You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Thats my opinion of the laws and how they read.
I was told, from a source that I don’t really trust concerning gun laws, since he doesn’t have a carry license, but, he is a supplier for these shops around here. In other words, he’s a farmer, but, he said, in August, there is a new law coming out that says you can have your medical card, as well as your Carry License. I think he is confused with Constitutional Carry, but that starts in November. I’m just now starting my research on it, and of course, this is the first place to get “ideas”, or a “foundation”, to at least have a starting point. I’m not saying everything here is factual, but, we do have some sharp people here who can steer you in the right direction. This subject is very interesting to me, because I do have a family member who quit Opiod addiction by using weed, and they made me a believer in the stuff that has always had such negative connotations. In fact, I have to ask if they had any, because I can’t even tell anymore. I could at first when they first started. I guess it’s like alcohol, you get better at handling it. I know, I’d rather my family member have access to guns when “high” as opposed to drunk, which they wouldn’t do anyways. This person wants to get their gun license when they turn 21 in a few months. Going to be one of those deals; scared being in a dark parking lot at night, when you’re a good-looking girl (or anybody for that matter), or, not living in a hell with Pain Meds that they need, but do more harm than good, so quit. I personally have changed my views on the subject, now that I’m more educated on the subject. Sorry for rambling on, that’s what I do after a long night shift and tired.
So was Lawton (Rotten), Ok for years; in fact, it was called Little Chicago for awhile, but that was back in the day, the town has cleaned-up a lot. Speaking of Antlers, they probably killed more beef than anybody because that restaurant there is supposed to be, out-of-this-world! We drove about 45 mins to get there to see what the hoopla was about, and the A/C had gone out (was a year or two ago) and we got nicely asked to leave after eating salad, for free, and many apologies. We plan to go back one of these days. I haven’t even been to Cattleman’s yet, and I hear this is even better? Your post sure brought back memories of a long, but, interesting day. We ended-up having a good time at a friends restaurant (of our host) in Chickasha.
I don't see some OK law superceding Federal laws on marijuana and firearms. Until they remove MJ from the federal Schedule 1 prohibition, it's not going to affect anything, IMO.
The Carry License is from the State; is it the Fed that says you can’t have both, or, is it the State?
Unfortunately, no. I looked at some previous threads in this forum about open carry but they're deleted? I used the search function, maybe they have to delete threads that are so many years old or something. For the original SDA act in the 90's, I remember they were on a list of people like Oklahoma Sheriff's Assoc., FOP, District Attorneys that lobbied the state leg. against it. I remember that because I went to go see my representative at the time and my friend I was with had a list from the NRA.
This story talks about OSBI being against the overhaul to the SDA act because they were concerned about people slipping through the cracks on the NICS system to buy a gun. They allude to the OSBI being against the SDA originally and open carry but considering the source (ammoland), it's not verifiable.
https://www.ammoland.com/2015/04/oklahoma-house-leadership-working-against-gun-owners/#axzz5ryDLIxTA
Last year, they were very vocal about being against Constitutional Carry siting everything from lost revenue to lost jobs to the old "blood in the streets" myth. https://www.news9.com/story/38107803/osbi-voices-concern-over-constitutional-carry-bill
If I get some more time, I will dig into the bowels of the internet and see what I can dig up.
The reason I ask is because the Fed has been ignoring their laws, and letting States have more control, as it was meant to be in the Constitution. While laws are still on the books, they haven’t been prosecuting them. For instance, according to Fed Law, Colorado or California can’t have recreational weed, even though an unimaginable number of States do have now
Ignoring laws on weed is one thing... ignoring people with weed AND guns is another completely different thing. They can and have made examples of people in that scenario. And if you think the .gov and the media wouldn't LOVE to show a million gun owners getting arrested for having MM and firearms, you're nuts. They would be all over that like a chikkin on a June bug.
https://osbi.ok.gov/handgun-licensing
Click link on SDA and Medical Marijuana
Federal is pretty much stated in 11e on firearm transfer form.
Think Federal can't enforce the criminal aspect of Marijuana due to resources. I.e. agents to enforce, facility to hold, people to do the administration of paperwork to log and prosecute, and whatever would be necessary to get from arrest to punishment completed.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Not sure any state agency has the right to do anything beyond asking you to voluntarily surrender your CCW. Not arguing whether there are still federal issues and none of this will apply to me. I can't say how I'll feel on the subject 30 years from now when my bones are creaking though so I try not to judge.
If one wants to know for themselves they can always read what's actually in the text of the legislation. HB 2612 came with some teeth.
Ahem... RTFM
"A medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee shall not be denied the right to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories based solely on his or her status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee. No state or local agency, municipal or county governing authority shall restrict, revoke, suspend or otherwise infringe upon the right of a person to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories or any related firearms license or certification based solely on their status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee."
"A medical marijuana patient or caregiver in actual possession of a medical marijuana license shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner or denied any right, privilege or public assistance, under state law or municipal or county ordinance or resolution including without limitation a civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business, occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with this act."
"Such records shall be marked as confidential, shall not be made available to the public and shall only be made available to the licensee, designee of the licensee, any physician of the licensee or the caregiver of the licensee. No personally identifiable information, as defined under HIPAA, shall be stored at the Department."
"Unless otherwise required by federal law or required to obtain federal funding:
1. No employer may refuse to hire, discipline, discharge or otherwise penalize an applicant or employee solely on the basis of such applicant's or employee's status as a medical marijuana licensee; and
2. No employer may refuse to hire, discipline, discharge or otherwise penalize an applicant or employee solely on the basis of a positive test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless:
a. the applicant or employee is not in possession of a valid medical marijuana license,
b. the licensee possesses, consumes or is under the influence of medical marijuana or medical marijuana product while at the place of employment or during the fulfillment of employment obligations, or
c. the position is one involving safety-sensitive job duties, as such term is defined in subsection K of this section."
If one wants to know for themselves they can always read what's actually in the text of the legislation. HB 2612 came with some teeth.
Ahem... RTFM
"A medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee shall not be denied the right to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories based solely on his or her status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee. No state or local agency, municipal or county governing authority shall restrict, revoke, suspend or otherwise infringe upon the right of a person to own, purchase or possess a firearm, ammunition, or firearm accessories or any related firearms license or certification based solely on their status as a medical marijuana patient or caregiver licensee."
"A medical marijuana patient or caregiver in actual possession of a medical marijuana license shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution or penalty in any manner or denied any right, privilege or public assistance, under state law or municipal or county ordinance or resolution including without limitation a civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business, occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with this act."
"Such records shall be marked as confidential, shall not be made available to the public and shall only be made available to the licensee, designee of the licensee, any physician of the licensee or the caregiver of the licensee. No personally identifiable information, as defined under HIPAA, shall be stored at the Department."
"Unless otherwise required by federal law or required to obtain federal funding:
1. No employer may refuse to hire, discipline, discharge or otherwise penalize an applicant or employee solely on the basis of such applicant's or employee's status as a medical marijuana licensee; and
2. No employer may refuse to hire, discipline, discharge or otherwise penalize an applicant or employee solely on the basis of a positive test for marijuana components or metabolites, unless:
a. the applicant or employee is not in possession of a valid medical marijuana license,
b. the licensee possesses, consumes or is under the influence of medical marijuana or medical marijuana product while at the place of employment or during the fulfillment of employment obligations, or
c. the position is one involving safety-sensitive job duties, as such term is defined in subsection K of this section."
Last edited:
Similar threads
