Bill would try to reconcile Maryland medical-cannabis program with firearm eligibility despite federal constraints
Loading...
Summary
Delegate Robin Grammer's HB 365 seeks to protect firearms purchase and carry rights for qualifying medical cannabis patients under state law; supporters want a state-level fix but critics point to ongoing federal Schedule I rules that still bar users from possessing firearms.
Annapolis — Delegate Robin Grammer told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 365 is intended to reconcile state medical-cannabis policy and firearms licensing so qualifying patients are not automatically disqualified from handgun purchase or possession under state practice.
"House Bill 365 protects the firearm ownership rights of those who qualify to use medical cannabis by reconciling the articles concerning health and public safety," Grammer told the committee, arguing the present administrative implementation discourages patients who follow state-authorized medical programs.
Trade groups and legal commentators warned of a more complicated legal reality. Mark Penek, who testified for the Maryland Show Issue organization, pointed to federal criminal law, noting that marijuana remains listed as a Schedule I substance under federal law and purchasers or possessors can face federal prohibition. "Marijuana is a Schedule I drug," Penek said, "and that means there is a federal prohibition" that currently disqualifies users from possessing firearms under federal forms and the Gun Control Act.
Witnesses said the state-level mismatch causes confusion: patients with state certification may be blocked from purchasing or taking possession of regulated firearms because of standard federal background and attestation forms, even though some state licensing or carry-permit processes are permissive. Supporters urged the committee to clarify state practice and legislative intent while acknowledging that a full resolution may require federal changes to the Controlled Substances Act or implementing guidance.
What happens next
The committee heard the bill with testimony describing technical federal obstacles; lawmakers and witnesses signaled the policy would likely require careful drafting and consultation with the State Police and legal counsel to avoid creating risks for citizens who follow state medical programs.
