In a new court filing by the U.S. Department of Justice, federal lawyers argue that a nationwide ban on marijuana possession by marijuana consumers is constitutional and should remain in place, arguing that or claimed to be consistent with other restrictions on possession of firearms by dangerous persons. drunk people.
The brief, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, is the latest in a lawsuit filed earlier this year by Warren County District Attorney Robert Green, who is registered as a medical marijuana patient in the state. be. 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;
In the latest Justice Department filing, the government says that is by design. The motion asks the court to dismiss Greene's lawsuit.
“Marijuana's physical and psychological effects make it dangerous for a person to handle a firearm and impair a person's judgment, including deciding whether to use a firearm,” the report said.
It also points out that possession of medical marijuana is still a federal crime under state law. However, the government has not prioritized enforcing the ban on state-regulated medical marijuana programs, and federal budget riders prevent funds from being used to interfere with state-regulated programs.
As the government argued in a separate marijuana-gun case earlier this year, the Justice Department says in a new Pennsylvania filing that the ban on gun possession by marijuana users upholds the U.S. v. Rahimi decision. This is supported by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. The government's ability to limit people's Second Amendment rights through domestic violence restraining orders.
“Mr. Rahimi only strengthens the conclusion that the Second Amendment does not prevent Congress from disarming people who illegally use controlled substances,” the government lawyers said, as first reported by Law 360. It is stated in the preliminary document. “This includes those who illegally use marijuana, a drug that impairs its effects and makes it unsafe to operate a firearm, pursuant to the state's medical marijuana program.”
As for the Pennsylvania district attorney, the Justice Department's complaint charges that Greene “regularly commits the federal crime of unlawful possession of controlled substances and desires to possess firearms while continuing to commit that crime.” .
The filing also says the plaintiff, the Second Amendment Foundation, lacks standing because it has not been directly harmed by the policy.
Plaintiffs' attorney Joshua Prince told Law360 on Tuesday that the Justice Department's latest arguments “border on the frivolous and fail to demonstrate the historical parallels required by U.S. Supreme Court precedent.”
“We look forward to the dismissal of the motion and the success of any future summary judgment motions,” Prince said.
In a separate case centered on banning marijuana users from owning guns, a federal appeals court in another part of the country ruled the policy unconstitutional just over a month ago. However, the ruling does not cover Pennsylvania, which is part of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
“In short, our history and traditions may support certain restrictions on the right of currently intoxicated people to bear arms,” the justices wrote in a recent 5th Circuit ruling. wrote in his appellate opinion. A sober person based solely on past drug use. ”
The case, United States v. Connelly, is one of the few federal court cases centered on the federal government's ban on gun possession by illegal drug users. And the court's ruling in favor of Paola Connelly, who was found in possession of a handgun after a domestic dispute in which her husband possessed a shotgun, has implications for other pending cases. There is a possibility.
The court held that “Marijuana user or not, Paola is a member of our political community and therefore has a presumptive right to bear arms. By violating that right, § 922 (g)(3) is inconsistent with the plain text of the Second Amendment.”
The justices also said the government had failed to prove that legal restrictions on firearm ownership by domestic abusers and the mentally ill were sufficiently similar to laws prohibiting drug users from owning firearms.
“A law designed to disarm the severely mentally ill does not justify stripping people of sound mind of their Second Amendment rights,” the court said. “This analogy only works if someone is so intoxicated as to be comparable to 'insanity.'”
Another case, United States v. Daniels, is currently being heard in the Fifth Circuit, with oral arguments scheduled for this month. This, too, hinges on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting marijuana users from owning guns.
In briefs filed this summer in the case, the Justice Department pointed to the high court's Rahimi opinion, which ruled against the constitutionality of restricting firearms access to cannabis consumers, whom government lawyers called “probably dangerous people.” He argued that it would strengthen the.
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.
Another 5th Circuit case involving marijuana and the Second Amendment, Daniels, was scheduled to be considered by the Supreme Court but was sent back to a lower court after a domestic violence case was decided. It was one of many incidents. The Fifth Circuit had struck down the cannabis consumer gun ban in a case last year, but the Justice Department later appealed to the high court.
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.
Read the Department of Justice's full motion in Green v. Garland below.
Hundreds of women have been charged with using drugs such as marijuana during pregnancy after Roe's repeal, according to a report
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.
