Politics
Federal Ban On Gun Ownership By Marijuana Users Is Unconstitutional, Appeals Court Says
A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday ruled in favor of a Texas woman whom judges described as a “non-violent, marijuana smoking gunowner,” affirming a lower court’s ruling that federal charges filed against the woman for owning a firearm as a cannabis user are unconstitutional.
“The short of it is that our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon,” the court wrote in the new opinion, “but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”
Judges also pushed back against claims by Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys that cannabis users are inherently more dangerous than other Americans.
“Nor, contrary to what the government contends, do restrictions on the mentally ill or more generalized traditions of disarming ‘dangerous’ persons apply to nonviolent, occasional drug users when of sound mind,” the decision says.
DOJ has argued in this and other recent court cases that the federal law against gun and ammunition possession by someone who uses marijuana is consistent with other historical restrictions on gun ownership, such as by “mental defectives…and others whose possession of firearms is contrary to the public interests.”
But the Fifth Circuit panel disagreed.
“We must ask: why was severe mental illness a reason the Founders disarmed people, and is that ‘why’ ‘relevantly similar’ to § 922(g)(3)?” says the opinion, referring to the statute against gun ownership by people who consume illegal drugs.
Wrote the court: “It is not.”
“The government highlights nothing demonstrating that laws designed to confine (and consequently, disarm) those so severely mentally ill that they presented a danger to themselves and others map onto § 922(g)(3)’s rationale,” the panel said. “Repeat marijuana users, like repeat alcohol users, are of sound mind upon regaining sobriety, whereas those adjudged severely mentally ill often require extensive treatment and follow-up examination before they can be said to be of sound mind again.”
The case, U.S. v. Connelly, is one of a handful of federal court cases that center on the federal government’s prohibition on gun ownership by users of illegal drugs. And the court’s ruling in favor of Paola Connelly, who was found in possession of a pistol following a domestic conflict in which her husband was wielding a shotgun, may have implications for other pending cases.
“Paola Connelly is a non-violent, marijuana smoking gunowner.”
One of those cases, U.S. v. Daniels, is also currently before the Fifth Circuit, with oral argument set for October. It, too, hinges on the constitutionality of the law against gun ownership by marijuana users.
In a brief filed late last month in that case, DOJ pointed to a recent Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Rahimi, allowing the government to limit Second Amendment rights of people with domestic violence restraining orders, arguing that decision reinforced the constitutionality of restricting firearms for cannabis consumers, whom government lawyers called “presumptively risky people.”
But in Wednesday’s opinion in Connelly, the Fifth Circuit panel rejected that comparison.
“Deciding whether a conceptual fit exists between the old law and the new requires the exercise of both analogical reasoning and sound judgment,” judges wrote. “We hold the government to its heavy burden, as the Second Amendment ‘is not a second-class right.'”
“Marijuana user or not,” opined the court, “Paola is a member of our political community and thus has a presumptive right to bear arms. By infringing on that right, § 922(g)(3) contradicts the Second Amendment’s plain text.”
Judges also said the government failed to demonstrate that lawful restrictions on gun ownership by domestic abusers or the mentally ill were sufficiently similar to its law against firearm possession by drug users.
“Laws designed to disarm the severely mentally ill do not justify depriving those of sound mind of their Second Amendment rights,” the court wrote. “The analogy stands only if someone is so intoxicated as to be in a state comparable to ‘lunacy.'”
“Just as there is no historical justification for disarming citizens of sound mind,” it continued, “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”
The ruling contends instead that “alcohol is the closest comparator and historical analogue available.” No federal law limits the Second Amendment rights of people who occasionally drink alcohol.
“Perhaps the government could succeed if it were able to demonstrate that the drugs Paola used were so powerful that they rendered her permanently impaired in a way comparable to severe mental illness,” the opinion concludes. “It also might succeed if it were able to demonstrate that Paola’s drug use was so regular and heavy that it rendered her continually impaired. But it shows evidence of neither here.”
DOJ has made similar arguments in a case in a separate case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In that matter, a group of Florida medical cannabis patients contends that their Second Amendment rights are being violated because they cannot lawfully buy firearms so long as they are using cannabis as medicine, despite acting in compliance with state law.
The Biden administration, meanwhile, argues that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.”
The other marijuana and Second Amendment case before the Fifth Circuit, Daniels, was set to be considered by the Supreme Court but was among a number of firearms-related cases remanded back to lower courts following the domestic violence case ruling. The Fifth Circuit had previously struck down the cannabis consumer gun ban in the case last year before DOJ appealed it to the High Court.
The Justice Department has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.
Last year, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.
Earlier this year, meanwhile, 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.
Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws either further restricting or attempting to preserve gun rights as they relate to marijuana. Recently, for example, 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 earlier this month the campaign said its signature-gathering drive fell short.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled last year that the ban prohibiting people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, with the judge stating that the federal government’s justification for upholding the law is “concerning.”
In U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a judge ruled last April that banning people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional—and it said the same legal principle also applies to the sale and transfer of guns.
Last August, meanwhile, ATF sent a letter to Arkansas officials saying that the state’s recently enacted law permitting medical cannabis patients to obtain concealed carry gun licenses “creates an unacceptable risk,” and could jeopardize the state’s federally approved alternative firearm licensing policy.
Shortly after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) signed a legalization bill into law last year, ATF issued a reminder emphasizing that people who use cannabis are barred from possessing and purchases guns and ammunition “until” federal prohibition ends.
In 2020, ATF issued an advisory specifically targeting Michigan that requires gun sellers to conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers because it said the state’s cannabis laws had enabled “habitual marijuana users” and other disqualified individuals to obtain firearms illegally.
The Hawaii attorney general’s office also recently released data showing that, of the roughly 500 firearm permit applications denied by officials in the state last year, more than 40 percent were rejected because of applicants’ status as medical marijuana patients.
Read the full Fifth Circuit opinion below:
