Register ICMag Forum Menu Features Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
You are viewing our:
in:
Forums > Talk About It! > Cannabis Laws & Cannabis Legislation > Gun ownership, Medical Patient Card, Primary Caregiver Card

Thread Title Search
Post Reply
Gun ownership, Medical Patient Card, Primary Caregiver Card Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-23-2019, 04:25 AM #11
F2F
Member

Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 290
F2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really nice
Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyHuey View Post
Also, You are only allowed to grow for 2 other people. The 3rd would be if you are also a mmj card holder. They are allowing shared space growing, where multiple patients or caregivers can grow in the same space as long as each plant is clearly labeled .
Heya BabyHuey,

I did see that entry you posted above regarding shared space etc. from 19 CSR 30-95.030(4)

"Two (2) qualifying patients, who both hold valid qualifying patient cultivation identification cards, may share one (1) enclosed, locked facility. No more than twelve (12) flowering marijuana plants, twelve (12) nonflowering plants, and twelve (12) clones may be cultivated in a single, enclosed locked facility, except when one (1) of the qualifying patients, as a primary caregiver, also holds a patient cultivation identification card for a third qualifying patient, in which case that primary caregiver may cultivate six (6) additional flowering marijuana plants, six (6) additional nonflowering marijuana plants, and six (6) additional clones for a total of eighteen (18)flowering marijuana plants, eighteen (18) nonflowering marijuana plants, and eighteen (18) clones in a single, enclosed locked facility."


But I also see conflicting entries on the DHSS site and in the law itself.

From DHSS site: "Caregivers can have up to three patients. See 19 CSR 30-95.030(8) for more information."

And the law under 19 CSR 30-95.030(8):

"(8) Primary Caregiver Responsibilities.
(A) No individual shall serve as the primary caregiver for more than three (3) qualifying patients.

(B) No individual shall serve as a primary caregiver for a qualifying patient who is already served by two (2) primary caregivers.

(C) If a primary caregiver is no longer entitled to serve as a primary caregiver or no longer wishes to hold a primary caregiver identification card, he or she must notify the department within ten (10) days of that change. The department will confirm in writing that the primary caregiver has voluntarily surrendered the identification card and that the identification card is no longer valid.

(D) If medical marijuana in possession of a primary caregiver is stolen or lost, the primary caregiver must notify the department in a department-approved format within two (2) days."

Nothing seems to limit a non-patient caregiver from growing full limits of plants for three patients as long as they grow at two sites?? Your explanation makes more sense but I'm trying to read this objectively.

Cheers,
F2F
F2F is online now Quote


Old 06-23-2019, 04:29 AM #12
F2F
Member

Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 290
F2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really niceF2F is just really nice
That's how I interpret it Medfaced

Medfaced - I tend to believe you are speaking reality here. Probabilities of having problems are low, but technically until MJ is rescheduled Federal laws prevail and they can put the hammer down.

Cheers,
F2F
F2F is online now Quote


Old 06-26-2019, 03:28 PM #13
MedFaced
Member

MedFaced's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: SoCal
Posts: 401
MedFaced has a brilliant futureMedFaced has a brilliant futureMedFaced has a brilliant futureMedFaced has a brilliant futureMedFaced has a brilliant futureMedFaced has a brilliant futureMedFaced has a brilliant futureMedFaced has a brilliant futureMedFaced has a brilliant futureMedFaced has a brilliant futureMedFaced has a brilliant future
Having been exposed to guns since I was a young child, i tend not to think of them in any kind of a negative. When I became a caregiver years back, the thought never even occurred to me. Then I went into a local gun shop and was taking my CA required safety test and it was there they schooled me. While taking the test, I noticed one of the questions specifically asked about Medical Mj.

In those years, the feds were in on a lot of the medical scene raids happening in CA. It doesn’t appear like that now but I haven’t been active so I don’t really know. Reclassification or declassification is the critical step that now really needs to be pushed.
MedFaced is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-26-2019, 06:33 PM #14
moose eater
Guest

Posts: n/a
There's no exemption under Federal Law (1970 CSA) for medical marijuana care-givers or users. In the Federal perspective, 'guns and drugs' is 'guns and drugs.'

The BATFE sent memos to FFL holders/gun shops specifying as much, and stating there was no allowance/exemption.

The specific ban re. combining the 2 is federal, and some states are more apt to force compliance, but not all state agencies interact willingly or well with the Feds (with cause).

In Alaska the medical marijuana registry is open to ALL LEOs, and the way I understood that in the beginning of the registry, that included feds; theirs to review for the asking..

There are several assumptions herein; that the Feds are competent, being HUGE among them. They are not, in many cases. I'll skip the litany of examples.

Then there's the overwhelming number of itty-bitty, relatively benign cases they'd have to dedicate limited resources to, in order to force such compliance, which is why in the old days, not withstanding charges under RICO, such as 'operating a continuing criminal enterprise,' or their stand-by favorites, such as 'conspiracy,' they tended to shy away from anything under 100 plants (+/-). Unless it was more personal, and they -really- wanted to screw with you.

But the lengths the Feds have gone to in the distant past, over what amounted to relatively benign guns-and-drugs cases, can be found in cases such as that of Les and Sheryl/Cheryl Mooring, who I recall were from Arkansas, if my brain's not too gray this A.M.
Quote


Old 06-26-2019, 09:02 PM #15
White Beard
Senior Member

White Beard's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Limbo
Posts: 3,208
White Beard is a survivorWhite Beard is a survivorWhite Beard is a survivorWhite Beard is a survivorWhite Beard is a survivorWhite Beard is a survivorWhite Beard is a survivorWhite Beard is a survivorWhite Beard is a survivorWhite Beard is a survivorWhite Beard is a survivor
Agree. As long as cannabis is scheduled, possession of both cannabis and a firearm is an aggravated offense, ‘worse’ than either alone.
__________________
The FUTURE: *LIVE* it - or live *with* it...it’s just starting...NOW

Don’t vote for rich people - they’re not going to vote for YOU...
——————
“You never see the lies that *YOU* believe, you know you have been captured,
Still you feel so civilized...”


I’m not a fool, but I can recognize one
——————
Letting my freak flag fly!
White Beard is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-26-2019, 10:27 PM #16
JonathanT
Newbie

JonathanT's Avatar

Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 19
JonathanT has a spectacular aura aboutJonathanT has a spectacular aura aboutJonathanT has a spectacular aura aboutJonathanT has a spectacular aura aboutJonathanT has a spectacular aura about
That law is ridiculous. Wish they did that to drunks.
JonathanT is offline Quote


1 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-26-2019, 10:48 PM #17
Zeez
------------------------------>

Zeez's Avatar

Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 6,249
Zeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivor
That's all well and good, but when a state reissues a LTC to a MM card holder, they are the ones ignoring federal code. Same goes in legal states. They are not going to target gun owners hoping that they are possessing weed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moose eater View Post
There's no exemption under Federal Law (1970 CSA) for medical marijuana care-givers or users. In the Federal perspective, 'guns and drugs' is 'guns and drugs.'

The BATFE sent memos to FFL holders/gun shops specifying as much, and stating there was no allowance/exemption.

The specific ban re. combining the 2 is federal, and some states are more apt to force compliance, but not all state agencies interact willingly or well with the Feds (with cause).

In Alaska the medical marijuana registry is open to ALL LEOs, and the way I understood that in the beginning of the registry, that included feds; theirs to review for the asking..

There are several assumptions herein; that the Feds are competent, being HUGE among them. They are not, in many cases. I'll skip the litany of examples.

Then there's the overwhelming number of itty-bitty, relatively benign cases they'd have to dedicate limited resources to, in order to force such compliance, which is why in the old days, not withstanding charges under RICO, such as 'operating a continuing criminal enterprise,' or their stand-by favorites, such as 'conspiracy,' they tended to shy away from anything under 100 plants (+/-). Unless it was more personal, and they -really- wanted to screw with you.

But the lengths the Feds have gone to in the distant past, over what amounted to relatively benign guns-and-drugs cases, can be found in cases such as that of Les and Sheryl/Cheryl Mooring, who I recall were from Arkansas, if my brain's not too gray this A.M.
Zeez is online now Quote


Old 06-26-2019, 11:03 PM #18
moose eater
Guest

Posts: n/a
As stated, the issues include limited federal resources, FFL's are not law enforcers, per se', and the legal states (not all but many) have taken less interest in pursuing cannabis issues involving firearms in general.

Add that to the incompetence within bureaucracies in general, and you have a reality in which violations of law occur left and right without prosecution. We've legislated our way into defacto (limited) anarchy.

And that's fine by me. We're not supposed to sell home-brew, or exceed 55 mph, either.

Bottom line; they've legislated themselves into a position wherein they'd have to deputize every other household in order to enforce half the shit they regulate.

BUT, if the Feds should happen to visit your home, and you happen to have both weed and firearms on hand, you're rolling the dice in ways that I recommend against.

Hence, most gun-owners I know in Alaska declined registering on the State's medical registry. We already had the 1975 Ravin Decision from the State's Supreme Court, that required ZERO public registry declaration, and the last rulings on Ravin left a higher plant-count allowance than our medical and recreational laws did.

So here, in Alaska, it was more or less moot. Why register to have 6 plants, with no more than 3 in bloom, when the State Supreme Court last ruled, as a matter of Article 1, Section 22, Rights of Privacy, under Ravin v. State, that you can have up to 24 plants, with no separation between bloom and veg counts, and no registration on a list required?

Last edited by moose eater; 06-26-2019 at 11:40 PM.. Reason: Sanity after the thought....
Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-27-2019, 05:27 AM #19
armedoldhippy
Senior Member

armedoldhippy's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tennessee, hell yeah!
Posts: 10,448
armedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivorarmedoldhippy is a survivor
not in a legal state, but have some experience with law enforcement RE weed & guns. a few years back, i and a friend were stopped (on federal property) by game wardens & subsequently cited into court for possession. wardens were only concerned that weapons were not being transported in a loaded condition. (they WERE empty.) i don't think that "most" LEO are concerned that much about weed OR firearms. this was, however, in a rural county where guns are an everyday thing, and they have far greater problems with pills, heroin, and meth.
__________________
smoking more pot is NOT the answer to my problems. my problem is that i need more problems that smoking more pot IS the answer to...
armedoldhippy is offline Quote


2 members found this post helpful.
Old 06-27-2019, 05:38 AM #20
Zeez
------------------------------>

Zeez's Avatar

Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 6,249
Zeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivorZeez is a survivor
It's almost over. Every one of the front running dems will legalize nationally. Even then there will be hold out places that will keep it on the books.
Zeez is online now Quote


2 members found this post helpful.

Post Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:37 AM.




This site is for educational and entertainment purposes only.
You must be of legal age to view ICmag and participate here.
All postings are the responsibility of their authors.
Powered by: vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.