1911Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,349 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is a case in Oregon where the Sheriff denied Ms Willis a permit to carry because of her use of Medical marijuana.

Our Moderator here has erroneously posted comments on Willis v. Winters stating the following.

And so I won't get any more petulant PM's from people "telling" me I am wrong...
...about the conflict between Federal Laws and State laws:

Start by reading Willis v. Winters. Which the Supreme Court effectively upheld when they refused to hear the appeal (let stand a lower court ruling).

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/A...rd-2375446.php

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs...NEWS/201110317

In a Federal system, which is what we have here in the United States, Federal laws and state laws often conflict with each other (hence, the "gray area" comment). When that happens, they go to court. Sometimes it stops at State Supreme Courts, sometimes at the Circuit appellate court level, the rest go to the United States Supreme Court. When the US Supreme Court refuses to hear the case, the lower court ruling stands. BTW, sometimes those conflict with each other too (as is the case with 9th and 3rd Circuit Courts' rulings on concealed carry licenses).

The, "Gun Control Act of 1968" argument is invalid, but here's the Oregon Supreme Court (from Willis v. Winters).

Quote:
Originally Posted by IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
Only the third type of preemption -- preemption implied from an actual conflict -- is relevant in the present case. That is so because the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the federal statute at issue) expressly renounces any Congressional intent to preempt state law unless the law is in "direct and positive" conflict with the Act. 18 USC § 927.(5)

So you see, conflict between the Federal Law and State laws. Gray. As it is with most things.
I feel it in my obligation to set the record straight here as I would not want any member here to follow this bad advice and end up on the wrong end of a Federal Prosecutor.

What our Moderator has omitted and overlooked in the Oregon Supreme Court ruling is this.

...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...

And thus the Oregon Supreme Court specifically acknowledged that while Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun, she could still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).

So please, do not assume that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of State law over Federal Law. They have not, the Oregon Supreme Court specifically states that Federal Law is still supreme over State law.

Be careful out there and do your research and do not follow bad advice, even if it comes from a moderator.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,615 Posts
I don't think attacking one's opinion, mod or not, is the right way to open a thread.

The last thread I opened on this, I specifically stated twice that I didn't want it to become a marijuana debate, but instead focus on gun rights and laws.

That said, if you ask me, the leftists are happy to have a stoned society that disarms them. Just another tool in the leftists playbook.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
18,596 Posts
Sorry Steve, trolling a moderator is never permitted. If you had a bone to pick, the proper thing to do it take it off line to PM or email.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top