Are Bump Stocks Legal Again?

In this video, Cindy discusses the current state of bump stock law. On the day after Christmas in 2018, the ATF reversed its previous rulings that bump stocks were not covered under the National Firearms Act, and passed a rule that made thousands of people who had purchased a legal gun accessory felons. Lawsuits fighting that rule have been bouncing around the courts. Here’s where things stand now.

Oh, in Florida, the federal rule really doesn’t matter at this moment since our legislators included a bump stock ban in the atrocious knee-jerk reaction known as the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act. If the federal rule is eventually overturned, maybe someone will be able to overturn Florida’s law, but the courts generally allow states to be more restrictive than the feds when it comes to gun laws.

Other articles/videos you may find interesting:

You Can’t Have Your THC-Infused Cupcake and Eat it Too

Why You Might Not Get What’s in Mom’s Will

Ready to make sure everything’s in order for your loved ones in the event you become incapacitated or die? Give Manasota Elder Law a call at 941-444-5958. We’ll help you determine whether you’re all set, or whether there are still some things that need to be done to protect what’s most important to you … your family.

Gun Trusts Are Not a Shield

In this video, Cindy discusses some common misconceptions about gun trusts.

Other articles/videos you may find interesting:

Why You Shouldn’t Use a Corporation to Own NFA Firearms

Can a Person Under 21 Use a Gun Trust to Buy a Gun?

***Want to learn more about how to protect your family from the government, lawsuits, accidental disinheritance, or nursing homes? Click THIS LINK to book a seat at one of our upcoming fun and educational workshops.***

Why You Shouldn’t Use a Corporation to Own NFA Firearms

In this video, Cindy discusses some of the adverse consequences of using a corporation or LLC to own NFA firearms when you’re not using that corporation or LLC for a gun-sale related business.

Other articles/videos you may find interesting:

Want Prison Time? Make an NFA Firearm Without ATF Approval

Gun Trusts Gone Bad

***Want to learn more about how to protect your family from the government, lawsuits, accidental disinheritance, or nursing homes? Click THIS LINK to book a seat at one of our upcoming fun and educational workshops.***

Can a Person Under 21 Use a Gun Trust to Buy a Gun?

  • Post category:Firearms Law
NFA firearms trusts
No, puppies can’t buy NFA firearms. Neither can humans under age 21 in Florida. 

We’ve living through some pretty tumultuous times, so we’ve been getting a lot of calls recently about gun trusts. One 20-year old man – we’ll call him Johnny – asked an interesting question: was there a legal way he could use a gun trust to buy regular (Title I) or NFA (Title II) firearms in Florida?

The short answer – if you don’t want to read any further – is no.

Here’s the longer explanation >>>

As many of you know, the absolutely atrocious Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, was passed in March 2018 by our cowering legislators in a knee-jerk reaction to the Parkland murders. One of the things it did was raise the legal age to PURCHASE any guns in Florida to 21. A person under age 21 is still allowed to POSSESS guns legally acquired before the law passed, or gifted to them after the law passed. They are just prohibited from buying them.

And, of course, the federal laws against straw purchases are still in effect, so a person under the age of 21 can’t give money to someone 21 or over – not even a parent or sibling – to buy a gun for him or her.

Johnny was wondering whether by naming himself and his father as trustees on a gun trust and opening a bank account in the name of the trust (a perfectly legal thing to do), the funds from the gun trust bank account could be used by his father, acting as trustee, to buy a gun for the gun trust.

We’ll consider buying a “plain vanilla” Title I gun, such as a Glock 17, first.

The federal gun laws make no sense. For some reason, when it comes to Title I guns, a trust isn’t considered a “person,” and only “persons” can buy Title I guns. Since Johnny is the sole Grantor of the gun trust, it’s presumed by law that the money in the trust bank account is his. So Dad would be filling out the ATF Form 4473 at the gun shop in his own name, certifying that he was purchasing the gun for himself, but using Johnny’s money with the intent that the gun would be Johnny’s. That’s a straw purchase. Big felony no-no.

Now, could Dad use his own money and buy the gun as an individual, with the intent to gift it to Johnny? Yes, that’s legal and not considered a straw purchase (as long as Johnny doesn’t give him anything in cash or trade for it). Johnny could then assign that gun to his gun trust and possess it legally. But that’s not what Johnny wants – he wants to be his own man, not rely on Dad for gifts.

What about buying an NFA firearm, such as a suppressor, using gun trust funds? That’s a bit more complicated because now we have to look at Florida law, federal law, and the ATF’s rules regarding the transfers of NFA firearms.

First, we’ll look at how gun trusts and NFA firearms work. Under the federal law, a trust IS considered a “person” when it comes to transferring (buying, giving, or manufacturing) Title II (NFA) firearms. But in 2016, the ATF changed its rules regarding the process when a trust applies for permission to transfer a NFA firearm, making it harder and more complicated. All the Grantors and Trustees on a gun trust are now considered “Responsible Persons” (RPs) under the current NFA transfer rules. Every RP must be qualified to buy and possess firearms under federal and state laws.

When a NFA firearm is being transferred, the trustee completes a Form 4 with information about the trust and every RP completes a Form 23, which is very similar to the Form 4473 that everyone completes every time they buy a plain vanilla, non-NFA gun. Each RP also submits FBI fingerprint cards and a passport photo for a criminal background check.

In Florida, our current law states that “A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm.” (Fla. Stat. 790.065 (13)). And Florida’s definition of “firearm” means “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon; any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; any destructive device; or any machine gun.” (Fla. Stat. 790.001(6)). So, essentially all NFA firearms are included in that definition.

If Johnny is the Grantor and/or a Trustee on a gun trust, he’s an RP and thus the ATF will deny an application for the trust to purchase the suppressor because Florida doesn’t allow him to buy one.

So, while Johnny is legally entitled to vote, enlist in the military, serve on a jury, buy porn, be sued, get married, apply for a mortgage, and drive a 2-ton motor vehicle at speeds that can turn himself and others into mush, he’ll have to wait until he’s 21 to be able to legally purchase any Title I or Title II firearm in Florida.

Other articles you may find interesting:

Why Have a Gun Trust?

Want Prison Time? Make an NFA Firearm Without ATF Approval

Would you like to learn more about estate planning, elder law, asset protection planning, probate, and Medicaid planning in an informal, no-obligation setting?

To sign up for one of our free, educational workshops CLICK HERE.

NFA Firearms: Why You Should Name a Florida Executor or Trustee

In this video, Cindy discusses what actually happens when you die in Florida while owning NFA firearms, and you named an out-of state executor or trustee.

Other articles/videos you may find interesting:

Want Prison Time? Make an NFA Firearm Without ATF Approval

Gun Trusts Gone Bad

***Want to learn more about how to protect your family from the government, lawsuits, accidental disinheritance, or nursing homes? Click THIS LINK to book a seat at one of our upcoming fun and educational workshops.***

Want Prison Time? Make an NFA Firearm Without ATF Approval

  • Post category:Firearms Law
Prison due to NFA firearms violation
Choosing not to follow NFA firearms laws will change your residence, reduce your clothing options, and remove your gun rights.

I came across this article the other day that combined Florida and federal firearms laws, and it brought to mind all the people who ask me some version of, “If I convert my semi-automatic AR-15 into a fully-automatic machine gun, how’s the ATF ever going to know?”

Well, that’s the nature of breaking the law, isn’t it? “If I kill this person/rob this bank/lie on this federal form, how will anyone ever know?” Each person does a cost-benefit analysis every day when it comes to breaking the law – do the rewards outweigh the potential risks to me? You may decide that speeding is worth the potential ticket risk, but you may draw the line at stealing an Xbox.

This kid, who lived in a dorm on a college campus, said he “didn’t like laws” so he decided not to follow them. He used a drop-in auto sear (DIAS) to turn his AR-15 into an unregistered machine gun (yes, federal law requires that certain so-called “dangerous” firearms be registered with the ATF). He also had 2 other DIAS’s in his possession when he was caught. Federal law says that if you have a DIAS in your possession and you also have a gun that can accept that DIAS, and you didn’t follow the law about registering that gun with the ATF, you have illegal constructive possession of a NFA firearm.

The person who wrote the article is obviously clueless about gun laws (or is just a bad writer), because a casual reader would think this kid is going to prison for having a gun on a college campus. A scary machine gun, no less! Nope. The prohibition about guns on a college campuses is just a state law (second degree misdemeanor, $500 fine, 60 days in jail, no loss of gun rights) but, if you read the article carefully, you’ll see he was arrested by the feds. Violating the National Firearms Act is a federal felony, punishable by 10 years in prison, very large fines, and complete loss of gun rights.

So, how did they find out? Someone tipped off the campus police. Someone will ALWAYS turn you over to the authorities if they know you’re breaking the law and they can use this ammo against you for their convenience or benefit. Was it a jilted girlfriend? A friend who didn’t share his views about guns or the law? Who knows. I’m not defending this guy breaking the law – I’m merely pointing out that when you do choose to break the law, someone will find out at some point.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Other articles you may find interesting:

What is a Title II or NFA firearm?

Medical Marijuana and Gun Laws: One Toke Over the Line

Would you like to learn more about estate planning, elder law, asset protection planning, probate, and Medicaid planning in an informal, no-obligation setting?

Sign up for one of our free, educational workshops here.

Gun Trusts Gone Bad

In this video, Cindy discusses some gun trust horror stories she’s come across in her practice. There’s no wiggle room when you mess up a gun trust that hold NFA firearms. Can you say “contraband”?

Other videos and articles you may find interesting:

When Will the Supreme Court Clarify the Scope of the Second Amendment?

Pet Trusts: Because Moose Isn’t an Xbox

***Want to learn more about how to protect your family from the government, lawsuits, accidental disinheritance, or nursing homes? Click THIS LINK to book a seat at one of our upcoming fun and educational workshops.***

When Will the Supreme Court Clarify the Scope of the Second Amendment?

Second amendment[Updated June 15, 2020: The Supreme Court denied cert in all 10 cases. So, gun laws remain in limbo for at least another term.]

Recently, the Supreme Court declined to rule in a Second Amendment case,  New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, which could have allowed it to clarify just how far the landmark Second Amendment cases Heller and McDonald go. But New York City changed the controversial law as soon as it realized the case was headed to the Supreme Court; since the law was no longer in effect, a majority of Justices said there was no case to rule on. But it looks like some Massachusetts cases just may provide the opportunity NYC didn’t.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008), the Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and its requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” The Court declared that an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes is independent of service in a militia, and that such lawful purposes included self-defense within the home. Washington D.C. is a federal enclave, so people were unsure whether this ruling applied to the states under the “incorporation” theory of the Fourteenth Amendment. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court affirmed that it did.

So what’s going on in Massachusetts – my birthplace, and also the birthplace of the American Revolution? The place where its citizens once stood up to government oppression and where the confiscation of guns and gunpowder by the British was one factor that sparked a war? Under its current laws, individuals who want to carry a concealed firearm have to prove to government authorities that they have “good reason” to fear for their safety before a permit is issued. Not to go too in depth into constitutional law, but laws that restrict our individual rights can’t be arbitrary. In other words, they must be quantifiable, measurable, and apply equally to everyone. The argument here is that “good reason” is very subjective and therefore unconstitutional. And, of course, the other argument is that self-defense is a natural right and no reason is needed when it comes to self-protection.

Massachusetts has also enacted so-called “assault weapons” and ammunition bans. Its definition of “assault weapons” is so broad that it includes many popular guns. I’ve seen estimates that about half of the types of guns legal under federal law are banned in MA. The constitutional issue here is some wording in Heller that implies that individuals have a right to own guns “in common use.” But appeals courts are reading Heller and McDonald oddly – everyone’s all over the map and no one seems to really know how to apply either case.

The MA ban also includes “copies or duplicates” of so-called assault weapons. What does that mean? No one knows for sure. Another tenet of constitutional law is that a law can’t be vague, so that’s also on the table.

There’s no guarantee the Court will agree to hear these MA cases, but it’ll sure be interesting if it does.

Other articles you may find interesting:

What is a Title II or NFA firearm?

Medical Marijuana & Guns: Legal Advice from a Doctor?

***Want to learn more about how to protect your family from the government, lawsuits, accidental disinheritance, or nursing homes? Click THIS LINK to book a seat at one of our upcoming fun and educational workshops.***

Medical Marijuana & Guns: Legal Advice from a Doctor?

Medical marijuana doctor
Why would you rely on medical marijuana doctors for legal advice regarding gun laws?

I’m not a doctor, but I’ve watched lots of Grey’s Anatomy. Would you trust me to give you sound medical advice or write you a prescription? Probably not. But apparently some doctors think they’re qualified to give legal advice.

Maybe they binge-watched Law and Order or stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. I don’t know. But, sadly, people will rely on their bad legal advice – just because they’re doctors. And perhaps also because it’s what they want to hear.

I’ve written several articles about guns and marijuana, so my professional curiosity made me read this article. From the first sentence, I could tell it was heavily biased – marijuana is the Holy Grail, Hallelujah! That was fine – I personally don’t care about pot one way or the other. But it made me quickly scroll to the bottom to see who wrote the article… a medical marijuana doctor. Hmm.

The part of the article that made the hairs on my neck stand up was this:

Many people wanting medical marijuana avoid it because they fear they might not be able to own guns. This is not true. You can own guns and in fact have a concealed carry permit in Florida and have a medical marijuana card, no problem.

As an actual Florida lawyer who takes an avid interest in gun law, I can tell you that the last sentence is legally false.

I’ve written and presented about this over and over again, but people who have a vested interest in peddling pot keep telling the same lies to people who want to believe those lies.

I’ll break it down very simply:

  1. Federal laws trump state laws when it comes to drugs. Under federal law, marijuana of any kind is a Schedule I drug – totally illegal. Florida and some other states have chosen to look the other way within their borders, but that doesn’t change the federal law.
  2. Federal laws trump state laws when it comes to guns. Under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)), you cannot possess a gun if you are a user of an illegal drug (pot, heroin, meth, crack, etc.) – or an abuser or illegal user of a legal drug (taking your spouse’s prescription meds, abusing prescription opioids, etc.). A federally-licensed gun dealer makes you swear on a form that you don’t do any of that, and even private sellers cannot legally sell to anyone they suspect may fall into any of those or other prohibited categories. States can be more restrictive, but they can’t override the federal gun laws. You must comply with all the federal gun laws first, and then comply with the state gun laws.
  3. Florida’s concealed carry licensing statute specifically states in Fla. Stat. 790.06(2)(n) that you can’t get a concealed carry license if you’re prohibited from owning guns under any federal law. Logically, that would also mean that you cannot keep your concealed carry license and carry a gun (you could carry a concealed knife) – if you use medical or recreational pot.

Bottom line? If you choose to use medical or recreational marijuana, you’re prohibited from possessing guns under federal law. And having a concealed carry license for something you’re not allowed to have makes no sense.

Will you get caught? Who knows. We weigh that risk every time we choose to break any law. But keep in mind that the penalties are steep – they’re felonies. And yes, I realize that our own Dept. of Agriculture Commissioner is flagrantly breaking state and federal laws by telling medical marijuana users that they can have a concealed carry license. But that doesn’t make it legal.

Remember…when seeking medical advice, ask a doctor. When seeking legal advice, ask a lawyer. And also remember that Google is neither.

Reference: https://www.chronicleonline.com/opinion/columnists/medical-marijuana-not-perfect-yet/article_c7eca818-57ec-11ea-9311-4b53009597de.html

Other articles you may find interesting:

Medical Marijuana and Gun Laws: One Toke Over the Line

Choose: Concealed Carry License or Medical Marijuana Card

You Can’t Have Your THC-Infused Cupcake and Eat it Too

You Can’t Have Your THC-Infused Cupcake and Eat it Too

Marijuana THC cupcake
Should marijuana-laced edibles be available in bars? Airplanes? Publix and Walmart? By prescription only? Or should they remain federally illegal?

Guns and marijuana are hot-button topics right now.

Most gun owners know by now that marijuana and guns don’t play well together. Federal law prohibits anyone who uses medical or recreational marijuana from possessing or buying guns – even if their state laws allow the use of medicinal marijuana. And, here in FL, our concealed carry statute says that a concealed carry license “shall be issued” unless the applicant is prohibited by the conditions enumerated in the statute, or is “prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm by any other provision of Florida or federal law.” Yes, I know our current Dept. of Agriculture Commissioner and her office are flagrantly violating our state and federal laws by ignoring that pesky little detail, but that’s another story.

Our U.S. Representative Greg Steube (R – 17th District) has always been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and gun rights. He recently introduced the Marijuana 1-to-3 Act of 2019, which would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. (Before 1970, drugs were regulated by the states).

Schedule I drugs were deemed to have a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and were unsafe to use even under under medical supervision. Drugs on this list, in addition to marijuana, include heroin, LSD, mescaline (peyote), ecstasy, quaaludes, bath salts, etc. These drugs are illegal under any circumstance and cannot be prescribed by doctors.

Schedule III drugs were deemed to be not as dangerous and are available by prescription only. The potential for abuse is less than the drugs in Schedules I and II, the drug has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and abuse of the drug may lead to low or moderate physical dependence or high psychological dependence. Drugs on this list include forms of testosterone and estrogen, and drugs containing codeine (such as Tylenol with Codeine).

When I read Greg’s bill, I thought “That’s a good start. It would get rid of the federal gun possession prohibition and all doctors would be able to prescribe it for various conditions, which could certainly be a boon for our veterans and people undergoing chemo. It would also spur legitimate medical research on the effects of marijuana and THC – how it interacts with other drugs, its effect on the brain (especially of minors), its effect on babies in utero, etc. Win-win.”

Well, others didn’t see it that way. They say it doesn’t go far enough. They want marijuana to “be legalized.” But what exactly do they mean by that? Lots of things are legal – tomatoes, tobacco, machine guns, vodka, vitamins, prescription drugs, Twinkies, etc., but they’re all regulated differently. If you ask three different people what should happen with marijuana, you’ll get four different answers. Everyone seems to want to have their THC-infused cupcake and eat it, too.

Here are various proposals I’ve heard:

  1. Only medical marijuana should be legal. These folks believe marijuana has legitimate medical uses and should only be available from any doctor by prescription. Okay, Greg’s bill would do that and it would remove the gun possession prohibition. A medical marijuana user would have the same constitutional rights as an opioid user. But, let’s think about this further. Will insurance cover it? Will it only cover some forms of it? Medicare costs are already out of control – what would this do? The minute third party insurers get involved, the price of prescription pot will skyrocket, just like every prescription drug out there. Also, is there a reliable instant marijuana test for employees whose jobs require they not be impaired? And you thought Big Pharma was a problem? Wait until you meet its incestuous cousin, Big Weed.
  2. Recreational marijuana should be sold and regulated like rum. Okay, so unlike the people supporting #1, these people are saying there is NO legitimate medical use, and it’s a purely recreational drug like alcohol. It would remove the federal gun possession prohibition, which is a plus. To get to this point, marijuana would have to be removed from the DEA Schedules completely and brought under the auspices of the BATFE. (Because they’re so good and efficient at what they do, let’s give them even more power over our lives). And, of course, to sell pot legally, someone would have to obtain a state license, like a liquor license. More regulation. And where would pot be sold? In existing liquor stores or in dedicated privately owned pot shops? Or in government-owned pot shops like socialist Canada has? Or both? Would you be able to buy an edible at a bar?  On an airplane? There are no federal regulations banning alcohol advertising on TV – the industry has been self-regulating for decades – but will a newly-minted weed industry be willing to hamstring itself? Or will the feds use it as another reason to step in and regulate all alcohol and weed advertising? All this regulation and taxes (yes, there will be confiscatory taxes imposed to raise revenue and to “raise awareness of” or “to fight” something) will drive the prices up and contribute to a thriving illegal black market. We already have an illegal street trade, and medical marijuana pushers…I mean doctors…who will write a medical marijuana recommendation for anyone for any reason, so it seems the only people who would really benefit from this would be gun owners who don’t like buying their recreational pot on the street.
  3. Marijuana should be sold as a supplement, like vitamins. Because it’s “natural.” LOL. Yeah, I suppose if you chewed a leaf or flower directly from the plant you have growing in your organic home garden, you could say it was natural. There’s nothing natural about the commercial processing of THC and pot – the chemicals used are as bad as those used in tobacco, and growers use all kinds of toxins to keep bugs and animals from eating the plants. But, let’s go with the premise. It would certainly remove the federal gun possession prohibition. Pot would be loosely regulated by the FDA just to make sure it wasn’t pure poison and wasn’t marketed using pure lies, and it could be advertised on the radio, TV, and billboards, and sold in Walmart’s vitamin section, near the condoms and makeup. See anything wrong with that plan?
  4. Split the baby – regulate marijuana like beer and rum. These folks also don’t believe there’s any medical use for pot, that it’s purely recreational. But they think marijuana should be regulated by THC content, with the lower THC pot regulated like beer and the higher THC pot regulated like liquor. Yes, it would remove the federal gun possession prohibition. But we’d have all of the same problems I mentioned in #2, plus now we’d have pot being sold in Publix and advertised on TV.
  5. Split the baby lite – regulate marijuana like alcohol and supplements. Again, these people obviously don’t believe there’s any legitimate medical use for pot. This “solution” is similar to #4 except that the higher THC pot would be regulated like either beer or rum, and the lower THC pot would be sold like a supplement. All of the problems I mentioned in #2, #3, and #4 would apply.
  6. Marijuana should be sold like tobacco. Well, this seems to make some sense if you believe there’s no medicinal value in THC. It would remove the federal gun possession prohibition, and, in theory, only people over a certain age could buy it. Of course, we know that’s false as we currently have way too many minors using tobacco and vaping products. Of course, the FDA and BATFE would be in charge of regulating it, which shouldn’t give anyone the warm and fuzzies. Interestingly, during my research for this article, I discovered that the FDA’s rules about what constitutes a tobacco product are as broad as the BATFE’s rules regarding what constitutes a machine gun. Which explains why the FDA regulates rolling papers and e-cig coils just as the BATFE regulates things it deems as “machine gun parts” (even things that definitively aren’t). The FDA also has rules about “manufacturing” that are eerily similar the BATFE’s “manufacturing” rules.
  7. Marijuana should be sold like veggies. The thought here is that marijuana is just a plant, like an onion or broccoli, and should be sold the same way. Pot could be bought at grocery stores and farmers markets by people of any age. It would certainly remove the gun possession prohibition, but I somehow doubt that our society is ready to go that far. And, there’s a very important case, Wickard v. Filburn, that has allowed the national government to say that pretty much everything – even purely intrastate commerce – affects interstate commerce, and, thus, the national government can regulate it. So, we’d be right back where we started with the national government regulating marijuana.
  8. The all-over-the-map “solution”. These people don’t know what they want done. They vaguely think some pot should be designated for medicinal use, but are unclear as to whether it should be available by prescription or OTC. They don’t have any idea how some versions of pot would be selected for this treatment, but they’re sure that other versions of pot should be available recreationally. Somehow.

My point is that there’s no simple solution to this complex problem, and anyone who just says “legalize it” hasn’t thought things through. And, every single “solution” expands the role of the government in our lives and constricts liberty.

And what do I think should be done? That’s a tough question. First, as a small government/free trade/constitutional republic Libertarian, it find it appalling that the national government has any control over drugs at all. For nearly 200 years, drugs, like alcohol and guns, had been regulated by the states. I look at the history of Prohibition and the violence caused by that law, which led to the expansion of the national government and the creation of the ATF (now BATFE). And then I see how the violence decreased substantially when Prohibition was repealed. But we didn’t learn our lesson, and we repeated history with this losing political battle called the War on Drugs, and we’re now living with the violence caused by those laws tearing our cities apart.

Unfortunately, I can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube, and it’s likely the national government will just continue to grow in power as we continue to lose our individual rights to self-determination – all under the false flag of safety. If we lived in a truly free society, I’d support removing marijuana from all Schedules and letting it be sold like rum (which, in my world, wouldn’t be regulated by the national government, either). Let adults decide whether they want to use recreational drugs or not, and let them suffer the dire consequences of abuse.

But we don’t live in a free society. We’ve created a vast, suffocating web of government safety nets to “protect” people from themselves. More laws and regulations would be chained to our necks no matter what choice we make. So, given our current socialist-leaning reality, and since I think marijuana may have some valid medicinal value and should be studied further so adults can make educated decisions about using it, I think moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III is a very reasonable first step.

***Want to learn more about how to protect your family from the government, lawsuits, accidental disinheritance, or nursing homes? Click THIS LINK to book a seat at one of our upcoming fun and educational workshops.***