Caregiver And Guns

[Highlander]

One really needs to look at the likely practical outcomes.

 

First, my understanding is that federal says you can't buy a firearm if you are addicted to an illegal drug.  If I'm correct about this (correct me if I'm wrong), you could be a user of an illegal schedule 1 drug and, if you're not addicted, you're not prohibited from buying a firearm.  Similarly, if you're addicted to a legal drug (alcohol, your pain killers, etc.) you're not prohibited from buying a firearm.

 

Next, possession is an MMJ card is not evidence of use of marijuana (let alone addiction to), so even if you have an MMJ card at the time you want to buy a firearm, you should be OK.  I understand that what the law says and what law enforcement agencies say are often two widely different things.  Case in point:  I was involved in a project near the Detroit River that involved a small excavation in the parking lot (digging up an old septic tank).  The Wayne County folks said I needed a soil erosion permit because we'd be disturbing soil within 500 feet of the Detroit River.  All of their rules and guidance, which are under the authority of state law, stated that disturbance of any soil within 500 feet of surface water requires a permit.  But, the state law specifically says "any disturbance of natural soil."  I pointed this out to the folks with Wayne County and informed them that the septic tank and surrounding soil were not "natural soil."  They finally agreed that no permit was needed.

 

Lastly, if the federal law states that you can't buy a firearm if you're addicted (or even using) illegal drugs, it doesn't say you can't own a firearm if you're using/addicted.  (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)  Here is where the practicality of the matter hits the fan.  You could be a heavy MMJ user, keep mum, buy your gun, then go home a smoke a fatty every day for the next year.  If/when you get caught with your gun and THC in your system, who is to say when you were using and when you weren't?  Maybe you bought the gun and then smoked your first joint the next day.

 

We have heard of many instances when a carded MMJ patient and CPL holder encountered LEO and had no issues, as far back as 2009 when Brad Forrester was stopped by LEO and, as is required, informed the officer that he had a CPL and also he told the officer that he was in possession of a card and MMJ but no gun since he never transported MMJ and a gun at the same time. 

 

I've yet to hear of any case where LEOs in Michigan tried to bust someone for possession of a firearm while also possessing a state-legal amount of MMJ.  We've also heard of a few cases where admitted MMJ cardholders were in possession of guns and MMJ and the court returned the gun(s).  I think Phaque has such a story. 

 

Will there still be cases where an uninformed or renegade LEO tries to bust a state-legal MMJ user for possessing a gun - of course, same as we still hear about cases where patients who are compliant with state MMJ law getting arrested and then the courts sort it out. 

 

My overall opinion on the matter is that the fear of getting in trouble for being a a state-legal MMJ user and possessing a firearm is that it is mostly a red herring.

[Pain]

One really needs to look at the likely practical outcomes.

 

First, my understanding is that federal says you can't buy a firearm if you are addicted to an illegal drug.  If I'm correct about this (correct me if I'm wrong), you could be a user of an illegal schedule 1 drug and, if you're not addicted, you're not prohibited from buying a firearm.  Similarly, if you're addicted to a legal drug (alcohol, your pain killers, etc.) you're not prohibited from buying a firearm.

 

Next, possession is an MMJ card is not evidence of use of marijuana (let alone addiction to), so even if you have an MMJ card at the time you want to buy a firearm, you should be OK.  I understand that what the law says and what law enforcement agencies say are often two widely different things.  Case in point:  I was involved in a project near the Detroit River that involved a small excavation in the parking lot (digging up an old septic tank).  The Wayne County folks said I needed a soil erosion permit because we'd be disturbing soil within 500 feet of the Detroit River.  All of their rules and guidance, which are under the authority of state law, stated that disturbance of any soil within 500 feet of surface water requires a permit.  But, the state law specifically says "any disturbance of natural soil."  I pointed this out to the folks with Wayne County and informed them that the septic tank and surrounding soil were not "natural soil."  They finally agreed that no permit was needed.

 

Lastly, if the federal law states that you can't buy a firearm if you're addicted (or even using) illegal drugs, it doesn't say you can't own a firearm if you're using/addicted.  (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)  Here is where the practicality of the matter hits the fan.  You could be a heavy MMJ user, keep mum, buy your gun, then go home a smoke a fatty every day for the next year.  If/when you get caught with your gun and THC in your system, who is to say when you were using and when you weren't?  Maybe you bought the gun and then smoked your first joint the next day.

 

We have heard of many instances when a carded MMJ patient and CPL holder encountered LEO and had no issues, as far back as 2009 when Brad Forrester was stopped by LEO and, as is required, informed the officer that he had a CPL and also he told the officer that he was in possession of a card and MMJ but no gun since he never transported MMJ and a gun at the same time. 

 

I've yet to hear of any case where LEOs in Michigan tried to bust someone for possession of a firearm while also possessing a state-legal amount of MMJ.  We've also heard of a few cases where admitted MMJ cardholders were in possession of guns and MMJ and the court returned the gun(s).  I think Phaque has such a story. 

 

Will there still be cases where an uninformed or renegade LEO tries to bust a state-legal MMJ user for possessing a gun - of course, same as we still hear about cases where patients who are compliant with state MMJ law getting arrested and then the courts sort it out. 

 

My overall opinion on the matter is that the fear of getting in trouble for being a a state-legal MMJ user and possessing a firearm is that it is mostly a red herring.

nice post ! well stated...

[trichcycler]

One really needs to look at the likely practical outcomes.

 

First, my understanding is that federal says you can't buy a firearm if you are addicted to an illegal drug.  If I'm correct about this (correct me if I'm wrong), you could be a user of an illegal schedule 1 drug and, if you're not addicted, you're not prohibited from buying a firearm.  Similarly, if you're addicted to a legal drug (alcohol, your pain killers, etc.) you're not prohibited from buying a firearm.

 

Next, possession is an MMJ card is not evidence of use of marijuana (let alone addiction to), so even if you have an MMJ card at the time you want to buy a firearm, you should be OK.  I understand that what the law says and what law enforcement agencies say are often two widely different things.  Case in point:  I was involved in a project near the Detroit River that involved a small excavation in the parking lot (digging up an old septic tank).  The Wayne County folks said I needed a soil erosion permit because we'd be disturbing soil within 500 feet of the Detroit River.  All of their rules and guidance, which are under the authority of state law, stated that disturbance of any soil within 500 feet of surface water requires a permit.  But, the state law specifically says "any disturbance of natural soil."  I pointed this out to the folks with Wayne County and informed them that the septic tank and surrounding soil were not "natural soil."  They finally agreed that no permit was needed.

 

Lastly, if the federal law states that you can't buy a firearm if you're addicted (or even using) illegal drugs, it doesn't say you can't own a firearm if you're using/addicted.  (Again, correct me if I'm wrong.)  Here is where the practicality of the matter hits the fan.  You could be a heavy MMJ user, keep mum, buy your gun, then go home a smoke a fatty every day for the next year.  If/when you get caught with your gun and THC in your system, who is to say when you were using and when you weren't?  Maybe you bought the gun and then smoked your first joint the next day.

 

We have heard of many instances when a carded MMJ patient and CPL holder encountered LEO and had no issues, as far back as 2009 when Brad Forrester was stopped by LEO and, as is required, informed the officer that he had a CPL and also he told the officer that he was in possession of a card and MMJ but no gun since he never transported MMJ and a gun at the same time. 

 

I've yet to hear of any case where LEOs in Michigan tried to bust someone for possession of a firearm while also possessing a state-legal amount of MMJ.  We've also heard of a few cases where admitted MMJ cardholders were in possession of guns and MMJ and the court returned the gun(s).  I think Phaque has such a story. 

 

Will there still be cases where an uninformed or renegade LEO tries to bust a state-legal MMJ user for possessing a gun - of course, same as we still hear about cases where patients who are compliant with state MMJ law getting arrested and then the courts sort it out. 

 

My overall opinion on the matter is that the fear of getting in trouble for being a a state-legal MMJ user and possessing a firearm is that it is mostly a red herring.

a fine understanding !

 

 

we see state courts give back guns to mj users, but have feds done such a thing ? I heard the feds wont recognize "medical status", and would not be able to tell and would not care if "addiction" was at play, as marijuana use constitutes their position in the letter. A prescription is recognized by the feds and gives legal right to posess the drug prescribed, a luxury marijuana users don't enjoy, with the feds.

 

Did atf did make those laws up because of medical marijuana, or are they laws that have been on the books and explained in the letter?

 

and Trix, what happened there ?

Edited January 12, 2016 by grassmatch

[Restorium2]

a fine understanding !

 

 

we see state courts give back guns to mj users, but have feds done such a thing ? I heard the feds wont recognize "medical status", and would not be able to tell and would not care if "addiction" was at play, as marijuana use constitutes their position in the letter. A prescription is recognized by the feds and gives legal right to posess the drug prescribed, a luxury marijuana users don't enjoy, with the feds.

 

Did atf did make those laws up because of medical marijuana, or are they laws that have been on the books and explained in the letter?

 

and Trix, what happened there ?

You heard? 

 

The feds often recognize medical marijuana status. They are a little touchy when you get past the 12 plants and 2.5 ounces. But they recognize medical marijuana and patients here in Michigan all the time. If not we would all be in jail. 

[Restorium2]

This whole thread is a great advertisement to elect Bernie Sanders who came out and said he would legalize at the federal level. Then everyone could move along down the road of not using the feds as an excuse. The time has come. Vote for Bernie and end this worthless debate. 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Restorium2

[Pain]

"I heard", a cow gave purple milk...

[pic book]

and there are plenty of mmma patients and caregivers who have faced felony firearm 2 year mandatory minimum charges.

 

some have gotten their guns back. i wonder how many are doing 2 years for the guns though? maybe the duvals?

 

so take whatever advice you want, just know the reality.

 jerry duval (the father) was a (prior) felon found in possession of firearms.  he was sentenced to 5 years for sales and 5 for felon with a gun; total got 10 years.  the son (can't recall his name)  was sentenced on sales only and got 5 years.

Edited January 12, 2016 by pic book

[trichcycler]

This whole thread is a great advertisement to elect Bernie Sanders who came out and said he would legalize at the federal level. Then everyone could move along down the road of not using the feds as an excuse. The time has come. Vote for Bernie and end this worthless debate. 

 

these are valid points!

[Restorium2]

 jerry duval (the father) was a (prior) felon found in possession of firearms.  he was sentenced to 5 years for sales and 5 for felon with a gun; total got 10 years.  the son (can't recall his name)  was sentenced on sales only and got 5 years.

The Duvals also were indicted on two counts of firearms possession but the jury found them not guilty of those crimes. 

 

Read more at: http://www.monroenews.com/news/2012/may/01/summerfield-father-son-convicted-marijuana-offense/

[trichcycler]

"I heard", a cow gave purple milk...

clearly I used the term "heard" facetiously. read the law as I have, or call the gun store, or the ATF or hire an attorney as I have in the past. Do your own homework and read the law. come to your own conclusions. don't get tied up with the feds. don't lie on federal forms and do what you've always done, you'll be safe and fine. who gives a chit if you think its legal and I don't really ? I only showed you what the law said, and what the atf explanations of that law are. I saw an article where Mr Komorn warned

"The police wont ignore this opportunity" I take that to heart from the guy on the front line, and protect my butt with good solid info. I have no issues with you, or your respected opinion here. peace, will "try the decaf mate"

[Restorium2]

clearly I used the term "heard" facetiously. read the law as I have, or call the gun store, or the ATF or hire an attorney as I have in the past. Do your own homework and read the law. come to your own conclusions. don't get tied up with the feds. don't lie on federal forms and do what you've always done, you'll be safe and fine. who gives a chit if you think its legal and I don't really ? I only showed you what the law said, and what the atf explanations of that law are. I saw an article where Mr Komorn warned

"The police wont ignore this opportunity" I take that to heart from the guy on the front line, and protect my butt with good solid info. I have no issues with you, or your respected opinion here. peace, will "try the decaf mate"

Was not clear at all. It read as a serious post from you. 

[mibrains]

Supreme Court OF THE UNTIED STATES: Oregon Marijuana Patients Can Keep Their Guns

 

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/supreme_court_oregon_marijuana_patients_can_keep_t.php

question...

 

and a point for necessary clarification.

 

i was just reading this article..

it seems specific to patients? which is to say non-growing users.

 

what do you think the implications are/would be as they apply to caregivers/patient growers?

 

does it make an difference on the firearm issue if your a cannabis user or cannabis grower?

 

i removed my guns 2-3 years ago from my grow facility because it became abundantly clear to me that a person (with or without state approval) will be charged differently while growing cannabis with guns in the area rather than just being a patient and possessing cannabis.

 

the Good answer for a caregiver or patient grower and Gun protection is - don't have guns where you grow.

 

patients are a totally different story.

[trichcycler]

The Duvals also were indicted on two counts of firearms possession but the jury found them not guilty of those crimes. [/size]

 

Read more at: [/size]http://www.monroenews.com/news/2012/may/01/summerfield-father-son-convicted-marijuana-offense/

thank you for clearing that up!! this is a great case to study I think. he had a record, wasn't supposed to have guns, was growing 100s of plants, and the jury excused the guns !! America rocks!

[trichcycler]

Was not clear at all. It read as a serious post from you.

good thing its all clear now though, move along.

[trichcycler]

question...

 

and a point for necessary clarification.

 

i was just reading this article..

it seems specific to patients? which is to say non-growing users.

 

what do you think the implications are/would be as they apply to caregivers/patient growers?

 

does it make an difference on the firearm issue if your a cannabis user or cannabis grower?

 

i removed my guns 2-3 years ago from my grow facility because it became abundantly clear to me that a person (with or without state approval) will be charged differently while growing cannabis with guns in the area rather than just being a patient and possessing cannabis.

 

the Good answer for a caregiver or patient grower and Gun protection is - don't have guns where you grow.

 

patients are a totally different story.

my attorney told me that growing cannabis is a felony according to the federal government, who would not necessarily and are under no obligation to recognize my MI status, if they became involved with my cannabis growing activities. He said not to possess firearms in the same building that cannabis is growing in. He told me I can not legally purchase a firearm from a store because I would have to lie about my cannabis use/felony activity, according to the federal government laws concerning cannabis cultivation.

 

I bet the feds wont touch this one unless they discover some kind of drug czar caregiver, and then they will try, like they did to the duvall case, fortunately for them the jury saw through that one though.

 

was he allowed to show his card in court ?

Edited January 12, 2016 by grassmatch

[Restorium2]

The line with the feds is 100 plants and illegal distribution, not caregiver or patient status.  Clearly State legal caregivers are treated the same as patients. Many are patients.

[Restorium2]

the Good answer for a caregiver or patient grower and Gun protection is - don't have guns where you grow.

 

 

 

 

My answer is EVERYONE should have guns where they grow. Strength in numbers. And you have something that needs to be kept secure BY LAW!

[mibrains]

well since a caregiver or patient grower would only be having any plants let alone 100 or more... its still very relevant.

 

if your growing

 

call yourself a caregiver or call yourself Tom it does not matter to the feds. 

 

if you have a firearm while your growing cannabis... even if its one plant it is a different charge than if your just a patient in possession of dried usable.

[mibrains]

the Good answer for a caregiver or patient grower and Gun protection is - don't have guns where you grow.

 

 

 

 

My answer is EVERYONE should have guns where they grow. Strength in numbers. And you have something that needs to be kept secure BY LAW

 

try to remember resto that the above statement is in fact putting people in danger of further prosecution.

[Restorium2]

Choose your own level of risk. I feel at risk from a thief more than a fed. I'm not taking a knife to a gun fight.

[Restorium2]

try to remember resto that the above statement is in fact putting people in danger of further prosecution.

That's just your unsubstantiated opinion. 

[trichcycler]

I fear leo much more than a thug. You can defend yourself from a thug, but those defendable actions will be expensive if

used against cop, dressed like a thug.

[mibrains]

no sir

its not choose your level of risk in this case.

 

its plain and simple.

 

firearms at a grow could/would/will lead to additional felony charges being filed against you.

 

if the risk is to great for you to protect yourself without needing to resort to firearms than change your system.

[mibrains]

That's just your unsubstantiated opinion. 

wrong

thats a FACT

[Restorium2]

no sir

its not choose your level of risk in this case.

 

its plain and simple.

 

firearms at a grow could/would/will lead to additional felony charges being filed against you.

 

if the risk is to great for you to protect yourself without needing to resort to firearms than change your system.

You are just being a bully now. Carry on.