No CPLs for HeadShops?

[stainless1911]

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.

 

[Michigander]

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.

 

[stainless1911]

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.

 

[griffin]

You plan on getting your CPL back though, don't you?

 

[budlight]

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.

 

[stainless1911]

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.

 

[Adams182]

Could anyone cite the state or fed law that says a MMMP card holder (or someone who smokes/sells)
cannot also hold a CPL?

 

[stainless1911]

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.

 

[Adams182]

do you know where I can locate it too see how it reads?

 

[stainless1911]

I'll try to remember where I saw it.

 

[stainless1911]

found it

http://www.nssf.org/share/PDF/ATFOpenLetter092111.pdf

http://www.inquisitr.com/146254/atf-memo-says-medical-marijuana-users-not-allowed-to-buy-firearms/

 

[Adams182]

sweeeeet, thanks

 

[stainless1911]

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.

 

[Adams182]

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.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

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/2...all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-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.

 

[stainless1911]

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.

This doesn't specify CPL but gun purchase/transfer:

http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2...all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-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.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

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.

 

[stainless1911]

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.

 

[Adams182]

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

 

[Adams182]

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/(S(af...Object&objectName=mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2008