What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Gun ownership, Medical Patient Card, Primary Caregiver Card

F2F

Well-known member
Hi all,

I mostly lurk here and don't post much but recent law changes in my state of Missouri have me curious on a few things.

There is a federal law that prevents users of controlled substances to own or possess firearms or ammunition. Everything I can find on this topic specifies "users", but what if you are a caregiver without a patient card?

Would love to see/hear what the exact verbiage is, and also if anyone can provide different or additional inputs here!

Best,
F2F
 

thailer

Active member
i think simply being in possession of medical cannabis would constitute "user" even though you're not technically using it. AFAIK in every state anyone that is growing can not have a gun. people that would live at the grow but are not patients can not have a gun. it's not supposed to even be on the property. i don't even think having a concealed carry permit helps and i think you lose it if you become a patient but i would assume that all patient laws also effect the caregiver because you're growing for the patient and acting as the patient would because they physically can not grow their own.
 

Douglas.Curtis

Autistic Diplomat in Training
Good question, and ignorance of the enforcers is going to make a difference. Lots of messed up stuff can happen to folk and family, long before the idiocy is cleared in court.

Where did I see a state going against this? Eventually the ignorant will become educated or die, and then we'll see the laws change globally.
 

Zeez

---------------->
ICMag Donor
Having the medical card does afford certain rights. In fact your weed is a prescribed medicine.
Does MM allow growing in Missouri?
 

MJPassion

Observer
ICMag Donor
Veteran
The Supreme Court has said, in the case of Marburg v Madison,...
“Any law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

Supreme Court rulings hold the weight of the Constitution.

That’s good enough for me.
 

F2F

Well-known member
Does MM allow growing in Missouri?

Hiya Zeez,

Yes, MO MM card holding patients can grow up to 6 flowering plants + 6 non-flowering + 6 clones (funny how some politician landed on "6-6-6").

This can be their grow or they can assign a primary caregiver. A caregiver can grow and provide for up to 3 patients (only up to 2 patients worth of plants allowed per locked and secured grow site - scratch my head).

However, [unless it's buried somewhere that I haven't found] different than a lot of other states the caregiver is not required to be a card carrying patient.

Thus my question based on words like "user" in the ATF memo.

This will keep a lot of patients on the black market side guaranteed. Missouri has a very active and avid hunting contingency.

Cheers,
F2F
 

F2F

Well-known member
2011 ATF memo.

https://www.atf.gov/file/60211/download

Now, from the DEA website it explicitly states "Schedule 1 drugs , substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

Clearly there is an accepted definition of accepted medical use these days. Seems MJ is due for rescheduling yes?

Cheers
F2F
 

Zeez

---------------->
ICMag Donor
Yeah, I think your bulletproof. I renewed my Firearms card while having a MM card. No issue. If it was going to be a problem it would have showed up then. I'm in the most firearms strict state in the country.
 

BabyHuey

Member
Technically you are not admitting to being a user of marijuana by being a caregiver in Missouri, contrary to being a registered MMJ patient .It would only apply to new gun purchases since no check is required on individual transfers in Missouri. IMO you are on solid legal ground. How the feds interpret it is anyones guess but at least they would not have a signed document with a perjorous declaration . The state can only inspect the grow area and a designated (by grower) path to it so as long as you are not storing your firearms in your grow or displaying them in plain view you should be good. 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 .
 

MedFaced

Active member
Until the Fed reclassify, guns and mj are a no no unless licensed, hired security.

Remember, as a schedule one, it’s a narcotic in the Fed’s view, there are no medical users or caregivers. Possession of a gun with a federal narcotics charge will enhance the potential penalties. They don’t give a flying fuck about caregiver status, it’s narcotics to them. There is no such thing as a prescription for marijuana in the USA, it’s a schedule 1 narcotic and no doctor can legally prescribe it. A doctor can recommend mj and this provides a level of legal protection from the individual state, not the federal gov.

With that said, the odds of a caregiver finding themselves in a federal case are incredibly slim, but the reality remains until reclassification. But I don’t know what all my friends and associates are into. Know what I mean? When I was active, our collective rule was no guns unless licensed security. I spent a lot of my days in court, and watched many people go down thinking their paperwork would save them in California. Don’t get fooled into thinking that paper is anything but a small bit of protection assuming you’re following the rules.
 

F2F

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
That's how I interpret it Medfaced

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
 

MedFaced

Active member
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.
 
M

moose eater

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.
 

White Beard

Active member
Agree. As long as cannabis is scheduled, possession of both cannabis and a firearm is an aggravated offense, ‘worse’ than either alone.
 

Zeez

---------------->
ICMag Donor
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.

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.
 
M

moose eater

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:

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
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.
 

Zeez

---------------->
ICMag Donor
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.
 
Top