BREAKING: Illinois Proposes Confiscating Firearms from Medical Patients

Marijuana and guns (courtesy blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com)

Medical marijuana is all the rage these days. States all across the US are proposing new laws either implementing a system for legalizing marijuana use for “medical” purposes, or going all the way and making recreational use legal. But the state of Illinois has decided that they don’t want to let another opportunity to confiscate firearms from some law abiding citizens go to waste. They’ve proposed in a new law that people who are prescribed medical marijuana must turn in their FOID card — and with it their guns . . .

An article appeared in the Chicago Tribune today entitled “Proposed medical marijuana rules: Your pot or your gun” and gleefully describes how the proposed law would require those who apply for treatment with marijuana would be required to turn in all of their guns and their FOID card.

One new proposal states that a qualifying patient or caregiver may not possess a firearm, even if they have a state firearm owner’s identification card or concealed carry permit, and violators may be subject to sanctions by state police.

While that may seem reasonable on the surface — “we don’t want drug addicts with guns, do we?” — the reality is that the law is simply taking advantage of the hip and happening law reform of the day to disarm otherwise law abiding citizens.

Under the current law, you can be prescribed a whole variety of mind-altering drugs, including anti-psychotics and heavy sedatives, and still legally own guns. Heavy doses of morphine or lithium are fine, but somehow marijuana is beyond the pale. The state of Illinois wants marijuana users to be stripped of their constitutionally protected right to bear arms just because they’re being treated for a medical condition using a common and (now) medically recognized treatment, prescribed by a doctor.

We’ve been seeing the slow creep of the gun rights debate towards using “mental health” as a way to disqualify as many people as possible, and it looks like Illinois is jumping on the latest legislative bandwagon and trying to use it to run the Gun Rights Restoration Express off the road.

comments

  1. avatar Anonymous says:

    More attempted crime prevention. The best prevention is the threat of bodily harm and harsh capital punishment – not this pre-crime victimless crime crap.

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      When you mention prevention are you talking about criminals or politicians that propose measures stripping us of our rights? I know, I know, they’re practically indistinguishable….

    2. avatar oneidabutler says:

      hy

  2. avatar PPGMD says:

    The caregiver part is very concerning. So if a loved one has a prescription MJ card, and you are helping to care of them you give up your right to own guns?

    1. avatar James says:

      What they REALLY aught to do, instead of limiting to caregivers, also limit to people who KNOW someone with a medical MJ script. Or any script. or if you have an internet conection. Cause internet causes violence. We’re all just right-wing extremists waiting to snap and go on a killing spree really. Except those of us who are cops… We’re OK……

      1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

        Everyone knows that right wing extremists don’t use guns for their killing sprees and that they rent trucks instead.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        Any current or former pothead, or cocaine user, should loose their Secret Security protection detail. And be reduce to dog poo collector.

        1. avatar Denny says:

          From one Iowan to another, NO! Not Odumba? Shocked face, Face Palm

          +100 With ya man

        2. avatar ropingdown says:

          As, for better or for worse, a registered Republican, I can point out that Bush 43 was, by credible report, big on the party drugs for awhile. And I’ll point out that what almost ruined his life was alcohol. And that if his wife wasn’t on birth control they’d have a lot more than two kids. Republicans have abortions. Republicans smoke pot. Even the preacher-man pols pols like like Santorum thing abortion is OK, but only when his wife ‘needs’ one. Oh, and lots of Democrats own guns. When are Republicans going to rethink their platform so that fiscally conservative socially moderate women can vote Republican again?

          I’m so sick of the hypocrisy on both sides I could scream. Mayby, laugh, it seems like I am screaming….

  3. On the bright side. Every time someone tries to pass a law confiscating guns, it will wake up a few more people who believe the “no one is trying to take your guns” meme.

    1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

      Hopefully, but aren’t most people nearly asleep at the wheel on this issue?

    2. avatar Jack in MT says:

      Exactly. Conditioning gun ownership on the basis of marijuana or other recreational drug use was just as stupid in 1968 as it is today. Now with the advent of marijuana legalization initiatives more people are finally seeing these gun control laws as the specious and reactionary things they are and have always been. It only took 46 years.

      Now would seem to be a good time for 2nd amendment groups to start a push for legislation changing the Gun Control Act of 1968’s language. That doesn’t mean we would necessarily have to legalize any drugs at the federal level, but simply no longer condition 2nd amendment rights on what type of substances you choose to put in your body.

  4. avatar Hagge says:

    There are a lot of legal drugs that could be considered “harder” than a bit of pot. Not to mention ordinary beer. So where will this end then?

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      ….when they have confiscated all the guns….

    2. avatar Matt says:

      Because, ya know, no one was never shot anyone when they got drunk…

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        Prior restraint against doing something that is legal because some idiot MIGHT get high and do a ND or violent act with a gun?

        I think not!

        There are already laws on the books to address those acts, and prior restraints are the ultimate slippery slope.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          I don’t know where you’re going with it, but “prior restraint” is a First Amendment doctrine. It has nothing to do with crime or the Second Amendment.

        2. avatar Roscoe says:

          Took the risk; the term too well fits the efforts the antis make to place limits – restrictions – prohibitions on gun owners who have done nothing wrong but because of some habit, medical reason, psychological issue might possibly do something wrong in the future, even if there is no demonstrated propensity to be violent or negligent.

      2. avatar Troutbum5 says:

        Maybe they are worried someone will rob the qwik mart of all of the Doritos at gunpoint?

    3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Considering the President said just this week that weed is no worse than booze, I’d say we know damn well where this ends.

      Not satisfied with trolling people’s private medical records for evidence of marijuana prescriptions or psychological counseling, I bet the government will soon start rummaging through your grocery store rewards card database to dredge up your alcohol purchase history.

      “Hmmm….no criminal history…..as far as we can find…….but it seems you’re a little *too* fond of the Yellow Tail Reserve Pinot Grigio for our arbitrary, unappealable tastes…….NO GUNS FOR YOU!!! NEXT!”, in statist Soup Nazi fashion.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Actually, people who drink any Australian wine should be prohibited from owning guns.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          First, they came for the Australian wine drinkers, but I did not speak out, because…..

        2. avatar Bob says:

          Aussie wines are fine. A bit sour, but interesting .

    4. avatar Denny says:

      Hash maybe or not I don’t remember. 30 yrs ago and I’m Not a chemist .

  5. avatar Glenn says:

    Who didn’t see THAT coming? After all, AFT form 4473 asks “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” This IS a Federal form & marijuana IS still a Federal offense. I think its just a matter of time until we see this in Colorado, Washington & any other state that has legalized either recreational or medicinal pot use. Obama & Holder’s DOJ decides which Federal laws they will enforce.

    1. avatar Ben says:

      This is another reason why I don’t see the need to limit legal marijuana use to medical need. If you are begging for permission, they can make that permission conditional.

      1. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

        Considering that the simple act of consuming a plant doesn’t harm anyone …

        Yeah, that makes too much sense.

      2. avatar KCK says:

        In Illinois, you have to beg permision for both/either.
        The next idea will be, if you own a gun, we can’t perscribe to you X,Y or Z as well as the other way around

        1. avatar Drew says:

          Better yet if you NEED those scripts, that need being interpreted by non doctors ofcourse. Why give people a choice when you don’t have to.

    2. avatar Roscoe says:

      Yep, pot may be legal locally, but as long as the Feds are nvolved which as it now stands they always will be, Federal Statutes rule and the 4473 applies. And I believe under federal law marijuana offenses are considered a CIMT – Crime Involving Moral Terpitude.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        ed. ‘Turpitude’ (and not an infraction).

    3. avatar Chris. says:

      The correct answer is No, I am a lawful user under the laws of my state.

    4. avatar Hugh Jorgan says:

      IMHO, if you are a pothead you’ve got no business with a gun. This opinion brought to you by some who has done quite a bit of drugs.

  6. avatar David P says:

    No, we shouldn’t worry about ObamaCare!! Yeah right. Medical weed will just be the start. It will move to pain killers, psych meds, anti depressants. The list will just continue until they get the results they want.

    1. avatar Marcus says:

      My thoughts exactly. Frightening and frighteninger.

  7. avatar pirateye says:

    Next it will be a six pack of beer, bottle of whiskey or maybe prescription cough syrup. I’m at the point where I can hardly read any more about gun grabbing douches as it just spikes my blood pressure. That will also probably be on the list. Taking high BP meds? Turn in your gun.

    1. avatar LOmog says:

      Well that makes sense. We can’t have people with weak hearts carrying weapons? What if in a heart attack induced fall they knock over their assault weapons and they go off and kill a small child? Even if it saves one life its worth it……..LOL

    2. avatar Marcus says:

      Getting to that point, myself.

  8. avatar ST says:

    “##The state of Illinois wants marijuana users to be stripped of their constitutionally protected right to bear arms just because they’re being treated for a medical condition using a common and (now) medically recognized treatment, prescribed by a doctor.###”

    Some clarification is in order here.Understand, I am merely re stating current law in the following.I do not personally agree with the ban on legal marijuana or the coupling of it with being disarmed.

    With that disclaimer done, we come to the current Federal stance on marijuana.Contrary to popular perception, marijunana is still illegal in all 50 states according to Federal law.
    As such, consuming marijuana is considered a prohibiting status at the Federal level, no matter what your state legislature has passed.

    IL is simply enforcing current Federal law.

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      Yes, they are enforcing federal law. But by allowing marijuana use in the first place they are the ones that created the violation.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Just because the State does not prohibit you from consuming marijuana does NOT mean that they are “causing” confiscations to happen. The USER of the illegal substance is the cause of the prohibition. Don’t use weed, problem solved.

        1. avatar ropingdown says:

          Justice requires that people similarly situated and committing similar acts should receive similar treatment.

          As long as a guy can legally knock back a ‘Zac and Jack in the evening, yet keep his guns, confiscation of guns from an evening smoker of Cannabis is arbitrary beyond question. The only level of justification is “well, we passed a law, however unfair.” That isn’t a justification, but rather a lame excuse for denying constitutional rights only to those people whose tastes differ from yours.

          I agree with a majority of SCOTUS justices that cannabis should not be criminalized. Sure, they said that one-by-one in various dissents, but such is the nature of things that they are limited to discussing the exact case before them.

          Americans of every stripe, whether left progressive or right tea party, repeatedly line up like lemmings to nod approvingly at laws which criminalize not actions which are malum in se, but actions they simply don’t approve as normal within their limited little worlds of social norm.

          Anybody who can say that a guy with three double scotches an evening (lots of Wall Streeters) should keep guns, but a person consuming a Doobie in the evening shouldn’t, lives in a cave, and hasn’t seen two such people side by side in their living room.

        2. avatar Drew says:

          It’s entirely different from enforcing fed law. You lose your guns when you are convicted of a crime. If you are caught with a ton of weed but escape conviction you do not lose your rights. If in fact this were enforcing federal law they are illegally skipping due process and neglecting not only to file charges but even to hand down a sentence. And your last sentiment is THE problem with restricting rights through medical status. Would you seek treatment at all knowing it could cost you your rights?

    2. avatar JeffR says:

      This was actually mentioned in the article. States authorizing marijuana use contrary to federal law are creating a very messy legal issue with respect to firearm ownership.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        I’m with those who believe that the sticky part is the antiquated federal regulation, criminalization, of pot. I’m a wine guy, but I’ve lots of close friends of the right type who also smoke cannabis. This is especially true of people whose liver enzymes cause them to metabolize alcohol much more slowly than other people.

        I consider the cannabis laws, state and federal, nothing more than an imposition of the the alcohol culture, supported powerfully by the industry that produces the stuff, and given a warm reception by senators who abuse the stuff, and there are many. What baloney.

        1. avatar JeffR says:

          I don’t disagree.

    3. avatar Brad Wilson says:

      Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say there are reasons to strip away a persons right to bear arms? First they nailed anyone who was convicted of a felony, now they are targeting other groups of people. There was a day when you were discharged from the Illinois Prison System you were given a 20 dollar gold piece, a horse and a Winchester Model 94. Funny how things change.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        A lot of people would be willing to go to prison for a Double Eagle, a horse and a Winchester.

    4. avatar Model66 says:

      Hmm. Now if only we could make the Constitution federal law, then maybe they would enforce that, too.
      Sigh….

  9. avatar Cknarf says:

    Thanks, Chicago.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Chicago political culture only looks good if the comparison is peak Maoism. It was the center of the most despised and corrupt large industry (stockyards and meat-packing). It’s culture was the rudest and most aggressive for more than a century, and is still a leader in that competition. “The City of Big Shoulders” makes Manhattan seem the epitome of gentle culture. Chicago decides the gubernatorial races that place crook after crook in the office as a way stop on the path to prison. And now our president is a product of the Chicago machine’s concept of liberty. Nice. And I note that Chicago and Illinois are effectively broke. It’s not a coincidence. It’s a way of life.

      I’d safely bet that being pro-economic sense, pro-gun, and “abortion is a private decision” will pole better for the Republicans than the platform they keep running on. In a world in which a family can only afford two kids on average, but which does like to have sex life, somebody’s going to have to wake up….or submit to Chicago/NYC/SanFrancisco politics forever. Rant over. It is so obvious.

  10. avatar peirsonb says:

    I believe marijuana should be completely legal, strictly because as I read the Constitution I don’t see any authority in there to make it illegal.

    That said, right now marijuana is illegal at the federal level. So, really, Illinois is violating federal law by allowing marijuana use in the first place, then violating the Constitution in reaction to their own violation of the law…..I’m getting all eye twitchy…

    1. avatar Model 31 says:

      The States cannot enforce Federal law…we came to know this from a court ruling concerning the issue of immigration.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        And then there’s this whole state nullification thing…

  11. avatar Roll says:

    Ah, the slippery slope of gun confiscation…wonder who they want to confiscate guns from next?

  12. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    maybe the liberals who didn’t believe us in the 2012 elections will wake up and recognize what is happening. . . .

    1. avatar 16V says:

      That they’re achieving their goals through the back door?

  13. avatar Bruce L. says:

    I think this is a good idea. In fact, we should add alcohol to this law. Anyone who has ever had a drink should have to turn in any guns they, or their family, have. Especially illegal ones. This would apply to anyone in government, including lawmakers, law enforcement, and body guards of said people.

  14. avatar flushot70 says:

    Ppgmd, a caregiver is the person that sells marijuana to the person with the prescription. A caregiver is allowed to grow a certain number of plants per person in their care. The caregiver is also limited to how many clients they can have at any one time.

    1. avatar SpeleoFool says:

      Right. Which means they’re also sitting on a large stash of highly desirable & street-marketable product & ought to have the ability to defend themselves from someone trying to forcibly take it. Caregiver does not imply unlawful user.

  15. avatar LOmog says:

    What if you smoke it but don’t inhale the MJ? Is it still illegal?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      It was legal for Slick Willie.

  16. avatar Jeff in Tacoma says:

    Thank god Washington is the only state without a central mmj patient database. Not that I have a mmj recommend, but you wouldn’t know it if I did. At least the Oregon supreme court dealt with this in a good way, the sheriffs were revoking carry permits for mmj patients. The supreme court said that they are perfectly legal by state law and sheriffs don’t enforce federal laws.

  17. avatar Jack in MT says:

    This is just another one of side effects of the racist roots of gun control. The marijuana question and the ‘have you ever renounced your citizenship’ question on the 4437 were designed to be a way to keep the black panthers and the other uppity negroes in the late 60s from exercising their second amendment rights.

  18. avatar Noishkel says:

    I am Jack’s completely lack of surprise.

  19. avatar Bob says:

    Marijuana has been successfully stigmatized for a long time and the anti-self-defensers will use that for all its worth.

  20. avatar Yoel Grauberg says:

    When everything is a felony everybody will be a felon.

  21. avatar Morgan Gatorsee says:

    It is a slippery slope.
    So if I have cancer in Chicago and give up my guns so I can smoke pot to ease the pain and then change my mind, can I then give up pot to be a gun carrier again?

    Years ago my wife caught me “depressed” and talked me into seeing a head doctor. I HATE doctors with a passion and even though I knew what the issue was, had a crappy sleazy job I wasn’t proud of….I told her I’d go. Anyway doc hands me some wellbutrin which I take and man was life grand….but I couldn’t sleep so he gives me some other “head” medicine to work in conjunction with the first medicine that also has a side effect of making it easier to sleep. Then my d!ck stops working and I think ….. “No wonder everyone is going postal on this stuff!!!” So first thing I do is quit all meds cold turkey, it is AMAZING that these docs give this stuff out yet not one follow up when I blow off my appointments, then I quit my job and get one I could be proud of…pay sucks but I am content and boom my “depression” is gone. Point is I often wonder if something some dumb ass doc put me on for 6 months, 4 years ago, will one day come back to bite me in the ass so the government can say I am mentally unfit.

    Everyone I know seems to be on meds or has been put on meds at sometime and with the “mental health” issue it could be a slippery slope to disarming the future America. Every doctor wants to put my kids on Ritalin….I explain they don’t need Ritalin but a swift kick in the ass however if being on Ritalin qualifies you as being mentally defective I would say that 80% of their school would be revoked their right to the 2A

  22. avatar JSIII says:

    Trust me when i say as an Illinois Resident, this is a slipper slope. This year it will be pot, in 2 years it will be people who need strong painkillers for pain management, before you know everything but basic drugs like anti-biotics will be on the list.

  23. avatar TommyNV says:

    Psychotropic drugs used to treat mental health issues have been documented to (rarely, but still) cause violence.

  24. avatar Detroiter says:

    I’ve heard rumors that people with medical marijuana cards in mi can’t purchase new guns because the card is proof that you use controlled substances and therefore cannot legally fill out the federal background check form.

    Disclaimer: I don’t know anyone who has run into this, and I don’t know if mi reports card holders to the NCIS. But I seem to remember being told in ccw class that you might run into problems…..

    Can anyone confirm this?

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Call the BATFE, I’m sure they will have the inf you need. /sarc

  25. avatar Marine 03 says:

    The biggest slippery slope in the entire medical/2nd Ammendment Rights debate is still, by far, psychological. Here’s why; it’s too open to opinion. Two respected psychologist examined Anders Brevik (Guy who shot up that youth camp in Europe). One said he was totally insane the other said he was completely rational and sane. Hmmm, methinks psychology isn’t an exact science! If you have liver cancer a doctor in Russia will diagnose liver cancer as will a doctor in Fiji as will a doctor in Canada. But 3 shrinks in the same city often can’t agree on a simple mental health diagnosis. Here is a glimpse of the future: Have you ever had a fear of Heights? That’s a mental disorder – can’t own a gun. Never learned to swim? You’re not quite right in the head, no gun for you! Ever talk to yourself? Nut case, No gun! Fear of flying? Fruit loop – denied! Are you ever argumentative? Ever lose you temper? Afraid of snakes? Denied, Denied, Denied! That summarizes the trickery the Leftist will soon attempt to make law. Remember I said it!

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Many people seem to labor under the misconception that a mental health diagnosis isn’t terribly subjective – it is. And among those that do, most seem to think that anyone so diagnosed is a homicidal maniac.

      1. avatar Marine 03 says:

        Absolutely correct Bdub. This Adam Lanza kid was reportedly diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. There are now people who fear people with this condition (I say condition because Asperger’s isn’t a mental illness) and you’ll never convince them otherwise. The problem is that people with Asperger’s are actually much less likely to commit violent crime than neuro-typical people. It could actually make one more likely to be a victim than an victimizer. The kid clearly had it (trouble interacting, intelligent, shy) and he clearly committed a heinous crime but how many people without any diagnosed condition have committed murder? Gazillions! Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstien, and Bill Gates also had Asperger’s Syndrome. They murdered no one.

    2. avatar Model 31 says:

      Fear the government will take your guns…nut case…relinquish your guns.

      1. avatar Marine 03 says:

        Good one Model 31! Hadn’t thought of that one yet….add it to the growing list.

  26. avatar mk10108 says:

    THIS HAS GONE ON LONG ENOUGH. Why no one is bulldozing the hallowed hall of this proposed legislation is beyond me.

  27. avatar BDub says:

    You cannot suspend an individuals Civil Rights without due process, and without the burden of proof resting squarely on the State. Can they really make the case that medical marijuana users are a danger to themselves or others? Not no, but hell no, they can’t. This would be an even harder case to make that the one against mental health-care recipients.

  28. avatar JTwig says:

    While I’m no fan of medical marijuana, I worry that if theypull this with medical marijuana they’ll try it with other medications. Once a list like this is started, all they do is grow.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Yup, that’s the truth. Once the Government starts a list things can be put on it, but they can never be taken off.

  29. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Nothing is going to make a gun owner snap faster than not being able to get their marijuana.

  30. avatar Nigil says:

    From the article: “Todd Vandermyde, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said the NRA takes no position on the issue but that the rule seems to be an attempt to interpret federal law. A U.S. Department of Justice firearm application form asks if the buyer is “an unlawful user” of marijuana or other controlled substances.”
    The IL FOID application does not ask that question; the closest question it asks is “Are you addicted to narcotics?” Therefore, a person could have a FOID, CCW, and purchase a firearm from a private party (no 4473) without running afoul of any current state or federal laws, even if they were using medical marijuana.
    This is simply a blatant attempt to restrict people’s rights as much as possible in a futile grab at a leftist utopia.

  31. avatar Marine 03 says:

    As I sit here smoking a joint and cleaning my AK-47 I’m compelled to comment on this article because my imaginary friend told me to. Infact, I’ll quote word-for-word the voices in my head….”Marine 03, put down those mushrooms and go shoot every purple elephant apparition you see sitting at a bus stop tomorrow!” I will resist until I’ve consulted with my fairy godmother….but if she concurs you purple elephants are gonna get slaughtered!!!

  32. avatar Trevor says:

    Clearly the only thing you know about SSRI’s is that they sound intelligent used in a sentence pertaining to mental health treatment, unless someone who knows anything about SSRI’s happens to read it. I take an SNRI, a newer generation of the medication, I used to take an SSRI. They are not “happy pills”, they do not alter your consciousness or do anything other than to keep you from falling off a depressive cliff if things get rough in life when you are more susceptible than others; as opposed to marijuana which does effect your conscious mind, which does affect judgement, which does alter mental faculties, in summary SSRI’s are in no way in the same class as morphine or tetrahydrocannabinol. Being that you’re not someone who is impacted by legislative decree over either of these controlled substances, I strongly suggest you leave the medical commentary to a medical professional or at least someone who has some kind of real world experience with either of them. Thank you.

    1. avatar Jimmy says:

      Wow Trevor. Easy does it man. Nobody on here was directing any malicious comments at you. SSRI’s or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors block the reuptake of serotonin at the synapses which makes this brain chemical more available for use. It’s believed the depressive mood disorders are as result of at least in part to a chemical imbalance in the brain,that being mainly serotonin. The increase in available serotonin in effect alters the mood from melancholy and therefore for all intents and purposes are a mood altering drug. This is true even though there is no noticeable intoxication and yet an overdose of an SSRI does cause a dangerous intoxication that includes hallucinations.

  33. avatar MolonLabeIL says:

    “One new proposal states that a qualifying patient or caregiver may not possess a firearm, even if they have a state firearm owner’s identification card or concealed carry permit, and violators may be subject to sanctions by state police.”

    “One new proposal states that a qualifying patient or caregiver may not possess a firearm, even if they have a state firearm owner’s identification card or concealed carry permit, and violators may be subject to sanctions by POLICE STATE” !!! CORRECTION !!!!

  34. avatar jirdesteva says:

    Obamacare registration process leads to confiscation. Yeah, I can see that happening. Sure as hell wouldn’t put it past the socialist party, sorry, DemocRATS!

  35. avatar Dave s says:

    Well it is Illinois after all! Idiocy to be expected.
    I have already told my GP that we wont be discussing psych problems of any description.
    President Obama stripping your privacy from medical records (executive order concerning HIPPA)
    indicates they are actively going after guns using your medical records.

    Caregiver is an insane concept, either for a grower or the more conventional definition of the term, since being under the influence let alone habituated to it would be a breech of ethics while at work, and probably a law violation anyway.

    on the other hand someone impaired with any substance shouldn’t be armed if they are that impaired. If you want to have a standard, whats the military standard for arming walking wounded? they probably have a manual for that.

    And those folks whose jobs are regulated by the feds (transportation comes to mind) need to be very very careful in their off duty enjoyment even if its legal where you are.

  36. avatar sadamerican says:

    So you can be 21 and a major alcoholic and own guns…. but if you want to smoke pot and be a lazy couch potato you cant….. makes sense….. /sarc

  37. avatar Jimmy says:

    It seems to me that the only issue over cannabis use and firearms ownership is the violation of the federal laws against use, possession or sale of the substance as the question asked on the FORM 4473 suggests it is a condition formulated by the ATF which amounts to another executive branch agency legislating law. That in and of itself is a violation of the constitutions separation of powers clause; however, because congress has the power to delegate it becomes completely legal. So it seems to me that the problems lie with congress over delegating legislative powers! I do believe the government would be hard pressed to deny firearm ownership to individuals legally taking any drug approved by the FDA for treatment of medical conditions. The problems we have here in NC relates more to the powers the county sheriffs have in determining themselves who has and what exactly is “good moral character!” Such a criteria is in the eyes of the beholder and obviously if the sheriff believes an atheist is not of good moral character he can deny an application for a handgun purchase permit. The only good thing here is that they have no say when it comes to the purchase of long guns. So in effect, one could easily find themselves in a situation where they can legally own say a 12 gauge semi auto shotgun with a 50 round drum fed magazine and still be denied a single shot .22 derringer! Makes no damned sense to me at all!

    1. avatar William Burke says:

      It would seem some people are born with the urge to control. This is inimical to the very concept of liberty.

  38. avatar JaxD says:

    Who snuck into my garage to take pics. Not cool man.

  39. avatar J- says:

    If this passes, how long will it take for Illinois to mandate that all Illinoisans must get a Medical Marijuana card Obamacare style?

  40. avatar joe l. says:

    called it

  41. avatar jae squared says:

    I wonder if this was the original intention of the mmj legislation? Just sayin

  42. avatar Shaughnessy says:

    уже есть, и уже видел давно ждал Гипермобильность суставов дона

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email