Connect with us

Harris | Bricken

Will Gun Control Laws Soften for Cannabis Users?

Published

on


The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 deems cannabis users “prohibited persons” who cannot legally own or possess firearms. In the past, numerous petitioners failed to overturn convictions under this law. That is now changing. In a recent case known as United States v. Harrison, a federal court ruled that cannabis use alone does not disqualify someone from their right to possess firearms. Today, I want to discuss the case and why it is so significant.

For reference, is how the Harrison court summarized the relevant provisions of the Gun Control Act:

The statute initially prohibited any individual who was “an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana or any depressant or stimulant drug . . . or narcotic drug” from receiving a firearm, but it was amended in 1986 to broadly prohibit the receipt or possession of a firearm by any person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).” In its modern form, [the law] thus strips a person of their fundamental right to possess a firearm the instant the person becomes an “unlawful user” of marijuana. And in the United

Read full article on HarrisBricken



Source link

Continue Reading

Harris | Bricken

Happy Holidays from The Canna Law Blog

Published

on

By


Wishing all of our readers, along with friends and families, the very best this holiday season.

Whether you celebrate Hanukkah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Winter Solstice, Festivus, or something else, we hope you can kick back and enjoy this wonderful time of the year.

Read full article on HarrisBricken



Source link

Continue Reading

Harris | Bricken

How Important is the SAFE Banking Act, Anyway?

Published

on

By


I’m pretty sure that more ink has been spilled on the Secure and Fair Enforcement Act (“SAFE Banking”), than any other proposed cannabis law. It just won’t pass and it just won’t die. Specifically, SAFE Banking was introduced in 2017 and it passed the House seven times (seven times!) with bipartisan support since 2019. The public likes it too: here’s a November 2022 Data for Progress poll revealing that “By a +65-point margin, voters support ensuring that banks do not discriminate against legitimate marijuana-related businesses.” This bill should pass, right?

It’s getting closer. SAFE Banking will finally go to mark-up this week in the Senate Banking Committee. That Committee is preparing to vote before October 1, although what they’ll be voting on at this point isn’t entirely clear. (For some chatter on that, check out this Marijuana Moment piece from last Friday.) But let’s assume that SAFE Banking, after mark-up, holds onto its key tenets. It would prevent federal banking regulators from:

prohibiting, penalizing or discouraging a bank from providing financial services to a legitimate state-sanctioned and regulated cannabis business, or an associated business (such as a lawyer or landlord providing services to a legal cannabis business); terminating or

Read full article on HarrisBricken



Source link

Continue Reading

Harris | Bricken

Employment Law Issues for Struggling Businesses

Published

on

By


We all know the Oregon cannabis industry is struggling. We write often about the causes on a macro level, possible solutions, and what we see as business litigators. We haven’t written much about one of the basic areas of employment law that applies to Oregon marijuana businesses: workers rights to wages and employer responsibilities. As marijuana businesses shutter, employees and employers should pay careful attention to Oregon’s wage laws. This post addresses basic things marijuana employees and employers ought to know about paying wages when employment ends.

No formal contract is required to create an employment relationship

There is no requirement under Oregon law for a formal contract to establish an employment relationship. As long as the ordinary elements of contract formation are present an employment relationship exists. Usually this means that the person for whom the service is performed (employer) agrees to have another perform the service (employee) for a certain remuneration (wages). And where the putative employer has a right of control over the services provided by the putative employee.  Typically this boils down to compensation and right-of-control.

When these elements are present an employer’s promises of wages and benefits are binding. On the flip side, the general

Read full article on HarrisBricken



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media