Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 15th, 2019, 05:15 PM #1
Brad's Avatar
Brad Brad is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Glen Arm
Posts: 358
Brad Brad is offline
Member
Brad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Glen Arm
Posts: 358
Medical Marijuana card and 2A

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?
Brad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2019, 05:30 PM #2
gprimr1's Avatar
gprimr1 gprimr1 is offline
Former MSI BOD
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,583
Images: 4
gprimr1 gprimr1 is offline
Former MSI BOD
gprimr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 20,583
Images: 4
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.
gprimr1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2019, 05:50 PM #3
Threeband's Avatar
Threeband Threeband is offline
The M1 Does My Talking
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 16,233
Threeband Threeband is offline
The M1 Does My Talking
Threeband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 16,233
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2019, 05:50 PM #4
jollymon jollymon is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Eastern Tennessee ,
Posts: 390
jollymon jollymon is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Eastern Tennessee ,
Posts: 390
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 .
jollymon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2019, 06:15 PM #5
Threeband's Avatar
Threeband Threeband is offline
The M1 Does My Talking
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 16,233
Threeband Threeband is offline
The M1 Does My Talking
Threeband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 16,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollymon View Post
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.
Threeband is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2019, 06:32 PM #6
jollymon jollymon is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Eastern Tennessee ,
Posts: 390
jollymon jollymon is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Eastern Tennessee ,
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threeband View Post
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 "
jollymon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2019, 06:50 PM #7
Threeband's Avatar
Threeband Threeband is offline
The M1 Does My Talking
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 16,233
Threeband Threeband is offline
The M1 Does My Talking
Threeband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 16,233
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.
Threeband is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2019, 07:46 PM #8
esqappellate's Avatar
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,592
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threeband View Post
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.
__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2019, 08:32 PM #9
Threeband's Avatar
Threeband Threeband is offline
The M1 Does My Talking
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 16,233
Threeband Threeband is offline
The M1 Does My Talking
Threeband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 16,233
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.
Threeband is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15th, 2019, 09:19 PM #10
esqappellate's Avatar
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,592
esqappellate esqappellate is offline
President, MSI
esqappellate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threeband View Post
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).
__________________
This may sound like legal advice, but it isn't. Don't rely on it. Hire your own counsel.
esqappellate is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > Maryland 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service