Clarity on MM and Caretaker firearm rights

[Cronus]

A family member was going to get her medical card and I was going to get my care giver card. This may change those plans. It was my understanding that none of this is reported to NICS. It is because IL is the NICS POC. When the state runs your FOID they see the medical card and will not approve a purchase for the person with the medical card. There is no reason to deny a care giver a purchase as they can answer the 4473 honestly. If the FOID will be denied by ISP for any new purchases, a private transaction will not work either. Then again I am against the fact this state adds medical card info, just like CCL, to your drivers license info so it is seen or given out if police run you.

 

I was going to call ISP this week and ask, but after seeing this thread I need to decide if it is worth the hassle to get my caregiver card.

[Craigcelia]

Delete.

[lockman]

My wife is getting a caregiver card and will not even possess or purchase so no violation at all federal or state. I will run a check on her a few weeks after she gets the card. The only reason she got the card was my daughter is uncomfortable going to the dispensary alone and without a card you can not enter.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[skinnyb82]

Caretakers cannot clear an FTIP. That's been established. It's disgusting that they strip a person of his or her rights just because they go pick up MM for someone.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Cronus]

My wife is getting a caregiver card and will not even possess or purchase so no violation at all federal or state. I will run a check on her a few weeks after she gets the card. The only reason she got the card was my daughter is uncomfortable going to the dispensary alone and without a card you can not enter. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Thanks. I still find it crazy they are stripping caregivers too and not just the patients. Not that I agree with stripping the patients, but I at least understand why with the the conflict with federal law. I have no plans on buying anything in the next few years, but we all know how that goes I hadn't planned on buying that AR-10 a few months ago either, but I did.

[DD123]

 

My wife is getting a caregiver card and will not even possess or purchase so no violation at all federal or state. I will run a check on her a few weeks after she gets the card. The only reason she got the card was my daughter is uncomfortable going to the dispensary alone and without a card you can not enter. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Thanks. I still find it crazy they are stripping caregivers too and not just the patients. Not that I agree with stripping the patients, but I at least understand why with the the conflict with federal law. I have no plans on buying anything in the next few years, but we all know how that goes I hadn't planned on buying that AR-10 a few months ago either, but I did.

 

That’s why that needs to change because the question asks if you’re an unlawful user according to federal law. A caretaker isn’t using mmj so there’s no reason for denying them. It’s just more bureaucratic stupidity.

[Jeffrey]

 

My wife is getting a caregiver card and will not even possess or purchase so no violation at all federal or state. I will run a check on her a few weeks after she gets the card. The only reason she got the card was my daughter is uncomfortable going to the dispensary alone and without a card you can not enter. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Thanks. I still find it crazy they are stripping caregivers too and not just the patients. Not that I agree with stripping the patients, but I at least understand why with the the conflict with federal law. I have no plans on buying anything in the next few years, but we all know how that goes I hadn't planned on buying that AR-10 a few months ago either, but I did.

That’s why that needs to change because the question asks if you’re an unlawful user according to federal law. A caretaker isn’t using mmj so there’s no reason for denying them. It’s just more bureaucratic stupidity.

 

More reason for many to just continue to buy from granny around the corner.

 

I realize the state has nothing to do directly with the 4473 but, the state has a great opportunity to create a new stream of revenue that we all know the state could use, severely. Leave it to Illinois democrats to ruin a good thing.

[BigJim]

 

My wife is getting a caregiver card and will not even possess or purchase so no violation at all federal or state. I will run a check on her a few weeks after she gets the card. The only reason she got the card was my daughter is uncomfortable going to the dispensary alone and without a card you can not enter. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Thanks. I still find it crazy they are stripping caregivers too and not just the patients. Not that I agree with stripping the patients, but I at least understand why with the the conflict with federal law. I have no plans on buying anything in the next few years, but we all know how that goes I hadn't planned on buying that AR-10 a few months ago either, but I did.

That’s why that needs to change because the question asks if you’re an unlawful user according to federal law. A caretaker isn’t using mmj so there’s no reason for denying them. It’s just more bureaucratic stupidity.

 

I bet their thinking is caregivers will smoke it since they have access to it. The old guilty until innocent thinking our leaders have of us.

[DD123]

 

 

My wife is getting a caregiver card and will not even possess or purchase so no violation at all federal or state. I will run a check on her a few weeks after she gets the card. The only reason she got the card was my daughter is uncomfortable going to the dispensary alone and without a card you can not enter. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Thanks. I still find it crazy they are stripping caregivers too and not just the patients. Not that I agree with stripping the patients, but I at least understand why with the the conflict with federal law. I have no plans on buying anything in the next few years, but we all know how that goes I hadn't planned on buying that AR-10 a few months ago either, but I did.

That’s why that needs to change because the question asks if you’re an unlawful user according to federal law. A caretaker isn’t using mmj so there’s no reason for denying them. It’s just more bureaucratic stupidity.

 

I bet their thinking is caregivers will smoke it since they have access to it. The old guilty until innocent thinking our leaders have of us.

 

It definitely is their way of thinking.

 

Personally I don't really care if people buy/own guns and they smoke pot. How many people own/buy guns and pass the NICS and they're taking opioid painkillers? How many alcoholics are passing NICS? Pot is considerably less harmful than either of those, especially with regard to people flipping out and killing people. You can be an alcoholic, get hammered, and then decide to kill people, whereas with pot, the only thing you'd probably kill is a bag of cheetos. It really shouldn't even be classified the way it is federally. I know a few potheads, and they're not dangerous, violent, delusional, etc. This is one of the few things that I really don't like about the GOP. It seems the only reason from their perspective to keep it classified as a schedule 1 drug is to keep the prisons full. It's time that it's removed from the controlled substances list.

 

The fed should remove its classification, and then let the states decide how they want to regulate the sales. Tax it, pay for the schools or debts, and leave people alone to decide how they want to live their lives. This is one of the hypocritical GOP positions though. They're all for limited government until it's something they want, or it's something that they dislike. If the GOP wants to attract and retain younger voters, they need to get out of people's bedrooms, quit trying to legislate based on religion, and let people to live their own lives as they see fit. We often call the left a bunch of authoritarians, yet based on some of the issues I've mentioned, the GOP is cut from the same cloth.

 

ETA: I'd even go as far as to throw a guess out there regarding the number of people that have smoked pot in the US, at some point in their lives is probably 60% or greater. States are beginning to either legalize it for medical purposes, or recreational. It's pretty clear that pot is a non issue, and continuing to have it banned federally is just spiting into the faces of Americans. Personally if pot were made legally at the federal level, I still won't use it, so from my perspective my stance on it is based wholly on individual liberty.

[TRJ]

 

 

 

That’s why that needs to change because the question asks if you’re an unlawful user according to federal law. A caretaker isn’t using mmj so there’s no reason for denying them. It’s just more bureaucratic stupidity.

 

I bet their thinking is caregivers will smoke it since they have access to it. The old guilty until innocent thinking our leaders have of us.

 

It definitely is their way of thinking.

 

Personally I don't really care if people buy/own guns and they smoke pot. How many people own/buy guns and pass the NICS and they're taking opioid painkillers? How many alcoholics are passing NICS? Pot is considerably less harmful than either of those, especially with regard to people flipping out and killing people. You can be an alcoholic, get hammered, and then decide to kill people, whereas with pot, the only thing you'd probably kill is a bag of cheetos. It really shouldn't even be classified the way it is federally. I know a few potheads, and they're not dangerous, violent, delusional, etc. This is one of the few things that I really don't like about the GOP. It seems the only reason from their perspective to keep it classified as a schedule 1 drug is to keep the prisons full. It's time that it's removed from the controlled substances list.

 

The fed should remove its classification, and then let the states decide how they want to regulate the sales. Tax it, pay for the schools or debts, and leave people alone to decide how they want to live their lives. This is one of the hypocritical GOP positions though. They're all for limited government until it's something they want, or it's something that they dislike. If the GOP wants to attract and retain younger voters, they need to get out of people's bedrooms, quit trying to legislate based on religion, and let people to live their own lives as they see fit. We often call the left a bunch of authoritarians, yet based on some of the issues I've mentioned, the GOP is cut from the same cloth.

 

ETA: I'd even go as far as to throw a guess out there regarding the number of people that have smoked pot in the US, at some point in their lives is probably 60% or greater. States are beginning to either legalize it for medical purposes, or recreational. It's pretty clear that pot is a non issue, and continuing to have it banned federally is just spiting into the faces of Americans. Personally if pot were made legally at the federal level, I still won't use it, so from my perspective my stance on it is based wholly on individual liberty.

 

100% this.

[InterestedBystander]

I don't have much issue with what people want to do responsibly, but I don't need to know about it and I don't want to smell it from my neighbor.

[skinnyb82]

People don't seem to get that pot doesn't make people more reckless. It makes people extremely methodical, careful, and jumpy. It makes it so people are afraid to mess with something like a gun. I know people who smoke pot and casually shoot guns (not mine) and will not do that under the influence. They're too scared of blanking and hurting someone or themselves. Whereas opioids make one feel like King of the World. Alcohol, well, we all know how violent drunks and guns mix. They (four states, including Illinois) happily issued me a CCL/CHL/whatever acronym while I was on a bunch of Norco for ligament tears in my wrist.

 

Wonder how many cops who are members of the forum have been to violent domestics involving stoned people. Not dealers but just stoned people. I would venture to guess hardly any, if any at all. Alcohol related domestics are just SOP.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[TRJ]

I don't have much issue with what people want to do responsibly, but I don't need to know about it and I don't want to smell it from my neighbor.

This man has a point too. Last time I went to Cali and my most recent trip to Vegas both were punctuated by a whiff of weed burning every 15 minutes in public, which isn't pleasant. I'd encourage those who partake (either medical or recreational) to go the edible route out of consideration for your neighbors.

[DD123]

 

I don't have much issue with what people want to do responsibly, but I don't need to know about it and I don't want to smell it from my neighbor.

This man has a point too. Last time I went to Cali and my most recent trip to Vegas both were punctuated by a whiff of weed burning every 15 minutes in public, which isn't pleasant. I'd encourage those who partake (either medical or recreational) to go the edible route out of consideration for your neighbors.

 

I don't mind the smell so much if I'm outside, but if I'm inside and the smell starts coming through my open window, then it becomes annoying, but that's more an issue of being neighborly than anything else. When I smoked cigarettes I used to head into the alley and smoke them because standing anywhere near the house, cigarette smoke would go into open windows

[InterestedBystander]

 

 

I don't have much issue with what people want to do responsibly, but I don't need to know about it and I don't want to smell it from my neighbor.

 

This man has a point too. Last time I went to Cali and my most recent trip to Vegas both were punctuated by a whiff of weed burning every 15 minutes in public, which isn't pleasant. I'd encourage those who partake (either medical or recreational) to go the edible route out of consideration for your neighbors.

I don't mind the smell so much if I'm outside, but if I'm inside and the smell starts coming through my open window, then it becomes annoying, but that's more an issue of being neighborly than anything else. When I smoked cigarettes I used to head into the alley and smoke them because standing anywhere near the house, cigarette smoke would go into open windows

Yes it is an issue of being neighborly and respectful...which seems to be lost on many these days. I have one neighbor you would never know used...extremely courteous when it comes to it and another that could care less. And he gets sketchy people coming over

[DD123]

Interesting article that came across my newsfeed today.

 

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/legalizing-marijuana-cuts-violent-crimes-suggests-study/?utm_source=Editorial&utm_medium=Static&utm_campaign=DO

 

Who'd have thunk it, legalizing a drug would reduce violent crime.

[Buzzard]

 

It definitely is their way of thinking.

 

Personally I don't really care if people buy/own guns and they smoke pot. How many people own/buy guns and pass the NICS and they're taking opioid painkillers? How many alcoholics are passing NICS? Pot is considerably less harmful than either of those, especially with regard to people flipping out and killing people. You can be an alcoholic, get hammered, and then decide to kill people, whereas with pot, the only thing you'd probably kill is a bag of cheetos. It really shouldn't even be classified the way it is federally. I know a few potheads, and they're not dangerous, violent, delusional, etc. This is one of the few things that I really don't like about the GOP. It seems the only reason from their perspective to keep it classified as a schedule 1 drug is to keep the prisons full. It's time that it's removed from the controlled substances list.

 

The fed should remove its classification, and then let the states decide how they want to regulate the sales. Tax it, pay for the schools or debts, and leave people alone to decide how they want to live their lives. This is one of the hypocritical GOP positions though. They're all for limited government until it's something they want, or it's something that they dislike. If the GOP wants to attract and retain younger voters, they need to get out of people's bedrooms, quit trying to legislate based on religion, and let people to live their own lives as they see fit. We often call the left a bunch of authoritarians, yet based on some of the issues I've mentioned, the GOP is cut from the same cloth.

 

ETA: I'd even go as far as to throw a guess out there regarding the number of people that have smoked pot in the US, at some point in their lives is probably 60% or greater. States are beginning to either legalize it for medical purposes, or recreational. It's pretty clear that pot is a non issue, and continuing to have it banned federally is just spiting into the faces of Americans. Personally if pot were made legally at the federal level, I still won't use it, so from my perspective my stance on it is based wholly on individual liberty.

 

 

I also agree. The GOP needs to let go of their old ways if they want to attract younger voters and this would be a step in the right direction. And if they want to decrease opiod use, legalizing marijuana is the way to go.

[skinnyb82]

I don't understand why the GOP hasn't pulled its collective head out of its posterior in regard to recreational pot. Democrats saw the writing on the wall years ago, just look at Colorado. This particular issue brings out single issue voters like some of us (2A) in droves, so the vote would be automatic. They have millions of potential voters that they could snatch up just by changing the party stance on recreational marijuana.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[DD123]

I don't understand why the GOP hasn't pulled its collective head out of its posterior in regard to recreational pot. Democrats saw the writing on the wall years ago, just look at Colorado. This particular issue brings out single issue voters like some of us (2A) in droves, so the vote would be automatic. They have millions of potential voters that they could snatch up just by changing the party stance on recreational marijuana. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Because the GOP is still stuck in the 30's. They don't want to colored people smoking the devil cabbage and playing that satanic jazz music mesmerizing white women lol.

 

MJ prohibition was sold to the public based on racism, a man (Anslinger) about to lose his job due to the great depression, with help from an industrialist who knew that hemp would cause his entire business to fold because industrial hemp is a superior product.

 

Even today its continued prohibition is based on racism. It's a way to instigate a stop, and go on a fishing expedition to find something to charge people with, which in most cases involves African Americans. It's a dumb policy that only serves to enrich those who profit off of the black market trade of marijuana.

 

Personally I'd be okay with all drugs being legalized and regulated by the states. All of that money we spend on the failed drug war every year, a small portion of which could be repurposed towards providing treatment programs to addicts, while saving us I would imagine hundreds of billions of dollars per year, state and federal combined. But that's far too many steps at once, so legalize marijuana and see how that goes before slowly legalizing them one at a time.

 

People seem to think that if you legalize drugs, that it suddenly creates more drug users. That's just not true, and we have many examples of why it's not true. Drug addicts will always be drug addicts, and people that have no interest in doing drugs, won't suddenly develop an interest.

 

The fact that drugs are illegal sort of plays right into human nature, or our being intrigued by the forbidden fruit. If they're legal, and you educate people on the dangers of using drugs, people tend to not use them as much. We have case studies already to draw information from....Colorado has seen teen use plummet since legalization, Holland, at least the citizens of Holland don't smoke pot at all and many have never even tried it despite it's legal status there, and Portugal legalized all drugs and spent a portion of the money they dedicated towards fighting the drug war, towards providing treatment. All saw use decline.

 

Like I said in a previous post, they could legalize every drug, and it wouldn't interest me enough to actually try any of them, barring pot if I could benefit from pain relief or whatever. I'm definitely not interested in using them recreationally....life is hard enough without being a drug user. But if people want to responsibly use drugs, that's their decision provided the only person they affect is themselves.

 

ETA: I'm also very much a fan of Darwinism, so if drugs become legal, we may see some genes weed themselves out of the gene pool

[skinnyb82]

Actually it was pushed by Hearst. His paper business was in serious danger because of hemp production so he pushed for banning of hemp and pot. But Anslinger played a huge role in it.

 

And yes, I'm also about natural selection. If we legalized heroin tomorrow, how many more people would try it? I doubt that many. I don't believe we should be expending taxpayer dollars to save addicts who OD multiple times. It's ridiculous. That Indiana lawmaker had it right when he introduced a bill to limit narcan use to once. After that, no help. People who OD 3, 4, 5 times are gonna keep doing it. We can't give them that backup. That's WHY many of them do it. They know that someone can call 911, get some cops and EMTs over to admin narcan. It's comparable to the autobahn. No speed limit, it's population control. Filters out stupid.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

[DD123]

Actually it was pushed by Hearst. His paper business was in serious danger because of hemp production so he pushed for banning of hemp and pot. But Anslinger played a huge role in it. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

When I wrote a paper on it back in school, they worked in tandem. Not quite sure who approached who, but from what I found while researching, Anslinger seemed to be the one who instigated it since his role with the federal government was about to be eliminated due to the depression.

[skinnyb82]

It just slays me that it's Schedule I because some media magnate didn't wanna lose his control over paper. And the racist aspect of it. VA came out and said they COULD study medical marijuana use, but they won't. Because....well, who knows.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[tkroenlein]

Drug legalization will not stop or even diminish drug related crime/spending. Look at the tax CA put on it. Insta-black market.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DD123]

Drug legalization will not stop or even diminish drug related crime/spending. Look at the tax CA put on it. Insta-black market.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not true. I posted an article several posts above that shows the exact opposite.

 

I have a coworker and a few friends in Colorado who are pot users. They all go to the pot stores versus buying it on the street because it's safer, and you know exactly what you're buying, so they don't mind paying more for it.

 

Would you rather deal with a shady drug dealer in a back alley somewhere, or go into a safe store to buy it and spend a bit more?

 

ETA: I love my booze, but I'm not buying shine from some toothless person sold out of a mason jar just because I can save on some taxes lol.

[Jeffrey]

I don't understand why the GOP hasn't pulled its collective head out of its posterior in regard to recreational pot. Democrats saw the writing on the wall years ago, just look at Colorado. This particular issue brings out single issue voters like some of us (2A) in droves, so the vote would be automatic. They have millions of potential voters that they could snatch up just by changing the party stance on recreational marijuana. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

I've been thinking a lot about this lately on the subject of DACA. If Trump is able to pass a DACA deal that he created, ultimately giving all the dreamers citizenship, do you still believe those dreamers will suddenly become Republicans? Or even vote for Trump in the next election? I have a hard time thinking that citizenship or legalizing pot will change the minds of the youth and their party affiliation.

[tkroenlein]

Drug legalization will not stop or even diminish drug related crime/spending. Look at the tax CA put on it. Insta-black market.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Not true. I posted an article several posts above that shows the exact opposite.

 

I have a coworker and a few friends in Colorado who are pot users. They all go to the pot stores versus buying it on the street because it's safer, and you know exactly what you're buying, so they don't mind paying more for it.

 

Would you rather deal with a shady drug dealer in a back alley somewhere, or go into a safe store to buy it and spend a bit more?

 

ETA: I love my booze, but I'm not buying shine from some toothless person sold out of a mason jar just because I can save on some taxes lol.

That's primarily showing medical use data. And, it's only about pot. Legalize meth and heroine and the outcome will be much different. The taxes alone will drive the black market. What money is saved from policing illegal drug users will be spent on tax enforcement. The only savings to be had by the taxpayer is with the decriminalization of user amounts. Just my opinion. I'm sure we'll never find out.

[DD123]

 

Drug legalization will not stop or even diminish drug related crime/spending. Look at the tax CA put on it. Insta-black market.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Not true. I posted an article several posts above that shows the exact opposite.

 

I have a coworker and a few friends in Colorado who are pot users. They all go to the pot stores versus buying it on the street because it's safer, and you know exactly what you're buying, so they don't mind paying more for it.

 

Would you rather deal with a shady drug dealer in a back alley somewhere, or go into a safe store to buy it and spend a bit more?

 

ETA: I love my booze, but I'm not buying shine from some toothless person sold out of a mason jar just because I can save on some taxes lol.

That's primarily showing medical use data. And, it's only about pot. Legalize meth and heroine and the outcome will be much different. The taxes alone will drive the black market. What money is saved from policing illegal drug users will be spent on tax enforcement. The only savings to be had by the taxpayer is with the decriminalization of user amounts. Just my opinion. I'm sure we'll never find out.

 

No doubt that we'll probably never see hard drugs decriminalized, at least not in our lifetimes, however I do believe that within the next 5-10 years, we'll see marijuana be removed as a schedule 1 drug and the states regulating sales nationally. There are too many states moving in the medical legalization direction, and the recreational direction.

 

It effectively cuts one stream of revenue from the cartels and gangs.

 

The other thing is that we really don't know how legalizing everything will affect anything. Portugal decriminalized all drugs, and focused their drug enforcement on major importers versus street level dealers. The data shows that use has dropped, not sure about crime though. Comparing the US with other countries is always problematic, so it's anecdotal at best.

[wig]

Resurrecting this old thread as yesterday, technically, the opiod override for MM card issuance was supposed to kick in. Of course State of IL still isn't ready, but that's another matter.

 

As an FFL, CCL and FOID holder this topic made me very curious. I think I understand what is happening.

 

Some facts first:

 

1) State won't pull or fail to issue CCL and FOID because MM is legal in IL

2) So you have your FOID card and go to buy a firearm, you are denied. Why? This is the part I think I figured out. First, it's not ISP that processes the background check, but NICS. ISP just runs the process. However, the form you file to transfer a firearm, is a federal form with the question of “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana... or any other controlled substance?” ... Technically, in IL you are not breaking the law if you are MM licensed, but since this is a federal form, you are breaking the federal law and the act of you breaking that law is being witnessed and certified by an Illinois State Police officer. Why is this? Because, the ISP does look to see if you have an MM card when they background check you and they know.

 

So - this is a stupid legality/technicality only I think. There is no reason for the ISP to look at the MM registry for anything firearm licensure related except for FFL which continues operations on a federal level. But they don't process FFL paperwork - that's BATFE direct. So again, no reason ISP should even look.

 

Previously they looked because the initial interpretation was if you were MM, you would be denied. That was pulled. But the process of looking stayed in place. And as soon as an officer sees that you are lying on the question of “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana... or any other controlled substance?” they cannot approve it and forward it.

 

On the other hand, if we really want to get persnickety, the answer to that question should still be - no, I am not unlawful. I was legally licensed. You are not asking if I'm a federally unlawful user are you?

 

St. Louis area is facing this too - lots of news items on this. Some legislators trying to clarify it. But I suspect it's going to drag on forever.

So back to the beginning - how will this mesh with JB's promise of free pot for all - so to speak? If IL goes recreational... now what?

[Euler]

If there weren't a state law prohibiting something, Federal law still prevails. States making marijuana "legal" are really just prohibiting county and state courts from trying any cases. You are breaking the law if you have a state marijuana license, just not a state law. Basically, the state becomes a marijuana sanctuary. If you've been convicted of a Federal felony, but not a state felony, should you be able to claim to the state that you're not a felon because you weren't convicted of violating any state laws?

 

The Gun Control Act of 1968 still establishes the jurisdiction of the Federal government in regulating all firearms and the preeminence of Federal firearm laws. States can be more restrictive, but not less restrictive.

 

So at the state level, will the state refuse to enforce Federal controlled substance laws, or will the state refuse to enforce both Federal controlled substance laws and Federal firearm laws?

 

I'd guess not the latter. Like it or not, people who smoke weed and don't own guns still want people who smoke weed and own guns to lose their guns.

[lockman]

Possession of a MM card does not break any federal law. Only MJ possession, delivery or cultivation. There is a distinction.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk