Do Card Holders Have A Legal Right To Defend Themselves With A Gun?

[bobandtorey]

Being able to use MM has only been legal (sort of) for 4 and a 1/2 years. Before the MMMA if caught you knew it was illegal. Now we should be protected and don"t seem to be. So actually it is new.

I agree we should be but we are not but someday I think we will be

That's why I may be better just to get meds from a dispensary and not grow

I also think that using mmj you would be better off then growing using is not a Felony and growing is imho

[SFC]

Then that is what YOU should do Bob. Oh wait, dispensaries aren't legal...

[GrassMonkey]

I am familiar with the case out west, I saw there was a mention of a CoA decision here in MI on that law firm site, but no citation. Do you know the case?

 

Hi Dr Bob,

 

No i am not familiar with the case. Just found this link when researching the law.

 

What do you mean by citation? I'm ignorant when it comes to understanding the law and its processes.

[GrassMonkey]

I think there are 2 seperate issues here:

 

1. buying the gun. when you buy a gun, you fill out a federal form. one of the questions asks if you are currently using any illeagal drugs including marijuana. now some will say they aren't using illeagally, but remember this is a federal form, they don't recognize MJ as leagal for medical purposes, so that argument will not hold up in court. the only way around this that i see is the defifnition of currently. if you aren't medicated while youre buying the gun then i guess youre not currently using. also if you quit using for a brief period this could be currently too. Have found no definition for currently on this, so this would be the only loop hole i could think of.

 

2. already have a gun, then you get a card. this is, if i understand the law correctly, a fire arms violation. you cannot possess, use, manufacture, distribute, in any way, MJ. if you do, it's a mandatory min. of 2 yrs for fire arms violation, to be served consecutivly, not concurrently.

 

so in essence, you cannot legally protect yourself, or even hunt for that matter, with a gun if you are a card holder.

 

Please correct me if i am wrong, but i dont think i am.

[bobandtorey]

I think there are 2 seperate issues here:

 

1. buying the gun. when you buy a gun, you fill out a federal form. one of the questions asks if you are currently using any illeagal drugs including marijuana. now some will say they aren't using illeagally, but remember this is a federal form, they don't recognize MJ as leagal for medical purposes, so that argument will not hold up in court. the only way around this that i see is the defifnition of currently. if you aren't medicated while youre buying the gun then i guess youre not currently using. also if you quit using for a brief period this could be currently too. Have found no definition for currently on this, so this would be the only loop hole i could think of.

 

2. already have a gun, then you get a card. this is, if i understand the law correctly, a fire arms violation. you cannot possess, use, manufacture, distribute, in any way, MJ. if you do, it's a mandatory min. of 2 yrs for fire arms violation, to be served consecutivly, not concurrently.

 

so in essence, you cannot legally protect yourself, or even hunt for that matter, with a gun if you are a card holder.

 

Please correct me if i am wrong, but i dont think i am.

 

 

The Act neither protects marihuana plants from seizure nor individuals from prosecution if the federal government chooses to take action against patients or caregivers under the federal

[GrassMonkey]

The Act neither protects marihuana plants from seizure nor individuals from prosecution if the federal government chooses to take action against patients or caregivers under the federal

 

Hi bobandtorey

 

I understand that we have no protection from the federal gov. on MMMA, but what about our right to defend ourselves, or even hunt, with a gun if we are a card holder? That is what i'm getting at. I know the federal government doesnt care about our state laws but im suprised that the state doesnt protect us. It looks like they just caved in and sided with the fed on this situation.

[GrassMonkey]

Dr Bob,

 

Man i must be tired, ha ha, now i understand what you meant by citation, let me see if i can find something.

[GrassMonkey]

I found this:

 

...You want something for personal protection get a shotgun with home defense rounds, it will do a lot more work than an AK knock off if you have to use it.

 

Also http://www.komornlaw.com/

 

Michael Komorn, I had a buddy email him a while back, he is a the legal rep for the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association. He emailed him back stating that a Medical Marijuana Card would not interfere with any state issued licenses or purchasing or possessing a firearm in the state of Michigan....

 

here:

 

http://www.migunowners.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-147652.html

 

Looks like it may only apply to hand guns and not rifles...?

[GrassMonkey]

Found this a little further down on the link i posted above:

 

...According to the ATF

 

OPEN LETTER TO ALL FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES dated September 21, 2011

http://www.atf.gov/p...al-purposes.pdf

 

"Therefore any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. Such persons should answer “yes” to question 11.e on ATF Form 4473 (August 2008), Firearms Transaction Record, and you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to them. Further, if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have “reasonable cause to believe” that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. As such, you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person, even if the person answered “no” to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473."

 

This is perfectly clear about the Feds' position on this matter.

 

Also, the footnote in this letter says...

(1) The Federal government does not recognize marijuana as a medicine. The FDA has determined that marijuana is has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and lacks an accepted level of safety for use under medical supervision. See 66 Fed. Reg. 20052 (2001). This Open Letter will use the terms “medical use” or “for medical purposes” with the understanding that such use is not sanctioned by the federal agency charged with determining what substances are safe and effective as medicines.

I would NOT recommend for anyone who values his/her rights to keep and bear arms, possession of a Medical Marijuana Card or use of marijuana in any form for any purpose, since it would constitute a federal felony if caught in possession of a firearm....

 

here is the full letter:

 

http://www.nssf.org/...etter092111.pdf

 

And an article:

 

http://www.denverpos...ana/ci_19026921

 

here's a local article:

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2011/10/feds_say_medical_marijuana_and.html

Edited March 6, 2013 by GrassMonkey

[Dr. Bob]

Excellent, thank you. Great post, I'll review it.

 

Thanks.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Celliach]

Being able to use MM has only been legal (sort of) for 4 and a 1/2 years. Before the MMMA if caught you knew it was illegal. Now we should be protected and don"t seem to be. So actually it is new.

 

Actually it made it so you couldn't have guns even if you we're on certain prescription drugs as well as illegal ones, including pain-killers, so it's not anything new.

[Chauncy Gardner]

Then why did the US Supreme Court allow an Oregon Supreme Court ruling allowing a medical marijuana patient to possess guns stand? If Federal gun laws supersede State gun laws then why didn't the US Supreme Court intervene in the Oregon case? Oregon says that it is OK for a medical marijuana patient to possess guns and the US Supreme Court agrees.

[Celliach]

Then why did the US Supreme Court allow an Oregon Supreme Court ruling allowing a medical marijuana patient to possess guns stand? If Federal gun laws supersede State gun laws then why didn't the US Supreme Court intervene in the Oregon case? Oregon says that it is OK for a medical marijuana patient to possess guns and the US Supreme Court agrees.

 

Which case was that? I honestly don't remember the SC hearing that case.

[TheHarvester]

GrassMonkey,

Excellent posts and links. Thank you.

[BirdHunter]

Basically, in the Oregon case, the Oregon supreme court ruled that local police are not in standing to enforce federal law, therefore, the local sherrif cannot deny a state CPL to a marijuana card holder due to federal rules. The feds are free to enforce their own laws, thus no conflict exists in that situation. The US supreme court agreed and did not take up the appeal.

 

It appears that the CPL laws in michigan are similar, a person only has to be free of felony convictions, and even then there is a sunset of 10 years on many felony convictions.

[BirdHunter]

I've also been trying to find a link, but I remember Bill Schuette being quoted as saying something to the effect that no Michigan citizen will be denied thier 2nd ammendment rights by possessing a marijuana CARD on his watch.

 

It blew my mind.

[Celliach]

Basically, in the Oregon case, the Oregon supreme court ruled that local police are not in standing to enforce federal law, therefore, the local sherrif cannot deny a state CPL to a marijuana card holder due to federal rules. The feds are free to enforce their own laws, thus no conflict exists in that situation. The US supreme court agreed and did not take up the appeal.

 

It appears that the CPL laws in michigan are similar, a person only has to be free of felony convictions, and even then there is a sunset of 10 years on many felony convictions.

 

Can anyone provide a link or at least a name connected to this case? I've searched and can't find anything at all.

 

BTW, just because the SC passes on a case doesn't mean they agree with it, It means they don't deem it important enough to be one of the few cases they hear every year.

[Chauncy Gardner]

Which case was that? I honestly don't remember the SC hearing that case.

 

 

http://www.freerepub...s/2831972/posts

[Celliach]

http://www.freerepub...s/2831972/posts

 

Thanks. I think the SC probably passed on this because there was nothing new about this case. It's a cut and dry "local officials don't have the authority to implement federal law" case.

[BirdHunter]

I've also been trying to find a link, but I remember Bill Schuette being quoted as saying something to the effect that no Michigan citizen will be denied thier 2nd ammendment rights by possessing a marijuana CARD on his watch.

 

It blew my mind.

 

I remember it being on WWJ or WJR in an interview now.

[Chauncy Gardner]

I've also been trying to find a link, but I remember Bill Schuette being quoted as saying something to the effect that no Michigan citizen will be denied thier 2nd ammendment rights by possessing a marijuana CARD on his watch.

 

It blew my mind.

 

 

Now THAT I find hard to believe. I think Bill Schuette will do or say anything to make a Medical Marijuana card holder's life "special".

[GrassMonkey]

GrassMonkey,

Excellent posts and links. Thank you.

 

No problem Harvester!

 

Now if we can find out if you have to pay the price for using a gun in your home to defend yourself if youre a card holder?

[Dlo]

I would think it would come down to that specific prosecutor and county.

[bobandtorey]

I would think it would come down to that specific prosecutor and county.

 

you mean to test the Law to see if you can own or have a gun and a card for using marihuana for medical reasons i agree it will happen to someone poor and with no money to fight it

 

the MMMA sure needs a fund to help people i give almost every month to the MMMA we all should

 

dont delay give today

[GrassMonkey]

Thank You Mr Komorn!!!

 

All questions answered on Planet Green Trees Episode 138:

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2013/03/08/planet-green-trees-episode-138-the-unity-episode