legal for spouse of medical marijuana patient to buy a gun?

old lady new shooter · Oct 26, 2016

My friend's husband sadly has pancreatic cancer and uses medical marijuana to help alleviate the nausea from the chemo. I would like to teach her to shoot but I haven't suggested it yet because it occurred to me that there might be a problem due to the husband's medical marijuana prescription. Does anyone here know?

JO JO · Oct 26, 2016

can you go to a range that has rentals ? I don't know but if she does not use it may not be an issue, I have read that folks with a medical pot card, can
not buy a gun or something to that effect ?
But thats not her and may not effect her at all Maybe call your local Sheriff's office or your State's Attorney Generals office for advise?

Telekinesis · Oct 26, 2016

The user (your friend's husband) is prohibited from possessing a firearm but I don't believe the possession extends to his spouse unless she is a user as well. I would think that she would be ok to go shooting with you, but if she wants to buy a gun she'll probably have to keep it in a safe that her husband doesn't have access to. (Similar to if her husband were a felon. I know, I know, he's not a felon but he's still a prohibited person).

I'm not a lawyer and this is more or less an off the cuff comment, so take this with a grain of salt.

Random thought, if she was arrested and they ran a drug test, she might get flagged for marijuana just due to being around him smoking. That might be enough for the prosecution to go ahead with a case. On the other hand, she'd likely need to be doing other things wrong to get drug tested in the first place (or maybe be involved in a SD shooting). Anyway, I'm sure one of our lawyers will be along shortly to correct me

old lady new shooter · Oct 26, 2016

Telekinesis said:
The user (your friend's husband) is prohibited from possessing a firearm but I don't believe the possession extends to his spouse unless she is a user as well. I would think that she would be ok to go shooting with you, but if she wants to buy a gun she'll probably have to keep it in a safe that her husband doesn't have access to. (Similar to if her husband were a felon. I know, I know, he's not a felon but he's still a prohibited person).

I'm not a lawyer and this is more or less an off the cuff comment, so take this with a grain of salt.

Random thought, if she was arrested and they ran a drug test, she might get flagged for marijuana just due to being around him smoking. That might be enough for the prosecution to go ahead with a case. On the other hand, she'd likely need to be doing other things wrong to get drug tested in the first place (or maybe be involved in a SD shooting). Anyway, I'm sure one of our lawyers will be along shortly to correct me

Yep, I figure there would be no problem taking her to the range, really I was thinking ahead to her buying a gun. One of the husband's friends has taken him (the husband) to the range and nobody asked them anything. I didn't say anything when he told me about having gone. That was several months ago but at this point he's no longer leaving the house except for medical appointments.

Don't think he smokes it, I think he uses cannabis candy. But she gives it to him like his other medications, I guess something could rub off on her fingers.

Frank Ettin · Oct 26, 2016

old lady new shooter said:
...I would like to teach her to shoot but I haven't suggested it yet because it occurred to me that there might be a problem due to the husband's medical marijuana prescription. Does anyone here know?

It's the same as any other sort of "prohibited person" situation. Your friend may legally have a gun, but since her husband is prohibited under federal law from possessing a gun or ammunition. Therefore she must take steps to assure that her husband doesn't have access to a gun or ammunition, e. g., lock the gun and ammunition in a safe or other secure container to which her husband does not have the combination or a key.

Just hiding the gun and ammunition or putting it away with her things is insufficient. He must not be able to readily get to the gun or ammunition. See United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3rd Cir., 2012), in which the gun a prohibited person was charged with illegally possessing was not secured against the prohibited person's access, supporting both the prohibited person's conviction for unlawful possession of a gun and the indictment of his cohabitant. From the opinion (at pg. 593, emphasis added):

...on June 6, 2008, a valid search warrant (the “search warrant”) was executed on the couple‟s Clarion County home. Agents seized an SKS, Interordnance M59/66 rifle (“SKS rifle”) from an upstairs bedroom.

Although Huet is legally permitted to possess a firearm, Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. After being informed of the raid, Huet allegedly told investigators that the guns in the house belonged to her and that it was not illegal for her to purchase weapons. Despite Huet‟s assertions that she alone possessed the SKS rifle, the Government sought and obtained an indictment charging Hall with illegal possession of the weapon, and Huet with aiding and abetting Hall‟s possession....

So the gun Hall, a convicted felon, was indicted for unlawfully possessing, belonged to his cohabitant, Huet. It appears to have been undisputed that Huet could lawfully possess firearms. Nonetheless, she was indicted for aiding and abetting Hall's unlawful possession of gun because Huet's gun wasn't secured against access by Hall.

While Hall was a felon, it doesn't really matter what the disqualifying condition is.

old lady new shooter · Oct 27, 2016

Frank Ettin said:
It's the same as any other sort of "prohibited person" situation. Your friend may legally have a gun, but since her husband is prohibited under federal law from possessing a gun or ammunition. Therefore she must take steps to assure that her husband doesn't have access to a gun or ammunition, e. g., lock the gun and ammunition in a safe or other secure container to which her husband does not have the combination or a key.

Just hiding the gun and ammunition or putting it away with her things is insufficient. He must not be able to readily get to the gun or ammunition. See United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3rd Cir., 2012), in which the gun a prohibited person was charged with illegally possessing was not secured against the prohibited person's access, supporting both the prohibited person's conviction for unlawful possession of a gun and the indictment of his cohabitant. From the opinion (at pg. 593, emphasis added):

So the gun Hall, a convicted felon, was indicted for unlawfully possessing, belonged to his cohabitant, Huet. It appears to have been undisputed that Huet could lawfully possess firearms. Nonetheless, she was indicted for aiding and abetting Hall's unlawful possession of gun because Huet's gun wasn't secured against access by Hall.

While Hall was a felon, it doesn't really matter what the disqualifying condition is.

Thanks very much for the explanation.

So she could own a gun and even have it in a bedside safe to which he doesn't have the combination? I think that would be fine, I'm going to start talking to her about learning to shoot.

RX-79G · Oct 27, 2016

It would be interesting to hear about a federal prosecutor actually going after the spouse of a dying man for pot use. That would certainly be one of those cases that would bring national legalization about.

Carl N. Brown · Oct 27, 2016

The ATF letter on use of Medical Marijuana Card as ID or proof of residence assumes that a possessor of a MMJ card is a current user of MJ (otherwise why have the card?). Under the 1968 Gun Control Act (Title I of the federal firearms laws), current users are prohibited persons but former users are not prohibited persons. (Potential users are not prohibited persons (we are not to the point of Minority Report "future crimes" punishment yet.)

Normally, the 4473 relies on your word that you are not a current user. However, presenting a MMJ card as proof of residence, age or ID is persuasive evidence that you are a current MJ user; it would also be worse if you had already answered "No" to 4473 Question 11 "e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijauna or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" unlawful refers to federal law, not state, and federally the law is still stuck in the "Reefer Madness" hysteria.

Smokable medical marijuana is an effective delivery system, but MJ is a federal Schedule I (no socially redeemable purposes) drug still associated by our government with "Reefer Madness". Apparently other forms of medical marijuana (Marinol, etc.) are Schedule II available by prescription or even Schedule III (Rx with Refills).

I guess the question would be, what form of marijuana is the patient's prescription for? Schedule I, Schedule II, or Schedule III? Does he have a MMJ card for Schedule I (illegal under federal law but legalized under some state laws)? Or does he have a prescription for a Schedile II or III form of marijuana?

steve4102 · Oct 27, 2016

Carl N. Brown said:
. Apparently other forms of medical marijuana (Marinol, etc.) are Schedule II available by prescription or even Schedule III (Rx with Refills).

I guess the question would be, what form of marijuana is the patient's prescription for? Schedule I, Schedule II, or Schedule III? Does he have a MMJ card for Schedule I (illegal under federal law but legalized under some state laws)? Or does he have a prescription for a Schedile II or III form of marijuana?

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000089

MARINOL® is a synthetic version of a naturally occurring compound known as delta-9-THC.

Marinol is synthesized in the laboratory rather than extracted from the plant.

Not actually Marijuana, as it does not come from a Marijuana plant.

danez71 · Oct 27, 2016

Carl,
There was recently a thread that discussed a case based out of NV of someone trying to use their MMJ card at an FFL and was rejected. They sued and lost. it was noted in the ruling that is was a reasonable assumption that they used the federally prohibited 'reefer madness' drug. (Basically, just as you described.)

ETA: here is a link to the 9th Circuit decision. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf

Now, back to the OP....
In CA, where the OP is at, it doesn't work like that in regards to Schedule classification and MMJ cards.

The patients get a Dr.'s recommendation; not a perscription. They use that to get a state issued MMJ ID card.

There is no reference to schedule 1, 2 or 3.

I posted the links in the other thread referenced above in regatds to rhe following. The CA MMJ card is state-issued picture ID with a number. Supposedly*, the info tying the name, picture, to the number is not saved. Only the number and expiration date is kept on file.

The MMJ dispenser has access to a system that checks to see if the number is still valid and verify the pic on the card matches the patient.

* I say supposedly because they can reissue a MMJ card that is lost and I'm not sure how they could with out verifying the info that is supposedly not kept.

Acera · Oct 27, 2016

old lady new shooter said:
But she gives it to him like his other medications, I guess something could rub off on her fingers.

From my perspective, I would think that the fact that she is giving (supplying?) him an illegal drug is more concerning than the fact that some may get on her fingers.

However if I were in her position, I would do all I could (legal or otherwise) to help him.

.

Frank Ettin · Oct 27, 2016

Carl N. Brown said:
The ATF letter on use of Medical Marijuana Card as ID or proof of residence assumes that a possessor of a MMJ card is a current user of MJ (otherwise why have the card?). Under the 1968 Gun Control Act (Title I of the federal firearms laws), current users are prohibited persons but former users are not prohibited persons. (Potential users are not prohibited persons (we are not to the point of Minority Report "future crimes" punishment yet.)....

Federal law defines "unlawful user" as follows (27 CFR 478.11):

Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.

And in U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009) the Sixth Circuit found that (at 355):

...the regular use of a controlled substance either close in time to or contemporaneous with the period of time he possessed the firearm...

would support conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(3).

Carl N. Brown said:
.... I guess the question would be, what form of marijuana is the patient's prescription for? Schedule I, Schedule II, or Schedule III? Does he have a MMJ card for Schedule I (illegal under federal law but legalized under some state laws)? Or does he have a prescription for a Schedile II or III form of marijuana?

Marijuana is marijuana, and it is always a Schedule I drug, unless/until its classification is changed. There are perhaps different drugs which are pharmacologically similar or related to marijuana or certain chemical compounds present in marijuana. Those drugs might be scheduled differently.

If someone is using one of those other drugs pursuant to a lawful (in accordance to the requirements applicable to its Controlled Substances Act scheduling) prescription, he would not be an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

Acera · Oct 27, 2016

Just a reminder of what the BATFE thinks.......................

.

RX-79G · Oct 27, 2016

Is what makes one unable to buy on a 4473 the same as being a "prohibited person" in the way a felon is? Can you be a prohibited person, in terms of access to firearms (rather than 4473 purchase) without being first found guilty of a crime? It seems like two different things.

I'm not trying to make this stupid, but it seems like you would need to have a higher standard than simply "uses illegal drugs" before you could prosecute a spouse for allowing access to firearms as if there was an actual felon involved. It presumes that the spouse would need to come to a legal decision that the drug user is the equivalent of a felon without an informng event (like and arrest or filling out a 4473).

Seems like it would put an undo burden on the spouse to actually make this convoluted legal connection between her husband's actions and her possessions without first being a legal expert herself or first seeking a legal opinion.

Spats McGee · Oct 27, 2016

RX-79G said:
Is what makes one unable to buy on a 4473 the same as being a "prohibited person" in the way a felon is? Can you be a prohibited person, in terms of access to firearms (rather than 4473 purchase) without being first found guilty of a crime? It seems like two different things.

The key is the "unalwful user" language from 18 USC 922. That particular subsection doesn't require a conviction. It simply makes it unlawful for "unlawful users of or [persons] addicted to any controlled substance" to possess firearms or ammunition.

It shall be unlawful for any person-- . . . . (3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); . . . . to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

18 U.S.C.A. § 922 (West)

Frank Ettin · Oct 27, 2016

RX-79G said:
Is what makes one unable to buy on a 4473 the same as being a "prohibited person" in the way a felon is? Can you be a prohibited person, in terms of access to firearms (rather than 4473 purchase) without being first found guilty of a crime? ...

Yes.

Here's the statute, 18 USC 922(g):

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien—

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) who is subject to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)

(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

And here's what some courts have saidt:

In U.S. v. Chesney, 86 F.3d 564 (C.A.6 (Tenn.), 1996), the Sixth Circuit affirmed, against a Commerce Clause challenge Chesney's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

In rejecting Chesney's assertion that the 18 USC 922(g) is unconstitutional, the court of appeal noted, at 568 -- 569:

...another panel of this court has held § 922(g)(1) to be constitutional. In United States v. Turner, 77 F.3d 887 (6th Cir.1996), a unanimous panel held that " § 922(g)(1) represents a valid exercise of legislative power under the Commerce Clause." Id. at 889. As this court wrote in Turner, "Every court of appeals that has been faced with this question since Lopez has held that the jurisdictional element of § 922(g) provides the requisite nexus with interstate commerce ....

Click to expand...

In rejecting Chesney's assertion that the statute can not be applied in his case, the court of appeal noted, at 570 -- 571:

...Chesney, unlike the defendant in Turner, also challenges § 922(g)(1) as applied to him by arguing that his conviction is unconstitutional because the government failed to prove any "substantial nexus between the crime charged and interstate commerce." Chesney stipulated that the gun had moved in interstate commerce, and such a stipulation is sufficient evidence to support Chesney's conviction pursuant to § 922(g)(1). See United States v. Lee, 72 F.3d 55, 58 (7th Cir.1995) (stipulation that gun was in or affecting commerce sufficient evidence to support a conviction under § 922(g)(1)). ...

The Supreme Court has held that proof that a firearm moved in interstate commerce at any time is sufficient to meet the government's burden of proving the "in commerce or affecting commerce" element of § 1202(a), the predecessor to § 922(g)(1). Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 566-67, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 1964-65, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977). Although Scarborough was decided as a matter of statutory construction, the Court noted that Congress knew how to assert " 'its full Commerce Clause power so as to cover all activity substantially affecting interstate commerce,' " and that Congress intended to exercise the full extent of its Commerce Clause power when enacting § 1202(a). Id. at 571-72, 97 S.Ct. at 1967-68 ...

All of the courts of appeals to consider the issue since Lopez have concluded that § 922(g)(1), as construed to require only the minimum nexus to commerce approved in Scarborough, is constitutional. See, e.g., McAllister, 77 F.3d at 390; Sorrentino, 72 F.3d at 296; Shelton, 66 F.3d at 992; Hanna, 55 F.3d at 1462 n. 2.,...

Click to expand...
In U.S. v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir., 2001), the Third Circuit affirmed a conviction for being a felon in possession against an attack on the constitutionality of 922(g), at 197:

...Singletary contends that the felon-in-possession statute is unconstitutional because the conduct it proscribes -- the intrastate possession of a firearm -- does not have a substantial effect upon interstate commerce, and thus does not constitute a valid exercise of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. Specifically,...

Click to expand...

In rejected Singletary's assertion, the court of appeal noted, at 200:

...the Court in Scarborough v. United States had the opportunity to address squarely "whether proof that the possessed firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce is sufficient to satisfy the statutorily required nexus between the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and commerce." 431 U.S. 563, 564 (1977). The Court accepted the Government's contention that it only need prove that "the firearm possessed by the convicted felon traveled at some time in interstate commerce." Id. at 568. Thus, the Scarborough Court established the proposition that the transport of a weapon in interstate commerce, however remote in the distant past, gives its present intrastate possession a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce to fall within the ambit of the statute. Because S 1202(a) is the predecessor to the current felon-in-possession statute, this statutory construction applies equally to S 922(g)(1)....

Click to expand...
In United States v. Hoyle, 697 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir., 2012), the Tenth Circuit affirmed Hoyle's conviction for being a felon in possession. In doing so the court of appeal noted, at 1165:

... “Section 922(g) requires that the firearm be possessed ‘in or affecting commerce.’” United States v. Williams, 403 F.3d 1188, 1195 (10th Cir.2005) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)). The Supreme Court has affirmed the Fourth Circuit's holding that: “[T]he interstate commerce nexus requirement of the possession offense was satisfied by proof that the firearm [defendant] possessed had previously traveled in interstate commerce.” Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563, 566, 97 S.Ct. 1963, 52 L.Ed.2d 582 (1977)...

Click to expand...
In U.S. v. Barron-Rivera, 922 F.2d 549 (C.A.9 (Wash.), 1991) in which Barron-Rivera's conviction for being an alien in possession of a firearm was affirmed. Barron-Rivera's claimed reversible error in that the government failed to prove the necessary intent.

The court of appeal noted, at 551:

...Barron-Rivera argued that the gun was in his wife's residence at the time he re-entered the United States and moved back into that residence. Accepting that contention, the district court, nonetheless, found that Barron-Rivera's possession of the firearm was voluntary because he permitted the firearm to remain in the house after he acquired knowledge of its presence....

In affirming the conviction, the court of appeal found, at 551 -- 552:

...In other words, by continuing to reside in the apartment in which the gun was located, he voluntarily and knowingly possessed the gun...

Frank Ettin · Oct 27, 2016

RX-79G said:
...it seems like you would need to have a higher standard than simply "uses illegal drugs" before you could prosecute a spouse for allowing access to firearms as if there was an actual felon involved.....

In a prosecution for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun or ammunition, or for aiding or abetting a prohibited person's possession of a gun or ammunition, the government still needs to prove, as an element of the crime, that the person in possession is within the prohibited class.

In the case of a felon, that's pretty straight forward. He has already been convicted of a felony, and his status can be established by reference to various records. In the case of someone who is prohibited as an unlawful user of a controlled substance, there (1) needs to be sufficient evidence to support indictment; and (2) the fact that he is an unlawful user of a controlled substance, as defined, needs to be proved at trial beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

RX-79G said:
...Seems like it would put an undo burden on the spouse to actually make this convoluted legal connection between her husband's actions and her possessions without first being a legal expert herself or first seeking a legal opinion.

First, I'm sure you mean "undue burden."

Second, people still need to know and understand the law. That's not always easy, but if one is involved in a heavily regulated activity, like the possession of firearms, one does have a heightened responsibility and a harder job.

Carl N. Brown · Oct 27, 2016

Marinol is a pharmaceutical formulation of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive part of marijuana) and is a Schedule III drug available by prescription.
Pharmaceutical products already exist; they are called Marinol ... - DEA
https://www.dea.gov/divisions/sea/in_focus/marinol-cessmet.pdf
So should a person w. Rx for marinol be a lawful user? Apparently DEA won't approve cannabis made directly from the plant whether states agree or not.

danez71 · Oct 27, 2016

Acera said:
From my perspective, I would think that the fact that she is giving (supplying?) him an illegal drug is more concerning than the fact that some may get on her fingers.

However if I were in her position, I would do all I could (legal or otherwise) to help him.

.

Unless she is bathing in it, there shouldn't be a realistic worry about absorbing it. Studies have shown that even being in the same room while its being smoked is not realistically going to show up on a drug test (that can be easily googled to legit sites) short of maybe a autopsy super duper blood analysis.

However, the 2nd part of that sentence is interesting..... under federal law, she shouldn't be administering it.

*** Maybe someone could chime in in regards to that action of administering MMJ and the 4473 or other Fed Laws. (Frank? Carl?)

However,
Under CA law, the MMJ ID card participation is voluntary for the patient and caregiver.

The MMJ ID card facilitated under the MMJP by CA Dept of Health is voluntary. That's right, under CA Prop 215 law, you don't have to registered in the MMJP (P=Program) and you don't have to have a MMJ ID card to grow, use as a patient, or administer to a patient. In fact, they wont even issue a MMJ ID to a caregiver. It is, in a practical sense, only needed to be able to 'buy' it from MMJ dispensaries. .

https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/MMP/Pages/MMPFAQ.aspx#32
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/MMP/Pages/MMP Top 3 Questions.aspx
http://www.mbc.ca.gov/Licensees/Prescribing/Medical_Marijuana.aspx

Frank Ettin · Oct 27, 2016

Carl N. Brown said:
Marinol is a pharmaceutical formulation of THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive part of marijuana) and is a Schedule III drug available by prescription.
Pharmaceutical products already exist; they are called Marinol ... - DEA
https://www.dea.gov/divisions/sea/in_focus/marinol-cessmet.pdf
So should a person w. Rx for marinol be a lawful user? Apparently DEA won't approve cannabis made directly from the plant whether states agree or not.

It is what it is. Marinol is not marijuana. It is a Schedule III drug. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug. Similarly, heroine is a Schedule I drug which can't lawfully be prescribed; and morphine is a pharmacologically and chemically related drug which is a schedule II drug and can lawfully be prescribed. And heroine may, I believe, be lawfully prescribe in Great Britain.

All of this blather is really irrelevant to a discussion of what the law is and how it works.

RX-79G · Oct 27, 2016

Nor is marinol particularly useful as a drug, which is why it is prescribed so little.

What I meant about undue burden earlier is simply that the ingestion of an illegal drug could appear to set off a chain of events causing any gun owner in contact with the drug user to be "abetting the possession of a firearm" to the user if it could be shown that the user had the ability to get at any firearm his friends of family possessed. With an extended family this situation could be seen to lead to the arrests of a very large group of people if it could be shown that they were aware of even a one time usage and didn't immediately return home to lock up everything.

I can see how that is legally possible, but strikes me as so impractical that it would not happen. The felon Hall and Heut sounds like the investigators believed that the guns were really Halls, and were just punishing Heut for attempting to protect him. Overall, I kind of doubt this situation with marijuana use and spouses is going to amount to anything in states where the Fed is ignoring millionaire pot dealers. The intersection of the strict law and reality.

Frank Ettin · Oct 27, 2016

RX-79G said:
.... I meant about undue burden earlier is simply that the ingestion of an illegal drug could appear to set off a chain of events causing any gun owner in contact with the drug user to be "abetting the possession of a firearm" to the user if it could be shown that the user had the ability to get at any firearm his friends of family possessed. With an extended family this situation could be seen to lead to the arrests of a very large group of people if it could be shown that they were aware of even a one time usage and didn't immediately return home to lock up everything....

Perhaps it could. That is why if one has firearms it's important to know and understand the laws relating to the possession and use of firearms. Mistakes could have some serious, life altering, undesirable consequences.

Folks here might think that ought not be the case, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. We discuss in this Forum what the laws are, not what we think they should be.

RX-79G said:
.... The felon Hall and Heut sounds like the investigators believed that the guns were really Halls, and were just punishing Heut for attempting to protect him....

Only because you haven't read the case. No one had any doubts that the gun belonged to Huet.

RX-79G said:
...Overall, I kind of doubt this situation with marijuana use and spouses is going to amount to anything in states where the Fed is ignoring millionaire pot dealers. The intersection of the strict law and reality.

What you doubt is irrelevant. We're not discussing what you think about the likelihood of someone getting arrested here. In any case your opinion on the question is nothing more than a guess pulled out of the air.

We're not interested in your unsubstantiated beliefs. Further posts from you along such lines will be deleted.

old lady new shooter · Oct 28, 2016

Thanks for all the comments and explanations.

Do I correctly understand that her "administering" the cannabis candy to him (she brings a piece to him together with other meds or food, she is not putting it into his mouth) does not make her a prohibited person for purposes of purchasing a firearm?

Frank Ettin · Oct 28, 2016

old lady new shooter said:
.....Do I correctly understand that her "administering" the cannabis candy to him (she brings a piece to him together with other meds or food, she is not putting it into his mouth) does not make her a prohibited person for purposes of purchasing a firearm?

I see that as a more complicated question in a way.

As far as being a prohibited person, as you describe what she is doing she doesn't appear to fall into one or the disqualified classes set out in 18 USC 922(g). More specifically, she doesn't appear to fall into the definition of "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance."

Whether her handling of the marijuana in the manner you describe could possibly expose her to prosecution under federal law, thus potentially causing her in the future to become a prohibited person is another issue. I don't see how we could provide a meaningful answer, and we have no way to assess the risk for her. That something she will need to decide for herself.

old lady new shooter · Oct 28, 2016

Frank Ettin said:
I see that as a more complicated question in a way.

As far as being a prohibited person, as you describe what she is doing she doesn't appear to fall into one or the disqualified classes set out in 18 USC 922(g). More specifically, she doesn't appear to fall into the definition of "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance."

Whether her handling of the marijuana in the manner you describe could possibly expose her to prosecution under federal law, thus potentially causing her in the future to become a prohibited person is another issue. I don't see how we could provide a meaningful answer, and we have no way to assess the risk for her. That something she will need to decide for herself.

Yes, definitely more complicated. I didn't even think of it until someone upthread mentioned it. Being that that question isn't asked on the form maybe it's not necessary to think about it.

legal for spouse of medical marijuana patient to buy a gun?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Similar threads