Interesting to see where this goes.

 

"WHITE CITY, Ore. (AP) -- Cynthia Willis calls up and down the firing range to be sure everyone knows she is shooting, squares up in a two-handed stance with her Walther P-22 automatic pistol and fires off a clip in rapid succession.

 

Willis is not only packing a concealed handgun permit in her wallet, she also has a medical marijuana card. That combination has led the local sheriff to try to take her gun permit away."

 

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PISTOLS_AND_POT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Interesting to see where this goes.

 

"WHITE CITY, Ore. (AP) -- Cynthia Willis calls up and down the firing range to be sure everyone knows she is shooting, squares up in a two-handed stance with her Walther P-22 automatic pistol and fires off a clip in rapid succession.

 

Willis is not only packing a concealed handgun permit in her wallet, she also has a medical marijuana card. That combination has led the local sheriff to try to take her gun permit away."

 

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PISTOLS_AND_POT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

 

She gets it...here's a quote why she is standing up to them. If people don't stand up for their little rights, all their big rights will be gone."

Well thats stupid. Its like saying "Joe dokes is over 21 and can drink alcohol legally" Who cares? so long as you are not under the influence. Alcohol is much more dangerous all around, anyways.

Wait wait....."P-22 automatic pistol and fires off a clip in rapid succession."

 

They make automatic P22's?

How can you "fire off a clip"?

 

I'm very confused by this sentence.

Wait wait....."P-22 automatic pistol and fires off a clip in rapid succession."

 

They make automatic P22's?

How can you "fire off a clip"?

 

I'm very confused by this sentence.

 

 

I think you know.

Wait wait....."P-22 automatic pistol and fires off a clip in rapid succession."

 

They make automatic P22's?

How can you "fire off a clip"?

 

I'm very confused by this sentence.

 

Even though I'm sure you know, and even though I get tired of this type of sarcasm, I believe he meant an automatic loading pistol and rapid firing a magazine full of rounds through it.

Even though I'm sure you know, and even though I get tired of this type of sarcasm, I believe he meant an automatic loading pistol and rapid firing a magazine full of rounds through it.

I can ASSUME that's what they meant. But if I, a person who understands firearms terminology and how firearms work, do not understand a message they are trying to convey.....how can a person who DOESN'T understand firearms know what they are trying to say?

 

Oh wait that's right, all they need to know is some senseless combination of words, such as "the shoulder thing that goes up"......and they can get any law they want passed because it sounds like it will protect people

While I'm still divided on the medical marijuana issue, it's now law in some places. I'm against denying firearms to anyone based on the possibility that they may become substance abusers while engaging in a perfectly legal activity. That's a very slippery slope. If people legally taking pot for medical reasons are denied (or worse, withdrawn) the right to own guns, how long will it be before people on anti depressants, pain killers, and other potentially abusable drugs are thrown under the same bus, ending with anyone who may legally purchase alcohol in the event they might have one too many while having access to a firearm.

 

It's a backdoor to a virtual ban, and it isn't even a subtle one.

People who smoke pot don't go out and commit violent acts. They laugh at dumb ****, fall asleep, wake up and eat a bunch of junk food. Lucky if they even leave the house!

Believe it or not, the only way this woman may be able to use a firearm is while toked up.. She uses med maryjay for arthritis, if it is for her hands, she wouldnt be able to squeeze one off with out it. I've seen people with arthritis in the hands and it resembles carpel tunnel.

Good for her standing up for her rights. If people could get medical methamphetamine permits I'd think maybe I wouldn't want them carrying guns, but medical marijuana?? What are they gonna do, hold up a Wendy's, ignore the money and steal all of the fries?

There already laws against using a firearm stoned just like there are already laws against using a firearm drunk. This person can now legally use marijuana just like she could already legally use alcohol. No difference.

There already laws against using a firearm stoned just like there are already laws against using a firearm drunk. This person can now legally use marijuana just like she could already legally use alcohol. No difference.

Actually, i'm not sure where this would fall under. Since it is medication, you wouldn't consider a person on anti-depressants to be under the influence, you call it medicated. And im not sure what the law is in regards to using a firearm while medicated.

Still a controlled substance. Just like Vicodin. I wouldn't want someone buzzed on Vicodin shooting next to me at the range, and I feel the same way about someone high on weed, legally or not. Somewhat impaired judgment, slow reflexes and guns possibly aren't the best combination.

I would agree. If she can shoot with out being medicated then its fine. Otherwise wouldn't she fall under the pretense of being medically unable to safely handle a firearm. A law that is in NJ not sure about over there. Which would be grounds to take away her permits. She may actually have a hard time proving she needs pot but can safely use a gun, sounds like she may have to give one up.

The Issue here though is that even though it may be legalized by the STATE, Marijuana is still prohibited by Federal Law..take a look at the 4473, where it asks if you are a user of "Illegal Drugs" Having a Medical MJ card can be stretched to make you a Prohibited person under Federal Statute. With all of the other stuff ATF is dealing with right now with the Gunrunner fallout i dont see it as an issue...but doen the line, if they REALLY wanted to play stupid games, the could try to disqualify Medical MJ users from possessing firearms a-la Lautenberg and DV. Even theough as an Ex Post Facto law Lautenberg SHOULD BE unconstiutional..so fat it has yet to be challenged I believe.

The DOT has rules for commercial drivers for all drugs, illegal or prescription. There are some prescription drugs (marijuana is one of them), that while legal, will make you ineligible to operate a commercial vehicle if you are using them. I suppose the same logic is trying to be applied here.

I suppose the same logic is trying to be applied here.

While the logic is the same, it is not being applied in similar instances. Driving is a privilege, firearms are a right. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be shooting next to someone toked up on Mary Jane....so yes she should not be allowed to HANDLE her firearms while under the influence, but I have no problem with her owning firearms while also having a license to use medicinal marijuana.

While the logic is the same, it is not being applied in similar instances. Driving is a privilege, firearms are a right. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be shooting next to someone toked up on Mary Jane....so yes she should not be allowed to HANDLE her firearms while under the influence, but I have no problem with her owning firearms while also having a license to use medicinal marijuana.

 

I agree with this. Under the influence being the big catch. Hell the guy next lane over could have had several martinis. If you are caught handling firearms while stoned or drunk then you should have to pay the price.

While the logic is the same, it is not being applied in similar instances. Driving is a privilege, firearms are a right. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be shooting next to someone toked up on Mary Jane....so yes she should not be allowed to HANDLE her firearms while under the influence, but I have no problem with her owning firearms while also having a license to use medicinal marijuana.

Just to clarify, I wasn't defending this, just trying to show what I think their logic was - right or wrong.

Lautenberg SHOULD BE unconstiutional..

 

no argument here.

This is completely unrelated to the topic but

When I read the title of the thread somehow I read pisspot--> don't know how, must mean I like my job or something. Oh well back on topic, personally I believe pot should be legalized because it would help more than it would hurt us in the long run.