The Biden administration is once again in federal court to defend a ban that prevents people who use marijuana to buy or possess firearms. They argue that historical precedents “comfortably support” the restriction, and that cannabis users with guns present a unique threat to society in part because of their “unlikelihood” to properly store their weapon before using marijuana.
Attorneys for the Justice Department, responding to a series of questions from judges, submitted a brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, on Wednesday. They asserted that the ban on firearms for marijuana users is justified based upon historical analogies to restrictions imposed on the mentally ill or habitually intoxicated during the period of ratification of the Second Amendment, 1791.
The federal government has stated repeatedly that these analogues are clear evidence to limit gun rights for cannabis consumers. But a number of federal courts have ruled the marijuana-related prohibition unconstitutional. This has led DOJ to appeal several ongoing cases.
The government defends the gun ban in the Third Circuit case against Erik Matthew Harris. Harris was convicted for violating a federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by someone “who is unlawfully addicted to or a user of any controlled substance.” According to the Daily Caller, Harris’s lawyer also filed a supplemental court brief on Wednesday, which disputed both the substantive conviction under the law, and the idea that historical precedents could be used to support the current ban.
In previous court cases, the government has raised many of its arguments. The Justice Department, for example, said that it answered the court’s questions about whether recreational marijuana use can cause mental illnesses similar to schizophrenia with “yes” and that “for this reason, habitual drug-users may lawfully disarm themselves as long as they continue using drugs unlawfully.”
The DOJ acknowledged that there is a “demonstrated association between marijuana use, and certain mental disorders,” but it also said “the association was not necessarily causal.”
It said that “given the impairments that marijuana and other illegal substances cause, the temporary disarmament for individuals who regularly use such drugs or are addicted to them fits comfortably into ‘this nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulations’.” The report added that “the danger to society that an armed drug-user poses extends beyond the risks that he may mishandle firearms when under the influence.”
DOJ stated that drug users were more likely to use guns to commit crimes in order to fund their drug addiction, to engage in violence to support their drug culture or business, to attack police officers investigating their drug crimes and to commit suicide. “These risks justify disarming drug addicts, even when they are ‘between periods’ intoxicated,” as it was with Harris.
It continued, “Indeed even if a judge were to consider the risk that someone will misuse firearms when under the influence, Section 922 (g)(3) would comply with the Second Amendment, because drug users are likely to keep possession of firearms under the influence.” This case is a good example. Harris claimed that he lost one of his guns (possibly at a bar), on the same night that he had smoked marijuana and drunk.
It said that “users are unlikely to store their guns before taking drugs and then retrieve them after regaining clarity.” It is also unclear how the government can reasonably implement a system that allows confiscation of guns only for the few hours a person has been intoxicated.
The brief concludes, “In summary, while regulations addressing firearms possession by the mentally-ill have evolved along with social and technological conditions, the history confirms a well-established’ historical tradition of ‘longstanding prohibitions against the possession’ of firearms by ‘the ill’.
Last month, the Justice Department made similar arguments during oral argument in a related but separate case before the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit. This case is about the Second Amendment rights for medical cannabis patients in Florida.
The attorneys in both cases also touched upon a U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit decision in Daniels v. United States that was issued in August. This ruling found that the ban prohibiting people who use cannabis from possessing firearms is unconstitutional even if the marijuana is consumed for non-medical purposes.
DOJ had informed the Eleventh Circuit Court that it believed the ruling to be “incorrectly determined,”, and the department’s lawyer reiterated the government’s view that “there are reasons to doubt the foundations” in the appeals court’s decision.
In February, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled that the prohibition against people using marijuana possessing firearms was unconstitutional. The judge stated that the federal government’s justification for maintaining the law is “concerning.”
Also, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a judge ruled in April 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.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sent a letter last month to Arkansas officials stating that the recently passed law allowing medical cannabis patients obtain concealed carry firearm licenses, “creates an unacceptable risk” and could compromise the state’s federally approved alternative gun licensing policy.
issued a warning shortly after Minnesota’s Governor signed the legalization bill in law. The agency reminded that cannabis users are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition until federal prohibition is lifted.
ATF will issue an advisory in 2020 that specifically targets Michigan and requires gun sellers conduct federal background checks for all unlicensed buyers. It said Michigan’s cannabis laws allowed “habitual marijuana consumers” and other disqualified persons to obtain firearms without a license.
Attorneys for President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, who has been indicted over a charge that he bought a gun during a period when it was revealed that he used crack cocaine, have cited the previous court ruling on the unconstitutionality the federal ban and argued that this applies to their case.
Two Republican members of Congress have introduced two bills in this session, focusing on marijuana and gun policy.
Rep. Brian Mast, co-chairman of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus and a member of the House of Representatives, introduced legislation in May that would protect the Second Amendment right of marijuana users in states where the drug is legal. This bill would allow them to buy and possess firearms, which they are currently prohibited to have under federal law.
Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer (DNY) has promised to attach that legislation to the bipartisan marijuana banking bill, which advanced out of committee in December and is awaiting floor action.
Mast is also co-sponsoring in this session a separate Bill from Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV), which would allow medical marijuana patients to buy and possess firearms.
Below, you can read the Justice Department and Harris Briefs on the Third Circuit marijuana firearms case:
A study shows that CBD is effective in treating dental pain and could be a useful alternative to opioids.
The post Biden’s Justice Department Says Marijuana Users Are ‘Unlikely to’ Store Guns Properly in Latest Defense Of Federal Ban first appeared on Marijuana moment.
