Mmma Questions And Open Discussion On Rules :)

[ozzrokk]

Well I will say this if you are calling the right to use mmj a personal right and not an absolute right then you use an example of eating,sleeping, etc as personal rights. Where including war,prisons,everyday life, etc does those personal rights such as eating and so on EVER get denied? Sounds like the SC ruled it as a very solid right.

 

Edited to add that even if it was considered a privilege the quote that Zap put above this post covers that as well. Shall not be denied

Edited April 26, 2014 by ozzrokk

[AmishRnot4ganja]

A medical marijuana patient out west (Oregon or Washington) was denied a concealed weapons permit by the local sheriff. Somehow it went all the way to the State Supreme court. The SC told the sheriff that he was full of excrement all the way up to his brown eyeballs and to issue the permit. Google it.

[+Malamute]

I actually didn't finish reading the thread, but if ya lie on a form, you can get in trouble,... and if you have a gun "during the commission of a felony" you will have problems(2 year mandatory).

 

Lots of ins and outs to that statement, but... that's about it.

[pergamum362]

Man, alot of pages of reading and i didnt learn a thing.

[trichcycler]

perhaps some confusion is in state laws and proceedings, vs non friendly federal law and their proceedings. I am aware of the state doing the right thing with firearms, but federal law is in question here. Our state writes checks the feds wont cash with this one maybe

[trix]

I actually didn't finish reading the thread, but if ya lie on a form, you can get in trouble,... and if you have a gun "during the commission of a felony" you will have problems(2 year mandatory).

 

Lots of ins and outs to that statement, but... that's about it.

Possession of Marijuana = Misdemeanor (Depending on circumstances)

 

Manufacturing Marijuana = Felony, resulting In the Felony Firearm charge min. mand. 2 year sentence.

[+Malamute]

The feds will stick it to you and they say so up front and ask you specifically if you illegally use drugs.  Marijuana is schedule 1 thus illegal regardless of any stupid state law.

 

As far as state law,.. it goes both ways. 

 

 Bottom line,.. if they want to screw you, they will.  You can't go federal appeal and win.  I have yet to see one actually win when it comes to drugs, guns and the Feds.

[+Malamute]

depends trix. Simple possession is a misdemeanor,.. Larger possession is a felony.

 

 Edit:  should be more clear, federally, possession is a misdemeanor unless based on amount or scales present etc they move you under the Sale category.

 

Multiple offense for possession(3rd), even a joint, is a felony. :-)

[trichcycler]

so you believe your right to owning and bearing firearms under federal law, while possessing, growing, transporting, selling marijuana, is removed, even though you may be state compliant?

 

Possession of Marijuana = Misdemeanor (Depending on circumstances)

Manufacturing Marijuana = Felony, resulting In the Felony Firearm charge min. mand. 2 year sentence.

 

The feds will stick it to you and they say so up front and ask you specifically if you illegally use drugs.  Marijuana is schedule 1 thus illegal regardless of any stupid state law.

 

As far as state law,.. it goes both ways. 

 

 Bottom line,.. if they want to screw you, they will.  You can't go federal appeal and win.  I have yet to see one actually win when it comes to drugs, guns and the Feds.

[bobandtorey]

so you believe your right to owning and bearing firearms under federal law, while possessing, growing, transporting, selling marijuana, is removed, even though you may be state compliant?

No not me

[trix]

so you believe your right to owning and bearing firearms under federal law, while possessing, growing, transporting, selling marijuana, is removed, even though you may be state compliant?

I'm just basing on my experience in court and they said I was legit and returned all my property..

 

Am I worried about Federal Law, and possession of a firearm?

Yes, and no... I will not be committing any felonies while in possession of a firearm. I will remove any firearms before growing marijuana..or drinking.. etc.. drugs and guns don't mix.. Drinking and guns dont mix.

 

Do I worry daily that my gun will cause the police to knock my door down?

No, because I don't grow marijuana.

 

Am I worried about carrying my firearm?

No, because I'm not doing anything against the law..

 

Am I prepaired to stand in court and defend my 2nd amendment.

Yes, with every dime I have..

 

I have been stopped 3x's while carrying and being in possession of small amounts of marijuana, each time I have been sent on my way without incident.

 

When I do grow marijuana, I will not keep my guns in the same place as the growing plants.

 

Why should I live in fear of being robbed or worse because I simply am in possession of a marijuana card?

I'm not under the influence or addicted to ANY drugs...

 

All I know is what the courts told me.. and that was your case is dismissed and then ordered my property returned. Knowing all the facts about what happened seeing my permits and cards it all played out for the best.

 

I stood tall in court, didn't plea, and risked several years in prison mainly due to that gun.

 

The only thing I would have done differently was not had the gun and the plants together..

 

 

[GregS]

I wonder why an expired card and/or registration is not, in fact, de facto proof that, "A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition..."  There is no stipulation anywhere that I can recall stating that such a statement has a specific shelf life. As long as the certifying doctor has done the responsible thing and dictated that statement into the patient's record, I see no reason that it cannot be used to determine compliance under the AD in the event of an expired card.

 

If it is proof enough, then Moffet might be cleared of charges under sec. 8. Do we think this is the case?

Edited April 26, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

The feds will stick it to you and they say so up front and ask you specifically if you illegally use drugs.  Marijuana is schedule 1 thus illegal regardless of any stupid state law.

 

As far as state law,.. it goes both ways. 

 

 Bottom line,.. if they want to screw you, they will.  You can't go federal appeal and win.  I have yet to see one actually win when it comes to drugs, guns and the Feds.

I  think it better said that the feds "can" stick it to you. Given the citations in this thread, I doubt they have any real interest in busting legitimate  patients and caregivers.

Edited April 26, 2014 by GregS

[Highlander]

Well I will say this if you are calling the right to use mmj a personal right and not an absolute right then you use an example of eating,sleeping, etc as personal rights. Where including war,prisons,everyday life, etc does those personal rights such as eating and so on EVER get denied? Sounds like the SC ruled it as a very solid right.

 

Edited to add that even if it was considered a privilege the quote that Zap put above this post covers that as well. Shall not be denied

That's because personal rights are those rights that relate to what a person does with their own body. Eating and sleeping are personal rights. This might help clarify. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rights

 

Once one understands what a personal right is, then they can try to decide what it means that the SC said MMJ use is a personal right.

[Highlander]

I wonder why an expired card and/or registration is not, in fact, de facto proof that, "A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition..."  There is no stipulation anywhere that I can recall stating that such a statement has a specific shelf life. As long as the certifying doctor has done the responsible thing and dictated that statement into the patient's record, I see no reason that it cannot be used to determine compliance under the AD in the event of an expired card.

 

If it is proof enough, then Moffet might be cleared of charges under sec. 8. Do we think this is the case?

The fact that it says "full medical history and CURRENT medical condition" seems to suggest that the author of the law intended the Dr rec. to have a shelf life. Otherwise the word "current" would mean nothing in this context, and rules of statutory interpretation tell us that every word means something.

[Highlander]

I think I found it. Also, I found this quote from the law

 

A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act...

 

:

I'm not clear how that applies. The Supreme Court said MMJ use by a patient is a personal right. The above quote says that no right or privilege shall be denied if the patient is acting in accordance with the act. Did someone suggest that there is a right to use MMJ not in accordance with the act? Or was it suggested that the personal right to use MMJ CAN be denied to a patient acting in accordance with the act? I'm just sure sure what you mean here.

[Highlander]

Could one argue that, while the right to bear arms can be denied (to felons, insane, etc.), the only way the personal right to use MMJ can be denied is if you're not in accordance with the act?  In other words, you can be disqualified to own a gun because you use MMJ, but you can't be disqualified to use MMJ because you own a gun (as long as you are compliant with the MMMA?)  If this is true, it would follow that the personal right to use MMJ is stronger than the right to bear arms?

 

Understanding, of course, that the rights issue wasn't a matter in front of the court, so I'm not talking case law here - just a hypothetical discussion of the philosophy of the court.  If the court believes MMJ use is a personal right, then use by a patient can't be denied by a patient who is out on bond or on parole?

Edited April 26, 2014 by Highlander

[GregS]

The fact that it says "full medical history and CURRENT medical condition" seems to suggest that the author of the law intended the Dr rec. to have a shelf life. Otherwise the word "current" would mean nothing in this context, and rules of statutory interpretation tell us that every word means something.

Would it not be the physician's call whether or not the condition remains current? Who else or what laws would be the authority?

Edited April 26, 2014 by GregS

[Highlander]

Would it not be the physician's call whether or not the condition remains current? Who else or what laws would be the authority?

 

Probably, but then you need the Dr. to state that, which means he would have to testify.  If that happens, then an expired card wouldn't matter anymore anyway because the Dr. would be making the "current" statement in court?  In other words, the expired card alone is not sufficient to prove a current condition - there needs to be either a Dr. testimony or some past records that are explicit that the patient will always have the condition, making the Dr.'s rec. current forever?

[GregS]

Probably, but then you need the Dr. to state that, which means he would have to testify.  If that happens, then an expired card wouldn't matter anymore anyway because the Dr. would be making the "current" statement in court?  In other words, the expired card alone is not sufficient to prove a current condition - there needs to be either a Dr. testimony or some past records that are explicit that the patient will always have the condition, making the Dr.'s rec. current forever?

I understand. But if the statement has been dictated into the record, it might well be enough evidence to meet that prong. Then again, the supporting documents that I offer with the private pt/cg agreement that has been discussed would almost necessarily be considered admissible and excuse the physician from having to testify..

 

Supporting documents are here: https://sites.google...attredirects=0, and here

https://sites.google...?attredirects=0

Edited April 26, 2014 by GregS

[GregS]

I understand. But if the statement has been dictated into the record, it might well be enough evidence to meet that prong. Then again, the supporting documents that I offer with the private pt/cg agreement that has been discussed would almost necessarily be considered admissible.

 

Supporting documents are here: https://sites.google...attredirects=0, and here

https://sites.google...?attredirects=0

Stand by. I will post workable links.

 

They are here:

 

https://sites.google.com/site/medcannabis/Affidavit-authenticateOPINION.pdf?attredirects=0

 

https://sites.google.com/site/medcannabis/Generic-PatientMADO.pdf?attredirects=0

 

They may be enough to prevent courtroom testimony by the doctor.

Edited April 27, 2014 by GregS

[Highlander]

The other problem with relying on an expired card is that the Dr. cert. for Section 4 isn't the same as that under Section 8.

 

Sec 4:

The physician has completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition, including a relevant, in-person, medical evaluation.

(3) In the physician's professional opinion, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Sec 8:

A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

An expired card might be per se evidence that a Dr. made the former statement (under Sec. 4) but the card alone does not prove the Rec. was made in accordance with the language in Sec. 8

 

It looks like Sec 8 requires that the patient prove a bona fide Dr.-pt relationship.  Where Sec 4 doesn't give the patient that same burden.  The only place in Sec 4 where a bona fide relationship is mentioned is in regard to protections afford to the cert. Dr. - not the patient.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Highlander

[GregS]

The other problem with relying on an expired card is that the Dr. cert. for Section 4 isn't the same as that under Section 8.

 

Sec 4:

The physician has reviewed the patient's relevant medical records and completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition, including a relevant, in-person, medical evaluation of the patient.

 

Sec 8:

A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

An expired card might be per se evidence that a Dr. made the former statement (under Sec. 4) but the card alone does not prove the Rec. was made in accordance with the language in Sec. 8

That may be an arguable point, which is why I recommend the supporting documents be kept between the patient and physician as sec. 8 protection, along with the pt/cg agreement between those parties if that relationship exists. I think those documents are unambiguous. Had Moffet had those documents properly executed, would he or would he not be better able to bring a successful sec. 8 defense?

Edited April 26, 2014 by GregS

[trichcycler]

Bzzzt, crackle, pop, wow, you guys have my head spinning!  thank you for a most interesting forum fodder today !

[pergamum362]

I would like to add to the discussion that if you are growing and arrested for incompliance with the act or w/e it be, even if your firearms are at a seperate location from the grow but you Are still said owner of firearms, you can still be charged with the felony firearms, given that they raid both locations.

 

Edit-spelling was wacky

Edited April 26, 2014 by pergamum362