PISTOLS AND POT: WHAT WE LEARN FROM THE COURT

You can learn a lot from the opinion of the Oregon Supreme Court in
the case it decided Thursday concerning concealed handgun licenses.

The court agreed with trial courts in Jackson and Washington
counties, and with the Oregon Court of Appeals, that Oregon sheriffs
must not refuse to issue CHLs to people who also hold medical marijuana cards.

One thing you are reminded of -- in a footnote unrelated to the main
arguments of the case -- is that under the state constitution,
"individuals in Oregon have the right to possess firearms for defense
of self and property." It also says that except for some persons
including minors and felons, people do not violate the law "by
carrying a firearm openly in a belt holster."

The main thing you learn, though, is that there's a clear distinction
between the issuance or possession of a concealed-carry license and
the possession of an actual firearm.

This is a point at the heart of the debate about House Bill 2787,
which now appears dead in the state Senate. The bill would bar public
bodies from disclosing the names of CHL holders or applicants.

Opponents of the bill have argued that people may need to know, and
should have the right to find out, whether someone they are concerned
about has a gun, and therefore they should have access to CHL information.

But that argument misses the essential point, which is that having a
license does not mean somebody is armed or even has a gun, or that
somebody who has a gun also has a license to carry it concealed on
his person or in his vehicle.

That essential point is at the heart of the court decision last week.

The sheriffs in Jackson and Washington counties refused to issue or
renew concealed-carry licenses to medical pot users on the grounds of
federal law.

The federal Gun Control Act, the state courts observed, "makes it a
federal crime for a person who uses marijuana in violation of federal
law to possess a firearm in or affecting commerce."

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted that section to mean that
Congress wanted to keep firearms away from persons whom Congress
"classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous."

The Oregon courts considered whether this conflicts with issuing a
concealed-carry license to people who use marijuana, and they say it does not.

"In fact," Supreme Court Justice Paul De Muniz wrote, "it is possible
that the sheriffs in this case could themselves enforce ...the
federal Gun Control Act against medical marijuana users who possess
guns in violation of federal law. The federal act makes such
possession illegal, the sheriffs generally are authorized to enforce
federal as well as state law, and no state law prohibits the sheriffs
from taking such enforcement actions."

But, the court said, the sheriffs cannot use the state CHL licensing
law to try to carry out the federal prohibition.

In other words, they can under federal law arrest marijuana users who
possess guns, but they can't under state law refuse to issue them
licenses to carry guns concealed on the grounds that they use pot.

In the legislative debate about HB2787, the distinction between
licensing and being armed has been lost. Even though it's probably
too late now, it might be helpful for senators to read what the court
had do say. (hh)