: If someone wants to blow their brains out, sniff glue, smoke weed, mainline heroin, drink rubbing alcohol, that's their choice, it doesn't change my life, and they're free to do as they want.

But, if they're handling firearms or driving a car stoned, high, or drunk out of their mind, then it becomes an issue with me and can impact my life when they negligently discharge a firearm or cause a wreck while stoned.

And there are many stoners and reefer brains out there who will wrongly tell you it's their Constitutional "right" to smoke weed. I've seen some of them post on GT in the past.

I never said I wanted drunk or high people carrying guns high or driving high or drunk. I've never smoked pot. But in the 7 or 8 years I've had my carry permit I've been drunk a handfull of times. Maybe 5? I didn't cause any trouble or go out driving or with my gun. I think people should have the same choice to enjoy pot responsibly. If they don't use it irresponsibly then it shouldn't be a reason to remove their right to self defense.

And you can keep your upeyes. I just disagreed with you. I wasn't rude or insulting.

You pointed out that there's no Constitutional right to smoke weed. I was just pointing out that just because it isn't enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't or shouldn't exist. I know now that you knew that. You'd be surprised at how many don't.