Another federal court has ruled that banning people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional–and it said that the same legal principle also applies to the sale and transfer of guns, too.
Recently, the Justice Department was involved in numerous court cases in defense of the cannabis firearms ban. Its arguments are now under greater scrutiny due to precedent-setting Second Amendment cases which generally make it harder to impose gun restrictions.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has now weighed in and awarded a win for Paola Connelly. She was an El Paso resident, who was convicted of separate charges for possessing, transferring, and receiving a firearm in 2021, while also admitting that she is a cannabis consumer.
Judge Kathleen Cardone granted a motion to reconsider the case and dismissed the charges last Wednesday.
Although the court had previously convicted the defendant, it stated that a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit justified a reevaluation. The case relied upon U.S. Supreme Court precedent stating that firearm restrictions must conform to the historical context of Second Amendment’s 1791 ratification.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was central to many challenges to the ban on guns for cannabis consumers.
The Bush-appointed judge in this federal district court case questioned the Justice Department’s efforts to establish historical analogies to the marijuana ban. This included comparisons with laws against guns while under the influence of alcohol and possession by persons deemed “unvirtuous.”
The court also stated that simple cannabis possession would be a misdemeanor in federal law. Therefore, any historical tradition of disarming “unlawful” individuals doesn’t support Connelly’s alleged marijuana use.
The judge also mentioned the fact that last year, President Joe Biden granted a mass pardon to people who had been convicted of federal marijuana possession offenses.
According to the ruling, Connelly would not be convicted of simple marijuana possession if the blanket presidential pardon for all marijuana possessions made before October 6, 2022, would exonerate that conviction.
However, it should be noted that the president’s clemency actions didn’t erase records. Instead, the pardons were largely symbolic expressions formal forgiveness by federal government. It speaks to the influence of federal cannabis policy on these gun cases.
The court noted that DOJ’s defense against the convictions is marred because the defendant had not been convicted of any marijuana offense. She admitted that she used cannabis to help her sleep and anxiety.
It states that “the longstanding prohibition against firearms possession by felons means the Government must charge and convict an individual prior to disarming him.”
“Of course, if SS 922(g.3) is used to bring someone to justice, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are an illegal user of controlled substances. This process is not available to ‘a small fraction’ of the people whose rights were stripped. The United States will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is an unlawful user of controlled substances. SS 922(g.3) prohibits anyone from possessing a firearm without a hearing. They can choose to stop using marijuana or to forgo firearm possession. Or they can continue with both and could spend up to 15 years in federal prison.
The ruling states that the history of disarming “unlawful” individuals seems to be primarily about disarming people convicted of serious offenses after they have been given criminal process. “Section 922(g.3), on the other hand, disarms criminal conduct that could lead to misdemeanor or serious criminal charges without giving them the procedural protections provided by our criminal justice system. This law is therefore inconsistent with the history of firearm regulation in our nation.
The court challenged the government’s assertion that cannabis users are intrinsically “dangerous.” It also noted that “over 20 states have legalized recreational marijuana use and that millions of Americans regularly use it.”
Cardone stated, “It is difficult to believe that taking part such a widespread practice could render an individual so dangerous and untrustworthy that they should be stripped of their Second Amendment Rights.”
Judge said that the same flaws in the government’s defense against marijuana users possessing guns are evident in the ban on selling or transferring firearms to cannabis users.
The ruling states that “the law’s broad prohibition against the sale or transfer firearms to illegal users of controlled substances is burdensome to the Second Amendment rights to those individuals to almost the same extent as SS922(g)(3).” “And, as was found by the Court when assessing SS922(g),(3), our Nation’s historical tradition in firearm regulation doesn’t support placing such a burden upon the Second Amendment right.”
This is one in at least four federal cases in which the government’s marijuana- and guns policy is being challenged.
DOJ submitted recently a brief in one case, which originated in Florida. It involves medical cannabis patients contesting the constitutionality and validity of the federal firearms ban.
The Justice Department made the familiar attempt to draw historical analogies to previous gun laws. It also stated that allowing medical marijuana patients firearm ownership could compromise the government’s ability restrict such ownership by those who are addicted to controlled substances, like methamphetamine, cocaine, and fentanyl.
In February , a separate federal court ruled that any firearms ban on cannabis consumers was unconstitutional. This decision of the U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma has been appealed by the government to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
DOJ will also be appearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit in June to challenge a federal court ruling. This case concerns firearm possession by a person who has admitted to using cannabis.
Advocates argue that ending the federal ban on cannabis consumption is not about expanding gun rights. It’s more a matter of constitutionality and safety .
The legal challenges supporters argue that the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau’s (ATF) requirement creates an incentive for marijuana consumers to lie on the form, buy a firearm on the illegal market, or forgo their right of bear arms.
ATF issued a 2020 advisory that specifically targeted Michigan. It required gun sellers to perform federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers. The advisory stated that the state’s cannabis laws had allowed “habitual marijuana users” and other disqualified people to illegally obtain firearms.
Legislators in Congress and the state legislatures are also looking at gun issues related to cannabis policy.
Arkansas legislators have recently submitted a bill to Governor’s Desk to clarify that patients who use medical marijuana can get concealed carry licenses for firearms.
A GOP Pennsylvania senator encouraged law enforcement to remove state gun ownership restrictions for cannabis consumers in light of the February federal court ruling regarding the constitutionality of the federal ban.
A key House committee held a hearing on February 1st regarding a bill that would protect gun rights for Maryland’s medical cannabis patients.
, a Republican congressman, filed a January bill that would allow medical cannabis patients to buy and possess firearms. This legislation was also introduced in Congress 116th, but it was not enacted.
View the Federal Court’s Decision below in the Texas marijuana-and gun case:
Marijuana Equity Advocates Launch ‘Anti-Monopoly Toolskit’ To Shape Legalization Laws
The post Another Federal Court Rules that Marijuana Consumers Cannot Possess Guns was first published on Marijuana Moment.
