Lawyers on a federal appeals court were at odds this week over whether the government can legally disarm someone for marijuana use, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) ruling that just because a person has recently used marijuana, it qualifies as marijuana. He argued that this was sufficient to prove that he did. It's against the law and you shouldn't legally own a gun.
However, the justices of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said during oral argument Tuesday that a recently issued opinion within the same judicial circuit states that there are “certain limitations on the rights of currently intoxicated persons. However, while “carrying a weapon'' may be constitutional, “disarming a sober person based on past drug use'' is not.
The argument came as a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reconsidered the case United States v. Daniels. The case was one of many firearms-related cases that were scheduled to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year but were sent back to lower courts for the following reasons: Separate convictions for firearms and domestic violence.
A 5th Circuit panel previously ruled in favor of the individual in this case, who admitted and was convicted of using marijuana while possessing a firearm. The court said the federal law known as Section 922(g)(3), which prohibits “unlawful users” of illegal drugs from purchasing or possessing firearms, is unconstitutional.
Oral arguments Tuesday centered on the question of whether another Fifth Circuit opinion on gun ownership for marijuana users, known as US v. Connelly, is binding on the appellate panel. Jonathan D. Buckner, an attorney representing the federal government, said he felt the court “should take another look at Mr. Connelly.”
Buckner said that even though Connelly is the 5th Circuit's new standard for when the federal prohibition on gun possession by marijuana users is constitutional, it does not mean that a person can possess a gun and use marijuana at the same time. He said that does not mean that it has to be done.
“I read that Mr. Connelly allows for a conviction if someone engages in the use of a firearm, even if it is not contemporaneous with the possession of the firearm,” he told the panel. “If you want to own a gun, stop using drugs.”
The justices noted that Connelly's decision “speaks to a very close temporal link” between marijuana use and firearm possession. “It's really hard to think that marijuana could be used to reconcile Connery weeks ago,” said one person.
Buckner responded that he recognized Connelly “needs a closer intermittent use,” but found the defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm “if he can prove he is still the user.” He argued that the sentence was justified.
Daniels' lawyers, meanwhile, said in court that the government was simply seeking to expand its power to restrict gun possession by people who use or have used marijuana.
Kimberly G. Gore, who argued on behalf of Mr. Daniels on Tuesday, said, “As I listened to the opposing counsel, one thing that kept going through my mind was the government's legal framework. “We were looking for ways to expand our business,” he told the judge. Scope of ability to limit fundamental rights. ”
“He kept saying ‘active user,’ ‘active user,’” she said. “But that's not the standard. The standard under Connelly, and the standard we set in Daniels' original decision, was active intoxication.”
In Connelly, the court held that the government had failed to demonstrate that legal restrictions on firearm ownership by domestic abusers and the mentally ill were sufficiently similar to laws prohibiting drug users from owning firearms. I put it down.
“A law designed to disarm the severely mentally ill does not justify depriving people of sound mind of their Second Amendment rights,” the judges in the case wrote. I wrote it. “This analogy only works if someone is so intoxicated as to be comparable to 'insanity.'”
The justices on Tuesday seemed skeptical of Gore's argument that his client's conviction should simply be thrown out as a result of the Connelly case. Instead, the case could be sent back to district court for a retrial, which could give prosecutors a chance to argue that Daniels was actively using marijuana at the time he possessed the gun. They suggested that there is a sex.
Mr. Gore protested that the mere fact that officers smelled marijuana during Mr. Daniels' arrest did not indicate active use. “It smells like stale cigarettes,” she told the court.
One of the judges responded, “That's a good closing argument” to use in a retrial.
A Fifth Circuit panel of Judges Edwin Smith, Stephen A. Higginson, and Don Willett marked the case as pending and did not say when it would rule.
Courts across the country are considering the constitutionality of the government's ban on marijuana users owning guns and ammunition, which remains illegal under federal law. And legal scholars are generally skeptical of the Second Amendment's far-reaching limitations.
However, the Justice Department further strengthened the ban on marijuana guns. In a separate case in federal court in Pennsylvania, which is not part of the 5th Circuit, federal lawyers recently argued that the ban is constitutional and should remain, arguing that It argued that it was consistent with other restrictions on a person's possession of a gun. A person who is sick or drunk.
The lawsuit was filed earlier this year by Warren County District Attorney Robert Green, who is registered as a medical marijuana patient with the state. Greene worked with the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) to file a lawsuit in January against the government, including Attorney General Merrick Garland, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and the FBI director. I woke you up.
The original complaint states that Greene “intended to lawfully purchase, possess, and use firearms and ammunition in order to exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and all other lawful purposes.” states that such actions are prohibited. his status as a state-certified medical marijuana patient;
Meanwhile, in briefs filed this summer in the Daniels case, the Justice Department cited another recent high-level case supporting the government's ability to restrict the Second Amendment rights of people subject to domestic violence restraining orders. He pointed to the court decision, United States v. Rahimi. Lawyers argued that the decision strengthens the constitutionality of firearms restrictions on cannabis consumers, whom the government called “probably dangerous people.”
The Justice Department has made similar arguments in a separate case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In this case, a group of medical marijuana patients in Florida say that even though they are acting in accordance with state law, their Second Amendment rights cannot be legally purchased as long as they are using marijuana medicinally. claims to have been infringed.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration says medical marijuana patients who own firearms “endanger public safety,” are “at increased risk of suicide,” and are more likely to commit crimes “to finance their drug addictions.” claims.
The Justice Department has argued in several federal lawsuits in recent years that laws prohibiting marijuana consumers from owning or possessing guns are consistent with the country's history of disarming “dangerous” individuals. It has been argued that it is constitutional.
Last year, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports this restriction. The Biden administration has argued that marijuana consumers who own guns pose a unique danger to society, in part because they are “less likely” to properly store their weapons.
Meanwhile, earlier this year, President Joe Biden's son Hunter was found guilty by a federal jury of violating the law by purchasing and possessing a firearm while also being an active user of crack cocaine.
Two Republican senators objected to the basis for that conviction, one of them pointing out that there are “millions of marijuana users” who own guns but should not be prosecuted.
Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws that seek to further restrict or preserve gun rights related to marijuana. For example, a Pennsylvania lawmaker recently introduced a bill aimed at removing the state's barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.
Activists in Colorado also sought to place an initiative on the November ballot to protect the Second Amendment rights of Colorado marijuana consumers, but the movement's signature-gathering efforts ultimately failed. It didn't come close.
Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled that a ban on cannabis users possessing firearms was unconstitutional, and the judge said the federal government's legitimacy to uphold the law was “concerning.” Ta.
In April, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled that a ban on marijuana users from possessing firearms was unconstitutional, and that similar legal principles apply to gun sales and transfers. said.
Meanwhile, last August, ATF sent a letter to officials in Arkansas saying the state's recently enacted law allowing medical marijuana patients to obtain concealed carry gun licenses “creates an unacceptable risk” and that federal He said the move could jeopardize the state's alternative firearms licensing policy, which has been approved by the state.
Shortly after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed legalization legislation last year, the ATF emphasized that marijuana users would be prohibited from owning or purchasing guns or ammunition “until federal prohibition ends.” A warning was issued.
In 2020, ATF issued an advisory specifically targeting Michigan, saying the state's marijuana laws allow “habitual marijuana users” and other ineligible individuals to illegally obtain firearms. Required gun dealers to conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers.
The Hawaii Attorney General's Office recently released data showing that of the approximately 500 firearms permit applications denied by state officials last year, more than 40% were denied because of the applicant's status as a medical marijuana patient. announced.
Marijuana on the ballot: U.S. Senate and gubernatorial candidates support legalization
Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan.
Marijuana Moment is made possible by support from our readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
