Medical Marijauna and 2nd amendment rights

[indyblue]

Here's the kicker. DOH!

Wilson said she was not a marijuana user, but obtained the card in part as an expression of support for marijuana legalization

I see. So just because I got an LTCH I MUST necessarily own a gun?

 

[seedubs1]

 

[Bill of Rights]

I know this is true under IN law, not sure about other states or at federal level, but I can't imagine it would not be similar; Unless one is intoxicated without their knowledge or intent, actions committed while in that condition are still the responsibility of the person committing them. Which is to say, if someone gave me some drug that impaired my ability to reason without my knowledge or consent, and in that state of mind, I drew my firearm to shoot at the hallucination I was seeing, neither the state nor the hypothetical person hit by that flying bullet could fault me for the action I'd performed while in fear for my life.

Conversely, if Tim Leary voluntarily got himself drunk or stoned or dropped a hit of acid, he would have no defense appertaining to his consumption or use of those substances. Even if he saw the same hallucination I referenced for myself, above (and I'm thinking of, say, a zombie horde ambling toward me or some such) I would be able to say that I was in fear for my life. He might have the same fear, but it would be a result of his own actions, over which he had control.

As ATM suggested, they're not more deader because of what was in the body of the person firing that firearm. The question comes back to whose responsibility it was that that substance was there.

The tl;dr is that they're already responsible, just as you and I are.

Given that people are already subject to the penalties in place, and the problem still exists, that either means that your premise ("if the penalty...is equal to the damage they do to others it will become self-controlling.") is flawed, or that the penalty is not equal to the damage done. Personally, I think it's both. The penalties in place, such as a long incarceration, are what some people seek, removing the deterrence factor, and in other cases, they don't think they'll be caught. For most of us, you're correct, that the penalty is not something we want to pay, but let's be honest:
Good people don't need laws to BE good people; they are so not out of fear of consequences, but because their actions and behavior are those of good people.

Blessings,
Bill

I agree on the 'shall not be infringed' ring...however I also think their MJ 'card' should not infringe on my safety. Make it legal but make them responsible for the damage they do. If the penalty for their lack of control is equal to the damage they do to others it will become self controlling. If it's just a slap on the wrist for killing/maiming others then it is not a balanced or orderly freedom.

 

[Jludo]

I see. So just because I got an LTCH I MUST necessarily own a gun?

Not only that but you must use it.

 

[indiucky]

I'd much prefer meet a baked driver than a drunk driver on the road.
Can pilots have a drink on their off time?

I'll keep this short...

Wife and daughter were leaving Culvers the other day about 6 pm...They exited off of 65 and while on the exit ramp to get on 31 they saw a nice jeep Cherokee not slow down at all and rear end another car...The driver of the jeep stumbled out and collapsed on the road...The wife got out, checked on the female driver and told her to call 911...She then headed back to help the driver of the jeep...He wasn't breathing...Another person who saw the accident was running to help and told my wife, "HIT HIS CHEST!!!! PUNCH HIS CHEST!!!!" so my wife began hitting the guy in the chest.....He came to (albeit with ragged breathing) and as my wife stood up she saw the syringe hanging from his arm and saw his "works" in the open door of the jeep...By this time a local LEO came up, looked with disgust at the jeep driver, then looked at my wife and said, "I know you think you were helping but all you did was slow down a suicide..."

We called our friend on the department...The girl had whiplash and was sore but would be okay and the jeep driver was recovering down at Clark County from his overdose of heroin in prep for a night in A&E's new favorite jail...

The point being is that driving while smoking a little weed or sipping on a beer seems almost downright quaint in comparison....Shooting up on an interstate....WTF is the world coming too???

Scared her bad.....

 

[Jludo]

; Unless one is intoxicated without their knowledge or intent, actions committed while in that condition are still the responsibility of the person committing them.

Except sex, for some females are no longer responsible for their actions after consuming alcohol.
But that's a different debate.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Not exactly, Bug. The gov't accessed license data. If they're the ones you obtain the card from, they just used info they were given, voluntarily.

To me, it seems similar to the .gov using your driver license data to populate the jury duty selection list. They're assuming that if you have the license, you went to the trouble to get it because you want medical marijuana, which may or may not be true. Another parallel would be the LTCH, as noted, though since that is a defense against prosecution for CWOL, some may have gotten it in case they were in someone else's car, etc.

TL;dr: It wasn't medical information.

Blessings,
Bill

I actually posted this story because I am disturbed by the precedent. The government has somehow accessed medical data and used it to deprive someone of their second amendment rights. What next, prohibitions if you have a scrip for pain killers or antidepressants?

Remember, give them an inch and they take your ruler

 

[KG1]

I see. So just because I got an LTCH I MUST necessarily own a gun?

Not necessarily. Apparently in the case of medical marijuana card holders though the BATFE has decreed that it must be assumed that they are a user and I guess the court backs that up. Never said that I agree with it or anything else the BATFE does for that matter.

 

[BugI02]

Thanks for the correction, Bill. I had not thought the 'license' descriptor through and assumed they were accessing HIPAA information

 

[HoughMade]

I see. So just because I got an LTCH I MUST necessarily own a gun?

To get your LTCH, did your doctor have to diagnose you with a serious medical condition and the medical need to have a handgun? Then, did you represent to the state that you had a medical need for the handgun?

 

[Thor]

or that the penalty is not equal to the damage done. Personally, I think it's both.

This is my point, I'm good with freedom...freedom with responsibility. Penalties for violating the freedom (and lives) of others needs to be so sever that you won't do it. Those penalties are not in place now. If a persons willful irresponsible actions lead to the death of others that should be their fate, nothing less.

 

[david890]

Shooting a person while high is clearly worse than shooting a person while otherwise reckless, careless, negligent or just plain stupid.

Also known as "aggravating circumstances", which can add years to a prison sentence.

 

[david890]

What next, prohibitions if you have a scrip for pain killers or antidepressants?

Form 4473, Question 11 (e): "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any antidepressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

and on the back:

"I understand that a person who answers "yes" to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm."

So, the answer to your question is yes. Would that stop someone who is a chronic pain patient and takes oxycodone from buying a gun? Probably not, but you're taking a chance if you sign the form.

 

[david890]

To get your LTCH, did your doctor have to diagnose you with a serious medical condition and the medical need to have a handgun? Then, did you represent to the state that you had a medical need for the handgun?

No, but in the "May-Issue" jurisdictions, you'd have to justify your need to some official.

 

[ATM]

Also known as "aggravating circumstances", which can add years to a prison sentence.

Yes, being high wouldn't mitigate any of those.

 

[ATM]

Form 4473, Question 11 (e): "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any antidepressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

and on the back:

"I understand that a person who answers "yes" to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm."

So, the answer to your question is yes. Would that stop someone who is a chronic pain patient and takes oxycodone from buying a gun? Probably not, but you're taking a chance if you sign the form.

Not at all. If you have a valid scrip, your use is not unlawful. 'Addicted to' is a rather subjective term, so pretty safe to answer no there as well.

 

[david890]

'Addicted to' is a rather subjective term, so pretty safe to answer no there as well.

You want to dance with the ATF on such a subjective term? Even if your scrip for oxy is valid, the ATF will likely consider you "addicted", no matter how long you've been using it.

 

[ATM]

You want to dance with the ATF on such a subjective term? Even if your scrip for oxy is valid, the ATF will likely consider you "addicted", no matter how long you've been using it.

Yes. Wouldn't care what the ATF considered me.

 

[david890]

Yes. Wouldn't care what the ATF considered me.

Until they come knocking with an arrest warrant for lying on your 4473...

 

[jbombelli]

Until they come knocking with an arrest warrant for lying on your 4473...

Lol.