Politics
Federal Appeals Court Says Government Must Prove Marijuana Users ‘Pose A Risk’ Of Danger To Justify Gun Ban
A federal appeals court has ruled that the government must prove that people who use marijuana “pose a risk of future danger” if it wants to justify applying a law banning cannabis consumers from owning firearms.
In its opinion on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sided with a federal district court that dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic stop.
The case has now been remanded to that lower court, which determined that the current statute banning “unlawful” users of marijuana from possessing firearms, known as 922(g)(3), violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
The Justice Department appealed that ruling in 2023, sending it to the Tenth Circuit. That three-judge panel said they “agree with much of the district court’s analysis” of the legal considerations, including its challenge to the federal government’s claims that there is historically analogous precedent substantiating the firearm ban for cannabis consumers.
Part of DOJ’s argument was that the ban is historically consistent with prohibitions on gun ownership by people with mental illness. The appeals court said “the government cannot justify” the current policy based on that standard.
“We agree with the district court and Mr. Harrison. On the record before us, the government has not shown laws disarming the mentally ill are relevant historical analogues. The government suggests laws disarming the mentally ill reveal a principle that legislatures may disarm those who are not ‘responsible,’ ‘ordinary,’ or able to exercise ‘self-control.’ This analysis relies on constructs the Supreme Court has explicitly refused to endorse.”
Further, the court said “Mr. Harrison is among ‘the People’ protected by the Second Amendment, so the government must justify § 922(g)(3) by showing it is consistent with our tradition of firearm regulation; § 922(g)(3) lacks a distinctly similar regulation despite addressing a persistent societal problem, which is relevant evidence it violates the Second Amendment as applied.”
Judge Veronica Rossman, who authored the opinion, noted that the court departs in a “narrow way” from the district court’s ruling, as judges “hold the historical tradition supports a principle that legislatures may disarm those believed to pose a risk of future danger.”
“And we further hold the district court must inquire into the government’s assertion that non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a risk of danger,” it said.
The lower court largely based his initial decision on an interpretation of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which the justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights.
The ruling states that any such restrictions must be consistent with the historical context of the Second Amendment’s original 1791 ratification.
The historical analogues that the Justice Department relied on to make the case that the ban is consistent included references to antiquated case law preventing Catholics, loyalists, slaves and Indians from having guns.
The circuit court, for its part, said that “the government must show non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a risk of future danger” to support the current policy. “This inquiry, which may involve fact finding, is best suited for the district court.”
This opinion comes nearly a year after the Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments in the case, with judges questioning not only the firearms prohibition itself but also whether it was within the scope of the appeals panel’s power to review the underlying lower court’s decision. Ultimately, they determined that they did possess that authority.
Meanwhile, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District, judges recently ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.
In the background of these developments, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a series of cases challenging the gun ban for people who use marijuana.
The Trump administration has asked the high court to hear one of five relevant cases to resolve conflicting lower court decisions on gun rights for cannabis consumers and other illegal drugs from owning firearms and uphold the prohibition.
In the request, the solicitor general reiterated his position that, despite recent appeals court decisions calling into question the constitutionality of the firearms ban for people who use cannabis—even in compliance with state law—the restriction is nevertheless lawful.
As a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explained the current legal landscape, a growing number of federal courts are now “finding constitutional problems in the application of at least some parts” of the firearms prohibition.
In a ruling last month, for instance, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated a defendant’s conviction and remanded the case back to a district court, noting that a retrial before a jury may be necessary to determine whether cannabis in fact caused the defendant to be dangerous or pose a credible threat to others.
The new Eighth Circuit opinion appears to differ from a recent Third Circuit ruling in that the new decision says that not every application of 922(g)(3) “require[s] an individualized factual determination,” explaining that such determinations wouldn’t be necessary if the government could demonstrate that a particular drug made an entire class of users dangerous.
By contrast, the Third Circuit earlier this month said in a published opinion that district courts must make “individualized judgments” to determine whether 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to particular defendants.
The appeals panel ruled that while a person “need not have harmed someone, threatened harm, or otherwise acted dangerously to justify his disarmament,” the history of gun laws in the country requires that “district courts must make individualized judgments and conclude that disarming a drug user is needed to address a risk that he would pose a physical danger to others.”
Judges in that case noted that historical restrictions on gun ownership under “drunkenness and lunacy laws” in the U.S. “were still always based on an ‘individualized assessment’ rather than a categorical judgment.”
Earlier this year, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to two defendants, writing that the government failed to establish that the “sweeping” prohibition against gun ownership by marijuana users was grounded in historical precedent.
A federal judge in El Paso separately ruled late last year that the government’s ongoing ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. The court allowed the man to withdraw the plea and ordered that the indictment against him be dismissed.
—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.
Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—
Meanwhile, at an NRA conference in 2023, Trump suggested there might be a link between the use of “genetically engineered” marijuana and mass shootings. He listed a number of controversial and unproven factors that he said at the time he would direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate as possibly causing the ongoing scourge of mass shooting afflicting the country.
“We have to look at whether common psychiatric drugs, as well as genetically engineered cannabis and other narcotics, are causing psychotic breaks” that lead to gun violence, he said.
Last year, then-President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was convicted by a federal jury of violating statute by buying and possessing a gun while an active user of crack cocaine. Two Republican congressmen challenged the basis of that conviction, with one pointing out that there are “millions of marijuana users” who own guns but should not be prosecuted.
The situation has caused confusion among medical marijuana patients, state lawmakers and advocacy groups, among others. The NRA’s lobbying arm said recently that the court rulings on the cannabis and guns issue have “led to a confusing regulatory landscape” that have impacted Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights.
Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws either further restricting or attempting to preserve gun rights as they relate to marijuana. Recently a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.
Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state, but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short.
As 2024 drew to a close, the ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.
Since then, bipartisan state lawmakers have introduced legislation that would urge Kentucky’s representatives in Congress to amend federal law to clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms, though no action has since been taken on that bill.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said in January that he supported the legislature’s effort to urge the state’s congressional delegation to call for federal reforms to protect the 2nd Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients, but the governor added that he’d like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level.
Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.
