Recently we encountered an MCRGO (MICHIGAN COALITION FOR RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS) article (https://mcrgo.org/) published combined with Ammoland all about medical cannabis and exactly how it impacts weapon ownership as well as your concealed carry license. This is an extremely difficult issue, as you can imagine, for a shooting sports news blog to tackle and cover, in full spectrum and with the proper info for the consumer. This post simply grazed the surface on the interaction of state and federal law, since medical marijuana is lawful, as well as the relation between marijuana possession and licensing in Michigan. Much of what was claimed is thought-provoking, but not 100% accurate, so we decided to dispel the inaccuracies and give you a useful guide on your civil liberties as a Michigan resident.
At the time the post was written (2016 ), they couldn't provide really clear-cut solutions considering that much of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act as well as adhering to privileges of its cardholders, when it concerns weapon possession, was still a gray area in both federal and state law. The connection in between the two subjects is really vital, since when applying to acquire a weapon, of any kind of variety, you need to fill out the License to Purchase form with the state, in accordance with federal regulation. On this form as well as the Concealed Permit License, you need to answer the question referring to possession as well as use of marijuana and also any kind of various other controlled substances like it. We believe there is some help from federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922( g)( 3) relating to licenses and possession, yet it still does not clear up the issue thoroughly. The regulation mentions [anyone] "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" is not eligible for an LTP or CPL, which by reasoning this does not include lawful MMC holders, implying they are not banned from having a weapon or ammo. Given that this wording allows for people that are following legally under state regulation, it can be suggested there must be no barrier to having a weapon and also holding a medical marijuana card at the same time. It can also be said that just by having the card does not indicate you are in possession of or using marijuana as well as it's subsequent products.
To be clear 922( g)( 3) is a governing law, however it has subsequent amendments that should not be overlooked. In particular 922( d)( 3 ), which deals directly with the sale of guns, not just the screening process, and it includes the clarifying phrase "having reasonable cause". This clause is something that (g)( 3) does not add, better clouding the subject. This difference may not stand out as a big difficulty, but it is essential in the argument whether or whether not MMMA card holders are eligible to hold a CCP.
In the write-up, by Ammoland and also MCGRO, they specify "The ATF takes the position that anyone with an MMMA card is probably using and therefore not allowed to possess a firearm." As stated prior to this is not an outright fact, however in 2011 the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) released an open letter describing how statues 922( d) as well as 922( g) associate, as well as are defined concerning states with legalized marijuana. Their stance is, as a federally licensed firearm dealer, the dealer may not market to any individual that is recognized to or actually does possess a medical marijuana card, as this is reasonable cause, therefore the purchaser is disqualified according to 922( d). This is not to say they instructed that cardholders not be able to legally have a weapon, because 922( g) does not include such a stipulation, however it does make certain that the acquisition as well as sale of a weapon would be frowned upon, if not considered an infraction.
As the best scenario and case regulation we can present, currently, we after that checked out the judgment of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This case took place back in August 2016, yet their decision is sound, a sufficient description of the voids the statues leave. The case was Wilson v. Lynch, during which the 9th Circuit ruled opposing the ATF's open letter from 2011. The Court said "Title 18 U.S.C. § 922( d)( 3 ), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter bar only the sale of firearms to Wilson-- not her possession of firearms." As this is a ruling from a circuit court, this is no more opinion, through process or conjecture, but is currently ruling case law.
Basically, it is the essential distinction that comes into play when purchasing weapons and also ammo, not in the possession of firearms. The above judgment is narrow in its application, in a sense, it only applies to federal law (not state law) connecting to the sale, not possession, and simply to cardholders that are not users. This is why the federal form 4473, which covers the use and possession of marijuana and other controlled substances is still in use. So, if you are intending on getting a license, apply for ones that just have to comply with state regulation and not federal, due to the fact that federal law requires compliance with all statues.
Michigan law specifically lays out the specific criteria you need to satisfy to be determined worthy of a License to Purchase a pistol or a CPL, the statues they comply with are MCL 28.422 and also MCL 28.425 b, specifically. The factor we suggest to just apply on a state level versus a federal level is that neither 28.422 or 28.425 b contain language comparable to the federal laws, as well as neither have limiting requirements for MMC holders. If you are not guilty of violating any controlled substance laws, which would after that make you disqualified for holding a medical marijuana card as well, you are qualified for gun ownership.
Another component of the (https://mcrgo.org/) write-up we wish to cover, that is not precise, is the fact that state licensing needs a NICS background check and hence that federal laws still need to be followed. This is inaccurate and false because state licensing for medical marijuana is not included in the NICS search of your background. Again your right to purchase is under scrutiny pertaining to the Wilson ruling, not your right to possess and own a firearm.
Finally, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MCL 333.26424) protects cardholders under section 4 from ever being "denied any right or privilege," and since gun ownership is a constitutional right, they can never overturn that right. To discuss better, the Act is initiated law, which means it can not be repealed, preempted, or modified without a supermajority (75% of the house and senate). This indicates that the Michigan licensing authority is statutorily banned from refuting a cardholder a License to Purchase a pistol or obtaining a concealed permit license.
In Summary The Key Points:
The Federal legislations that control weapon sale and also possession are 922(d) (sales) and (922(g)(possession).
Both Federal statutes have different standards, and also the 9th Circuit made clear the 'grey' area throughout the Wilson v. Lynch case in 2016.
The current understanding of the Federal regulation is taken in such a way as to ban the sale of firearms to MMMA cardholders if the seller has knowledge of the card.
Federal legislation does not have the authority to prohibit possession of guns for people that simply have an MMMA card, however are not utilizing.
Considering that getting LTP and CPL are state-based application they do not require to address the marijuana and controlled substance question.
State law prevents Michigan authorities from rejecting any civil liberties or benefits, such as possessing as well as acquiring a firearm, to cardholders.
Bottom line: when a person calls our office to ask if as an MMMA cardholder if it is still lawful for them to purchase and possess weapons the solution is Yes! Yes, you can, it is your right, and you have the ability to exercise that.