Illinois policy makers force medical cannabis patients to choose between medication and firearm ownership.
ILLINOIS REGISTER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH DRAFT NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES
the applicant understands that a qualifying patient or designated caregiver with a current Firearm Owners Identification Card or a Concealed Carry Weapons Permit who is approved for a registry identification card shall be in violation of and may not possess firearms under relevant state and federal law.
As such, registered qualifying patients and designated caregivers are not eligible for a Firearm Owners Identification Card or a Firearm Concealed Carry License and may be subject to administrative proceedings by the Illinois State Police if they do not voluntarily surrender such card or license
When proponents of medical cannabis in Illinois rejoiced over the passing of the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act I seriously doubt they saw this little gem from the Illinois Department of Public Health coming.
(For those unfamiliar with the term FOID card – Illinois residents who wish to own, possess, use, or purchase, firearms or ammunition must have a Firearm Owners Identification Card .)
After all who would equate the surrender of ones rights to own a firearm with receiving a legal medication? This nasty little bit of gun control has been inserted into the currently proposed rules for application for a medical cannabis card or for the ID card of a caregiver. Now seriously, if the argument is that the use of medical cannabis impairs one to the point that they would not be able to safely handle a firearm why remove the caregivers’ right to own and carry a firearm? One can only assume (hope) that the caregivers are not impaired, nor using any of the medical cannabis. Why should they too be barred from owning a firearm?
To me, it’s just a sneaky way to further gun control and gun grabbing in Illinois. Regardless of your stance on medical cannabis the implications of inserting language such as this in health care related rulemaking and policy setting documents could set a very dangerous precedent. Today its medical cannabis, tomorrow could YOU have to surrender your right to own a firearm in order to obtain any medication that the policy and rule makers figure out is needed desperately enough to warrant someone to actually surrender their FOID card in order to receive. Do you see where this could end up if not stopped and stopped immediately?
What other registrations will Illinois try to tie to the surrender of a FOID card and the forfeiture of firearm ownership? Want your nursing license? Oh well, you must surrender your FOID card first.
For a more personal look at the issue please visit my blog Walkin’ With the Wild Woman where I express my outrage as patient who once anticipated the passage of this law as way to better treat the painful and debilitating symptoms of my Multiple Sclerosis. Until this rule is removed, this is one once potential card applicant who will NOT be applying. I will not be forced to trade my right to own a firearm for the right to receive medication that my long term physician and care team have determined is beneficial for me.
Again I cannot stress enough, the issue here is not the use of medical cannabis, but rather the way the State of Illinois has found yet another method to shove its antiquated and overly restrictive gun laws down the throats of its citizens.
If you are concerned gun owner please join me in telling the State of Illinois that we will not stand for this underhanded and decidedly non-compassionate rule. To submit public comments please visit this website. Please do not tarry – the deadline for comments is February 7th, 2014.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoyed this post please share it with the world!
If you’d like to get immediate email notifications when a new article, contest or show is posted; enter your email address in the sign up box on the left.
* The content of editorial posts does not reflect the official opinion of Carrie Zylka, LLC. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in this editorial lies entirely with the author.