Medical Marijuana card and 2A

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Brad

    Active Member
    Mar 20, 2013
    363
    Glen Arm
    A coworker of mine asked me this question and I had no idea so I started looking into this for him and can not find a straight answer.

    So the situation is, a coworker of mine has several guns, hunts and what not. His wife is going through a medical issue and is in the process of getting her Medical marijuana card to help with the medical issue. So as it currently sits, it is pretty clear that in doing so she can no longer obtain or transfer any weapons and it seems that she must give up the current weapons she "owns". The gray area is, does her husband have to do the same? I cannot find anything that touches on her husbands weapons or weapons within the house etc.

    Does anyone have any information or can help shed some light on how to legally tread these waters?
     

    MDFF2008

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 12, 2008
    24,735
    Lawyer is going to be the best bet.

    They might fall under the same case law that says if two people live together and 1 is prohibited and 1 isn't, and the one that isn't keeps them in a safe and only he/she knows the code, it's ok, but I'm not a lawyer.
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,232
    Carroll County
    Federal prohibition is against an habitual user. As long as the husband doesn't have the marjuana card, he should be alright. She will presumably get turned down in a NICS check if she tries to buy a gun.

    I can imagine any registered guns she currently owns could be confiscated, and guns owned by any other family members could get caught up as well.
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,232
    Carroll County
    Card or no card ATF said it's still against Federal law ..So no Guns , If it Federally becomes legal than yes . I believe you can find it on the ATF website .

    We know that the holder of the card becomes prohibited. The question is what are the potential problems for her husband.

    I believe he's all right IF she doesn't already own any "registered" guns, and doesn't try to buy any guns. If she is on record as a gun owner, I can see where it could cause problems for him.

    Otherwise, the federal prohibition on gun possession is based on being a "habitual user," not on possession.
     

    jollymon

    Active Member
    Dec 6, 2016
    852
    Now in Tennessee ,
    We know that the holder of the card becomes prohibited. The question is what are the potential problems for her husband.

    I believe he's all right IF she doesn't already own any "registered" guns, and doesn't try to buy any guns. If she is on record as a gun owner, I can see where it could cause problems for him.

    Otherwise, the federal prohibition on gun possession is based on being a "habitual user," not on possession.

    If she does than just transfer them to the husband , As G. Gordon Liddy use to say "As a convicted Felon I can't have any Firearms but My Wife has a nice collection "
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,232
    Carroll County
    Liddy was being precious. He was vulnerable to a raid, and just because no agency bothered to prosecute him and confiscate "her" guns does not mean that he was on solid legal ground. The Gummint has to be motivated to take action. No one bothered to go after him, but they could have.

    She will fail a NICS check, but I doubt the ATF will be motivated to confiscate her guns. He should be all right on a NICS check. Should be.

    I think the State of Maryland is unlikely to go after newly-prohibited gun owners based on the State's own nullification of the hated marijuana laws, but you never know about Maryland. They WILL and they HAVE confiscated previously owned guns from people who have become prohibited. I just don't think they'll do it over marijuana, because, like, that would be like sooo uncool, man.

    But you never know.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Liddy was being precious. He was vulnerable to a raid, and just because no agency bothered to prosecute him and confiscate "her" guns does not mean
    that he was on solid legal groind. The Gummint has to be motivated to take action. No one bothered to go after him, but they could have.

    She will fail a NICS check, but I doubt the ATF will be motivated to confiscate her guns. He should be all right on a NICS check. Should be.

    I think the State of Maryland is unlikely to go after newly-prohibited gun owners based on the State's own nullification of the hated marijuana laws, but you never know about Maryland. They WILL and they HAVE confiscated previously owned guns from people who have become prohibited. I just don't think they'll do it over marijuana, because, like, that would be like sooo uncool, man.

    But you never know.

    This is not legal advice. This is not just a state law issue but also a federal law issue. Under federal law, it is important to note that a person cannot possess any firearms if she is an illegal user (and that includes Medical Marijuana). And that ban on possession includes "constructive possession" which means "the defendant intentionally exercised dominion and control over the firearm, or had the power and the intention to exercise dominion and control over the firearm." U.S. v. Scott, 424 F.3d 431 (2005). It is a jury issue, which is where you don't want to be. It is a 10 year felony under federal law.
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,232
    Carroll County
    Yes, which is why I said Liddy was playing precious little games with his talk about "Mrs Liddy keeps her guns on her side of the bed." The only reason he wasn't arrested is because no one bothered to. Yet all these years later people still treat his irresponsible chatter as sound advice.

    The way I see that relating to this case is that under Federal law she is now prohibited from having access to his, or any guns. But I can't imagine any Federal agency pursuing her over it, leastways as long as she doesn't make a habit of gloating about it on national radio.

    Further, I don't see the Maryland State Nullifyers going after her, but as I said, who knows? What does the State hate more, guns or anti-marijuana laws?

    I think the Original Poster was concerned about the legal issues faced by the husband, and I am interested on your thoughts on that subject. My thinking is that the husband is not a "habitual user" of marijuana, and so he should not be prohibited. I can see that strictly speaking he may face legal jeopardy if he allows her to have access to his guns, but I think it's extremely unlikely the issue would ever arise.

    But I am interested in your take on the matter.
     

    esqappellate

    President, MSI
    Feb 12, 2012
    7,407
    Yes, which is why I said Liddy was playing precious little games with his talk about "Mrs Liddy keeps her guns on her side of the bed." The only reason he wasn't arrested is because no one bothered to. Yet all these years later people still treat his irresponsible chatter as sound advice.

    The way I see that relating to this case is that under Federal law she is now prohibited from having access to his, or any guns. But I can't imagine any Federal agency pursuing her over it, leastways as long as she doesn't make a habit of gloating about it on national radio.

    Further, I don't see the Maryland State Nullifyers going after her, but as I said, who knows? What does the State hate more, guns or anti-marijuana laws?

    I think the Original Poster was concerned about the legal issues faced by the husband, and I am interested on your thoughts on that subject. My thinking is that the husband is not a "habitual user" of marijuana, and so he should not be prohibited. I can see that strictly speaking he may face legal jeopardy if he allows her to have access to his guns, but I think it's extremely unlikely the issue would ever arise.

    But I am interested in your take on the matter.

    The spouse of a prohibited person may still possess firearms, as long as the prohibited person does not have access to the firearms in any way and thus cannot ever exercise dominion or control over them. If he allows access ("constructive possession"), that is arguably a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. 922(d), which provides:

    (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person--
    (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
    (2) is a fugitive from justice;
    (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))

    Note that federal law bans access to any "unlawful user" -- not just an "habitual user." That is a difference between federal law and state law. A single use can make a person an "unlawful user." Note further that "dispose of" is quite broad: “To dispose of” occurs when a recipient “ ‘comes into possession, control, or power of disposal of a firearm.’ ” United States v. Monteleone, 77 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir. 1996), quoting Huddleston v. United States, 415 U.S. 814, 823 (1974). So, a recipient's possession is sufficient proof that a defendant disposed of a firearm. Constructive possession is “control over the place where the firearm was located, or control, ownership, or dominion of the firearm itself.” United States v. Perez, 663 F.3d 387, 391 (8th Cir. 2011).

    As to the likelihood of enforcement, that's an unknown and unknowable. First rule: Never trust a LEO's discretion or that of the prosecutor. So, at a minimum, a gun safe to which she does not have the combination is in order as well as extreme care that the firearms AND/OR ammunition are never left where she can otherwise have access, no matter how temporary or minimal. The safest route is to remove the guns and ammo from the house or anywhere else to which she has or can have access. See United States v. Stegmeier, 701 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2012) (giving keys to the RV to a prohibited person sufficient to sustain a conviction under 922(d) where the gun was in the RV and the defendant disclosed the location of the gun).
     

    Threeband

    The M1 Does My Talking
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 30, 2006
    25,232
    Carroll County
    Thank you for your response.

    Note that federal law bans access to any "unlawful user" -- not just an "habitual user."
    Yes, I realized after I posted that I was thinking of the "habitual drunkard" phrase.
     

    PJDiesel

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Dec 18, 2011
    17,603
    The good news is people with these crazy attitudes towards it are dying off. I'll be glad when the Billions (with a "B") wasted on law enforcement can be... err..........uhh..... wasted on something else.
     

    ras_oscar

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 23, 2014
    1,666
    The way I see that relating to this case is that under Federal law she is now prohibited from having access to his, or any guns. But I can't imagine any Federal agency pursuing her over it, leastways as long as she doesn't make a habit of gloating about it on national radio./QUOTE]

    Does the federal lay say "Own" or "Have Access to"? Access could be broadly construed as including walking into a gun shop.

    IMHO, if the firearms are "OWNED" by the permitted husband (IE the result of a legal transfer of ownership from either a gun shop or from his wife) and they are secured in a manner so as not to be available to the wife without the husband present, a court or jury should be persuaded that the intent of the law was fulfilled. The devil is in demonstrating the wife did not have the combination (access) to the firearms. Remember, 2a is an INDIVIDUAL right. One's constitutional right should not be voided merely because of association with another person.

    IANAL
     

    Mr. Ed

    This IS my Happy Face
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2009
    7,899
    Edgewater
    What exactly is in it for our Federal Govt to keep Cannabis illegal?

    Campaign contributions and perks from the big pharma lobbyists to Congress critters. The only folks who benefit financially from keeping medical pot illegal are the folks whose prescription drugs would become less desirable compared to naturopathic remedies.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,191
    Davidsonville
    Campaign contributions and perks from the big pharma lobbyists to Congress critters. The only folks who benefit financially from keeping medical pot illegal are the folks whose prescription drugs would become less desirable compared to naturopathic remedies.
    Chicken Dinner.




    Also, am I wrong in thinking that Federally, since pot = heroin, if one is an "unlawful user" they (might) go to jail and lose many many rights? just a thought really, sorry if off topic OP.
     

    TexDefender

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 28, 2017
    1,572
    Could you have your wife sign over all her firearms/ammo? Then get a steel gun cabinet and ammo cabinet. I would then put all firearms/ammo in them. You keep the only key. I personally, don't care about the use of medical cannabis, for medical reasons. Issued under a doctors care of course. I think cannabis use for personal consumption has a few issues, its not like alcohol. I'm also concerned about what will be next, people are already want stronger stuff to be made legal.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,100
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom