In a recent ruling, a federal judge in El Paso declared the U.S. government’s ban on gun ownership for habitual marijuana users as unconstitutional. The case involved a defendant who had previously pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. As a result of this ruling, the court allowed the man to withdraw his plea and dismissed the indictment against him.
The recent ruling does not go as far as declaring the law prohibiting cannabis users from owning firearms, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), as unconstitutional. However, in the specific case, the ruling states that the government lawyers were unable to show that this restriction is consistent with the country’s historical regulation of gun ownership. It highlights that they failed to provide evidence that the defendant was under the influence of marijuana during the incident.
Senior U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of Texas, David Briones, also recognized in the ruling that the legal situation regarding marijuana and the Second Amendment has changed since the court initially accepted the guilty plea. In the meantime, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which encompasses Texas, determined that while it may be constitutional to impose restrictions on the right to carry a weapon for someone currently under the influence, it is not permissible to disarm an individual who is sober based on their past use of substances.
The case of U.S. v. Daniels was scheduled for review by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. However, it, along with several other firearms-related cases, was sent back to lower courts following a separate Supreme Court ruling on firearms and domestic violence.
“In the new ruling, Briones, a Clinton appointee, highlights that in the past two years, the Fifth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court have examined and deliberated on significant cases such as Daniels, Rahimi, and Bruen. These cases have brought about changes to the Second Amendment law and, in the instance of Daniels, have raised concerns about the constitutionality of the statute under which the Defendant is being charged.”
In this instance, the El Paso Police Department received a call in 2021 regarding the defendant’s residence. They promptly responded by entering the house and discovering two bags of marijuana. A thorough search of the premises also revealed the presence of multiple firearms. According to reports, the defendant admitted to officers that he had been using marijuana on a regular basis for many years and was aware of the legal implications of possessing both a medical marijuana card and a firearm.
The defendant appealed his case to the Fifth Circuit after pleading guilty. However, the Fifth Circuit later remanded the case back to the district court, considering the recent precedent-setting opinions.
The court has now taken into account the current state of Second Amendment jurisprudence and has reevaluated its stance, providing a more comprehensive understanding.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers responded to the challenge to the constitutionality of firearm restrictions by arguing that the defendant did not fall under the category of “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment. According to them, illegal drug users and addicts cannot be considered as “law-abiding” citizens and therefore are not protected by the amendment’s text.
The court, however, did not agree with this argument. They pointed out that in the opinion of Daniels, there are five instances where “the people” is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The opinion explicitly states that in each of these instances, “the people” refers to all members of our political community, rather than a specific group of upright citizens.
The ruling concludes that the defendant is considered as part of ‘the people’ whose actions are protected by the Second Amendment. As a result, the burden was on the government to provide a historical example similar to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) that demonstrated individuals like the defendant were disarmed during the time of the Founding. However, the government failed to meet this burden, leading the Court to declare that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional in its application to the defendant.
Briones highlighted a crucial aspect in his ruling, pointing out the absence of evidence to support the claim that the defendant was indeed under the influence of marijuana.
The order highlights that the government emphasizes the defendant’s admission of being a daily user of marijuana since the age of 14 and his preference for good weed. However, it fails to provide any evidence demonstrating that the defendant was under the influence of marijuana during the incident or at the time of his arrest.
The court agrees with the reasoning in the recent opinion of the Fifth Circuit’s Connelly, stating that the provision in § 922(g)(3) which restricts individuals based on their habitual or occasional drug use imposes a significant burden on the Second Amendment rights of the defendant. The court believes that this burden goes beyond what is supported by our history and tradition of firearms regulation.
The ruling not only allowed the defendant to withdraw their guilty plea, dismissed the indictment, and declared the federal firearm restriction unconstitutional, but it also ordered their release from any pretrial or bond conditions.
The ruling, being a district court decision, does not establish a precedent for other courts. However, it does offer insight into the current position of judges as higher courts adapt their understanding of federal firearm law.
In November, a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit listened to oral arguments regarding the government’s appeal of a district court ruling that declared the gun ban unconstitutional.
The panel’s discussion during the oral argument in that case focused heavily on whether the gun ban was being challenged on its face or as-applied. Additionally, the judges delved into the question of whether the defendant was truly under the influence of marijuana while in possession of a firearm.
The judges refrained from revealing their stance on the dispute during the oral arguments and instead decided to take the matter under submission.
In a recent federal court case, lawyers from the DOJ argued that the current firearm restriction imposed on cannabis users is comparable to laws that disarm intoxicated individuals and other historical laws that disarm various groups deemed dangerous by the government.
The recent response to a case filed by a Pennsylvania prosecutor suing the federal government over its ban on gun ownership by cannabis users was the latest brief. This brief was submitted following a request made by Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene’s lawyers to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. They sought permission to proceed with the trial.
In their previous brief, Greene and the other plaintiffs’ attorneys emphasized that the prohibition on firearm ownership for cannabis users is unique compared to other laws that restrict gun ownership for individuals who may pose a danger. They pointed out that these other restrictions only result in the temporary deprivation of one’s Second Amendment rights after a hearing, ensuring due process.
According to the plaintiffs, the government has presented its marijuana gun ban as a temporary measure. However, they argue that in reality, the prohibition is much more extensive.
The plaintiffs’ recent brief highlights the government’s disingenuous argument that the regulations merely impose a temporary prohibition on firearms possession and receipt for individuals actively engaged in unlawful drug use. However, the truth, which the government chooses not to disclose to the court, is that an unlawful user is defined to include individuals who may not be using the substance at the exact moment they seek to acquire or possess a firearm.
In a separate federal appeals court case, lawyers engaged in a debate regarding the circumstances under which the government can lawfully disarm someone for using marijuana. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that a person’s recent use of the drug is enough evidence to prove that they are in violation of the law and should be prohibited from legally possessing a firearm.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been making arguments in several ongoing cases, asserting that the ban on gun ownership for marijuana users aligns with a recent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of U.S. v. Rahimi. This Supreme Court decision upheld the government’s authority to restrict Second Amendment rights for individuals with domestic violence restraining orders.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has put forth similar arguments to support the firearms ban in a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In this particular case, a collective of medical cannabis patients from Florida raises the issue of their Second Amendment rights being infringed upon. They argue that they are unable to purchase firearms legally while using cannabis for medicinal purposes, despite adhering to state laws.
The Biden administration, on the other hand, argues that individuals who use medical marijuana and own firearms pose a potential threat to public safety. They believe that these individuals are at a higher risk of suicide and are more likely to engage in criminal activities to support their drug use.
The Justice Department has argued in various federal cases in recent years that the law prohibiting gun ownership or possession by cannabis consumers is constitutional, as it aligns with the country’s tradition of disarming individuals deemed “dangerous.”
In 2023, the Biden administration argued to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that the restriction on cannabis consumers with guns is firmly supported by historical precedent. They asserted that such individuals pose a distinct threat to society, partly due to their apparent negligence in properly storing their weapons.
President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, faced legal consequences last year when he was found guilty by a federal jury for purchasing and possessing a firearm while actively using crack cocaine. This conviction was brought into question by two Republican congressmen. One of them highlighted the disparity, pointing out that there are numerous gun owners who use marijuana without facing prosecution.
In recent times, certain states have enacted their own legislation to either tighten or safeguard gun rights in relation to marijuana. A notable instance is that of a Pennsylvania legislator who proposed a bill aimed at eliminating state obstacles for medical marijuana patients who wish to carry firearms.
The campaign in Colorado to protect the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers tried to qualify an initiative for the ballot in November. Unfortunately, the signature-gathering drive conducted by activists fell short in the end.
In the waning months of 2024, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) sent out a cautionary message to the residents of Kentucky. The ATF warned that those who opt to partake in the state’s upcoming medical marijuana program will be barred from purchasing or owning firearms due to federal regulations.
According to the official, individuals who are already firearm owners are not obligated to surrender their weapons if they become legal cannabis patients at the state level. However, those who choose to comply with federal law and avoid any violations must make the conscious decision to relinquish their firearms.