Learn about how the laws governing medical marijuana and firearms operate in Florida. Here at Affordable Marijuana License, …
4 Comments
Don't let this video get you into trouble. The information given is not correct at this point in time. If you use marijuana with or without a MMC you can't possess or purchase a firearm.
Whether or not we like it, and whether or not we think it's good, the law is what it is. A user of cannabis, even if legal under state law, violates federal law (18 USC 922(g)(3)) if he has possession (physical control and/or access) to a gun or ammunition. Violation is punishable by up to ten years in federal prison (18 USC 924) and would automatically include a lifetime loss of gun rights.
[I] It doesn't matte whether he acquired the gun or ammunition before he began using cannabis. It doesn't matter whether he acquired the gun or ammunition from a private party. Someone who is a user of cannabis, even if legal under state law, may not legally, under law, have possession of any gun or any ammunition — no matter where or how acquired.
[A] Under 18 USC 922(g)(3) it is unlawful for anyone who, "…is an unlawful user of … any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))…." to, "…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…."
[B] Possession is broader than ownership. See U.S. v. Booth, 111 F.3d 1 (C.A.1 (Mass.), 1997, at 1):
"…The law recognizes two kinds of possession, actual possession and constructive possession…. Even when a person does not actually possess an object, he may be in constructive possession of it. Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time of exercising dominion and control over an object or over the area in which the object is located. The law recognizes no distinction between actual and constructive possession, either form of possession is sufficient. Possession of an object may be established by either direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove ownership of the object,…"
[C] A gun or ammunition which has ever traveled in interstate commerce satisfies the statutory, "… in or affecting commerce…" requirement. See U.S. v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir., 2001), 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)…."
[D] Cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance, and as such can not be legally, under federal law, prescribed, sold, possessed, or used.
[E] Therefore anyone who uses cannabis is an unlawful user of a controlled substance under federal law, even if legal under state law, and thus prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition.
[II] Under 18 USC 922(d) it is unlawful for anyone to, "… sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person…." is a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(g) from possessing a gun or ammunition. Violation is punishable by up to ten years in federal prison (18 USC 924) and would automatically include a lifetime loss of gun rights. So anyone selling a gun privately to someone he knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a user of cannabis commits a serious violation of federal law.
[III] See Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011), in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user; BUT the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 – 1066):
"…Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials…"
And thus the Oregon Supreme Court specifically acknowledged that while Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun, she could still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).
[IV] And violations of 18 uSC 922(g)(3) are prosecuted. See —
[A] U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009). Burchard was convicted of being an unlawful drug user in possession of a gun. To simplify a fairly complex story, he had called police complaining that a woman he had picked up had stolen some money from him. Information acquired in the course of the investigation of the theft complaint led police to suspect that Burchard might be a drug user, and the police also knew that Burchard had a gun. The police investigated and acquired sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant to search Burchard's property — leading to the evidence that resulted in his prosecution and conviction.
[B] U.S. v. Edmonds, 348 F.3d 950 (11th Cir., 2003). An ATF agent observed Edmunds in a parked car rolling a joint. The agent also noticed the smell of marijuana. Edmonds was arrested and during a search incident to the arrest two guns were discovered in his possession. He was prosecuted and convicted of violating 18 USC 922(g)(3).
[C] Sobolewski v. United States (No. 15-11727, 11th Cir., 2016). Lucien Sobolewski was charged, prosecuted and convicted based following an investigation prompted by evidence discover by a U. S. Forest Service officer during the course of a traffic stop.
[D] U.S. v. Jackson, 280 F.3d 403 (4th Cir., 2002). Evidence of marijuana use was discovered at a traffic check-point, and he was later also found in possession of a gun. He was tried and convicted of violating 18 USC 922(g)(3).
[E] A quick search of a legal database to which I subscribe found 86 federal court of appeal cases involving prosecutions for being a person addicted to or an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm.
Those were only court of appeal cases, i. e., someone appealed to the higher court about something that was done (generally the defendant appealing because he was convicted) at the trial court. That would not include cases in which the trial court result was not appealed or cases in which the charges were resolved without trial, e. g., by a plea bargain.
When someone commits a crime he is betting his freedom, fortune, and future on not getting caught. Sometimes people don't get caught, but people often do get caught in unpredictable ways. You have no way of knowing if you'll be one of the unlucky ones. The prisons are full of people who didn't expect to get caught.
Don't let this video get you into trouble. The information given is not correct at this point in time. If you use marijuana with or without a MMC you can't possess or purchase a firearm.
Straight to the point of my concern!!! Love it great video
hello, i have a question, after i surrender my medical card how long must i wait before i can purchase a firearm in florida?
Whether or not we like it, and whether or not we think it's good, the law is what it is. A user of cannabis, even if legal under state law, violates federal law (18 USC 922(g)(3)) if he has possession (physical control and/or access) to a gun or ammunition. Violation is punishable by up to ten years in federal prison (18 USC 924) and would automatically include a lifetime loss of gun rights.
[I] It doesn't matte whether he acquired the gun or ammunition before he began using cannabis. It doesn't matter whether he acquired the gun or ammunition from a private party. Someone who is a user of cannabis, even if legal under state law, may not legally, under law, have possession of any gun or any ammunition — no matter where or how acquired.
[A] Under 18 USC 922(g)(3) it is unlawful for anyone who, "…is an unlawful user of … any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))…." to, "…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…."
[B] Possession is broader than ownership. See U.S. v. Booth, 111 F.3d 1 (C.A.1 (Mass.), 1997, at 1):
"…The law recognizes two kinds of possession, actual possession and constructive possession…. Even when a person does not actually possess an object, he may be in constructive possession of it. Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time of exercising dominion and control over an object or over the area in which the object is located. The law recognizes no distinction between actual and constructive possession, either form of possession is sufficient. Possession of an object may be established by either direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove ownership of the object,…"
[C] A gun or ammunition which has ever traveled in interstate commerce satisfies the statutory, "… in or affecting commerce…" requirement. See U.S. v. Singletary, 268 F.3d 196 (3rd Cir., 2001), 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)…."
[D] Cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance, and as such can not be legally, under federal law, prescribed, sold, possessed, or used.
[E] Therefore anyone who uses cannabis is an unlawful user of a controlled substance under federal law, even if legal under state law, and thus prohibited from possessing a gun or ammunition.
[II] Under 18 USC 922(d) it is unlawful for anyone to, "… sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person…." is a prohibited person under 18 USC 922(g) from possessing a gun or ammunition. Violation is punishable by up to ten years in federal prison (18 USC 924) and would automatically include a lifetime loss of gun rights. So anyone selling a gun privately to someone he knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a user of cannabis commits a serious violation of federal law.
[III] See Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011), in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Michael Winters, as Sheriff of Jackson County, was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user; BUT the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 – 1066):
"…Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials…"
And thus the Oregon Supreme Court specifically acknowledged that while Ms. Willis would not be arrested by Oregon LEOs or prosecuted under Oregon law for carrying a concealed handgun, she could still be arrested by federal LEOs, prosecuted under federal law and sent to federal prison for being a prohibited person in possession of a gun in violation of 18 USC 922(g)(3).
[IV] And violations of 18 uSC 922(g)(3) are prosecuted. See —
[A] U.S. v. Burchard, 580 F.3d 341 (6th Cir., 2009). Burchard was convicted of being an unlawful drug user in possession of a gun. To simplify a fairly complex story, he had called police complaining that a woman he had picked up had stolen some money from him. Information acquired in the course of the investigation of the theft complaint led police to suspect that Burchard might be a drug user, and the police also knew that Burchard had a gun. The police investigated and acquired sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant to search Burchard's property — leading to the evidence that resulted in his prosecution and conviction.
[B] U.S. v. Edmonds, 348 F.3d 950 (11th Cir., 2003). An ATF agent observed Edmunds in a parked car rolling a joint. The agent also noticed the smell of marijuana. Edmonds was arrested and during a search incident to the arrest two guns were discovered in his possession. He was prosecuted and convicted of violating 18 USC 922(g)(3).
[C] Sobolewski v. United States (No. 15-11727, 11th Cir., 2016). Lucien Sobolewski was charged, prosecuted and convicted based following an investigation prompted by evidence discover by a U. S. Forest Service officer during the course of a traffic stop.
[D] U.S. v. Jackson, 280 F.3d 403 (4th Cir., 2002). Evidence of marijuana use was discovered at a traffic check-point, and he was later also found in possession of a gun. He was tried and convicted of violating 18 USC 922(g)(3).
[E] A quick search of a legal database to which I subscribe found 86 federal court of appeal cases involving prosecutions for being a person addicted to or an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm.
Those were only court of appeal cases, i. e., someone appealed to the higher court about something that was done (generally the defendant appealing because he was convicted) at the trial court. That would not include cases in which the trial court result was not appealed or cases in which the charges were resolved without trial, e. g., by a plea bargain.
When someone commits a crime he is betting his freedom, fortune, and future on not getting caught. Sometimes people don't get caught, but people often do get caught in unpredictable ways. You have no way of knowing if you'll be one of the unlucky ones. The prisons are full of people who didn't expect to get caught.