Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: No CPLs for HeadShops?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    No CPLs for HeadShops?

    One of the stores I used to frequent, 3 Doors Down, used to be located in Pontiac, now open in Waterford. The old owner had been stabbed 12 times, died, over 170$ in the register. The killer is now rottting in a cell.When I had gone in to see the new store, the killing came up, I said "Thats one reason I carry". The girl behind the counter said that they all wanted to get CPLs, but "they" (police?) told them they could not, because of the type of business that it was.

    I told the girl that I was an activist, and had not heard of such a law, and that I would look into it. I also gave her the phone #s of 2 very competent lawyers that she could call to confirm or deny.

    If there is a cite, i would like to know it.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 06-17-2012 at 12:19 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    I do know that I've heard federal law prohibits those who smoke or sell marijuana from having firearms.

    But head shops (had to look it up) as far as I know from the ones I've happened into, don't sell marijuana, or any other illegal drug, at least not that they'll admit to someone they don't know well.

    So the idea that it would be illegal for them to have CPL's seems like it would be illegal for a Target cashier to have a CPL because they sell condoms which inevitably will be used to nail hookers. Completely absurd.

    I've been poking around google, but can't find such a thing. Still wouldn't surprise me if it exists.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    We spoke about Medipot users and CPLs, and how someone with a card doesn't necessarily smoke, therefore shouldn't be prohibited.

    Now that I don't have a CPL, I plan on getting my card, but i have no plans on smoking. I want to add to the numbers of people with cards.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 06-17-2012 at 09:03 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member griffin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Okemos, MI
    Posts
    884
    You plan on getting your CPL back though, don't you?
    "If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to."
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley
    "...go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams
    Wheels

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    One of the stores I used to frequent, 3 Doors Down, used to be located in Pontiac, now open in Waterford. The old owner had been stabbed 12 times, died, over 170$ in the register. The killer is now rottting in a cell.When I had gone in to see the new store, the killing came up, I said "Thats one reason I carry". The girl behind the counter said that they all wanted to get CPLs, but "they" (police?) told them they could not, because of the type of business that it was.

    I told the girl that I was an activist, and had not heard of such a law, and that I would look into it. I also gave her the phone #s of 2 very competent lawyers that she could call to confirm or deny.

    If there is a cite, i would like to know it.
    My guess is that the police ASSUMED that if they were selling paraphernalia they were probably using as well. If they are NOT using then they should be fine.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by griffin View Post
    You plan on getting your CPL back though, don't you?
    Not eligible for 8 years. Might as well fight for freedom of another genre as well as ours in the mean while. If the transport laws change, or I move to a free state, then I won't need one.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 06-17-2012 at 10:05 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    Could anyone cite the state or fed law that says a MMMP card holder (or someone who smokes/sells)
    cannot also hold a CPL?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    It was a BATFE memo.

    THe BATFE subverted the constitutional rights of several hundred thousand law abiding American citizens without notice, vote, trial, due process or any other legal means.

    States rights under the tenth amendment are supposed to block this type of tyrrany. Also, the first, second, fourth, fifth, possibly eighth, and ninth amendments come into play here as well.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    do you know where I can locate it too see how it reads?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I'll try to remember where I saw it.

  11. #11

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    sweeeeet, thanks

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    yw

    A card might give them cause to request a warrant for a search, ie drug test, but it does not give them the legal right to deny you in and of itself. This goes to court, and it would be defeated so easily, the lawyer could win it if he was stoned.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    Interesting read, thanks for looking that back up

    There are protections in the laws in that the mere possession of a card or amount allowed of cannabis is not at all grounds for a stop/search/seizer or any RAS for that matter. Sort of the same as getting stopped just because you have a holstered gun. But that only limits state LEO of course the feds are a different story.

  15. #15
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    We spoke about Medipot users and CPLs, and how someone with a card doesn't necessarily smoke, therefore shouldn't be prohibited.

    Now that I don't have a CPL, I plan on getting my card, but i have no plans on smoking. I want to add to the numbers of people with cards.
    This doesn't specify CPL but gun /ownership/purchase/transfer:

    http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...l-purposes.pdf
    "Further, if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possesion and use of marijuana under State law, the you have "reasonable cause to believe" that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. As such you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person, even if the person answered "no" to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473.
    Last edited by twoskinsonemanns; 06-17-2012 at 11:25 PM.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Adams182 View Post
    Interesting read, thanks for looking that back up

    There are protections in the laws in that the mere possession of a card or amount allowed of cannabis is not at all grounds for a stop/search/seizer or any RAS for that matter. Sort of the same as getting stopped just because you have a holstered gun. But that only limits state LEO of course the feds are a different story.
    If you can, I'd really like those cites.

    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    This doesn't specify CPL but gun purchase/transfer:

    http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...l-purposes.pdf
    "Further, if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possesion and use of marijuana under State law, the you have "reasonable cause to believe" that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. As such you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person, even if the person answered "no" to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473.
    Thats why you dont tell them.

    When you answer No, you do so truthfully, knowing that there are several constitutional amendments that limit the fed .gov from making this policy.

  17. #17
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    If you can, I'd really like those cites.



    Thats why you dont tell them.

    When you answer No, you do so truthfully, knowing that there are several constitutional amendments that limit the fed .gov from making this policy.
    I've never had a dog in the fight one way or the other, but seeing the FED point at a STATE and tell it "no your laws mean nothing" is upsetting.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Exactly.

    Read the amendments I posted above, with this subject in mind. The blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights is ...well, theres a lot of words that could go here, some are auto censored.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    If you can, I'd really like those cites.



    Thats why you dont tell them.

    When you answer No, you do so truthfully, knowing that there are several constitutional amendments that limit the fed .gov from making this policy.


    I will see if i can find them in just a bit if not by tomorrow, just read the whole 20some pade thing the other day

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    MCL 333.26424

    4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

    Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

    (b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

    (1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process; and

    (2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility; and

    (3) any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.

    (c) A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.

    (d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

    (1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

    (2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.


    Maybe not as cut and dry but it is there IMO

    All of it can be found here http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...-Law-1-of-2008

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Thank you. I highly doubt that if a registered user would be protected, that a tobacco supply store would be prohibited.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Gobles, MI
    Posts
    178
    Yea as far as the OP and state laws (obviously fed is diff) I believe they were misinformed. I haven't seen anything that says they wouldn't be allowed to attain a CPL because they work at a store that sells "paraphernalia". Even if they were also a dispensary for medical patients, which is a sale of controlled substance in the FED eyes but I don't see a problem at the state level.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •