Medical Marijuana By Spouse....No 2A For Other Spouse?

Threeband said:

Anyway, after those quarter-ounce transporting Caretakers have been Federally convicted of Federal felonies, they will of course become Prohibited, but not before that.

I myself am a little concerned about a warning I noticed on a can of spray cleaner I used to kill a fly last week.

It said, "It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."

So I think I myself may be prohibited after I am convicted of misusing that spray cleaner. I'd like to think I can beat the rap, but the law looks pretty clear cut. Can anyone recommend a good Federal defense lawyer?

Click to expand...

Name Taken said:

Awful defensive considering what you posted was wrong. That is what I was pointing out. Not the likelihood of a Federal case bring brought against a "caretaker".

For the record a "caretaker" is certainly a distributor under the Federal law. That is what I was pointing out before you went on all these rants.

Most folks here try to work within the frame of the law. Hence all the craziness of ten round magazines. If you decide to offer up legal advice...at least make sure it's correct. That's all.

Go carry on about your bad self....just post factual information next time and once proven wrong don't go on crazy rants.

Click to expand...

teratos said:

As you know, technically marijuana is federally illegal. Threeband posted nothing wrong. Quit being a technical tool. If you want to avoid anything remotely possible, don’t leave your house.

Click to expand...

Name Taken said:

It will likely enter the Federal laws of being a distributor of a Schedule I CDS. Likely making you an instant felon and thus a prohibited person. Once you apply there's a conversation about Conspiracy to Dist. CDS. Even if said person doesn't pick it up and deliver it.

Click to expand...

-Mil-Surp-Phreak- said:

Have a close friend in a pickle and thought I would ask here for them as they are bugging me for answers as I am their go to "Gun Guy". Their spouse is going through chemotherapy and has a history of opiod abuse in the past so they are planning to apply for a medical card in Maryland in lieu of hardcore painkillers. My friend is against the idea on principle but willing to go along to aid their spouse in any way they can so that there is no relapse and going down that long and dark tunnel. Question is how will their spouse having a medical card affect their 2nd Amendment Rights in Maryland? They can truthfully answer no to question 11C that they are not a habitual user of a controlled substance but it seems to be a catch-22 in terms of having Marijuana in the same house as firearms however separate they may be kept for them./QUOTE]


Several of us told him something he already seems to know: that there is no risk of him becoming a Prohibited Person in the universe which most of us inhabit. You contributed some speculative Byzantine paranoia which you don't seem to understand yourself. (And by the way, greater-than-10-round magazines are not illegal in Maryland.)

No one addressed his actual concern: the presence of firearms in the house with the marijuana.

In the "other thread" to which I have repeatedly referred, that issue was addressed by Esqappellate, who is an actual legal scholar, and he considers it a legitimate concern.

esqappellate said:

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.

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

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).

Click to expand...

And that addresses the OP's actual question.

Elsewhere in that same long thread are actual references to Maryland legislation and Maryland State Police policy regarding Medical Marijuana and 2A rights. Surprisingly, Maryland's pro-pot bias seems to outweigh it's anti-gun bias. Maryland law and police policy specifically provides that Caregivers are not Prohibited Persons.

Of course, this is pure Nullification. Andrew Jackson may threaten hanging, Abraham Lincoln may call for 75,000 volunteers, but the State of Maryland will not come after the guns of Cannabis Caregivers.

The references are in that thread somewhere. That's my source.

Click to expand...

bluedog46 said:

I would almost say as easy as weed is to buy and how many liberal places are "decriminalizing" small amounts of it that its better just to buy it the old fashioned way. Everyone just about knows someone who can find them a bag of reefer.

Click to expand...

A1Uniform said:

The question on the Form 77 is worded "Are you."

Spouse's use does not even enter the equation.

FYI- I have a child who runs a dispensary, and I'm a licensee, no issues.

PS-The kid makes an obscenely large amount of money; I'm in the wrong business...

Click to expand...

Nanook said:

To split hairs, if the OP's wife has an opiod addiction, I would presume that to mean actions including illegal acquisition, consumption, transportation, etc. If he could, with good conscience, sign a 4473 or 77r saying he was good to go during that active phase, he should have no issue with the forms and her MMJ route for his wife.

I can't help but saddle this horse again. From my personal observations of individuals, in legal states, using medical and recreational MJ, I wonder why the federal government hasn't pulled their fingers out of this yet. I know vets that went from a gallon ziplock baggy of pills every month to a using a plant they grow in the yard. Some use the phrase 'pop smoke not pills' as a play on words to describe their tactical withdrawal from pharmaceuticals and their debilitating medical issues.

Wishing the OP and his wife the very best on her road to recovery, regardless the path she/he chooses.

Click to expand...

-Mil-Surp-Phreak- said:

To clarify.....my wife and I are NOT the people in question and I would appreciate you all not posting that it is so as she sometimes hops on here on my screename and the last damn thing I need is members on here saying she is an opiod user AT ALL. Kindly refrain from saying so in the future. Thanks.

Click to expand...