On Thursday, a federal appeals court heard arguments in a case involving the constitutionality of preventing medical marijuana patients from buying or possessing firearms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, a three-judge panel, listened to and asked questions while attorneys representing Florida medical cannabis patients as well as the Justice Department argued the case. Both sides have elaborated their arguments in numerous briefings that spanned more than a calendar year.
Will Hall, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case, stated that the federal ban is unconstitutional on two grounds. has already determined in multiple courts outside the Eleventh Circuit that the ban is unconstitutional.
Hall’s argument was, regardless of whether cannabis is legal, that precedent held that committing a criminal on its own doesn’t automatically exclude people from the Second Amendment. Second, the Supreme Court created a new standard for gun restrictions which renders them unconstitutional when there is no historical analogy that is consistent with the original 1791 ratification of the amendment. Hall argued that banning those who use medical marijuana is incompatible with this historical context.
The Justice Department Attorney acknowledged that “illegal drugs were not widely used at the founding – that’s something that happened only around the turn of 20th century.” However, he argued early laws restricting guns rights due to drunkenness or mental illness are historical analogies that are consistent and in line with the intent and purpose of the federal ban on firearms for people who regularly consume cannabis.
In an earlier briefing, it was “undisputed” that the conduct plaintiffs wanted to engage in violated federal law. The DOJ lawyer said that it’s been 50 years since the conduct was alleged. “It’s important that we are talking about a crime that is not only against the law but also involves intoxicating drugs,” said the DOJ attorney. There is no doubt that these substances impair cognition, judgement [and] other skills essential for safe firearm handling.
The discussion also included what is meant by a “law-abiding” citizen, whose Second Amendment right is protected. Judge Robert Luck was appointed by the former president Donald Trump. He pointed out to DOJ attorney that it seems there is a disconnect when describing state-registered patients of medical cannabis as not being law abiding. This is because a federal rider, renewed annually since 2014, prevents DOJ interference in state medical marijuana programs, and certain cannabis activities have been “completely endorsed” in legal states.
asked, “How can we claim that they are not law-abiding under the legal infrastructure as it exists right now?”
The government’s lawyer downplayed its significance, saying that the rider is “temporally and geographically limited.”
Luck stated that “it is hard to say that someone has not complied with the law, when they have abided by the laws of their state and the federal government has said that we will not prosecute them for this right now until we change our minds about it.” And the rider was renewed “not only once, but constantly” by the federal authorities.
The judges and the parties seemed to agree that a separate, upcoming Supreme Court decision, United States V. Rahimi could be a factor in a final ruling. This case concerns whether someone with a domestic abuse injunction can be summarily dearmed. The federal circuit court has ruled they can’t, and the Supreme Court will hear the first oral arguments on the case in November.
This case is relevant to the issue of gun and cannabis rights because it clarifies whether someone who does not follow the law for whatever reason could be denied their Second Amendment rights. The parties discussed delaying the ruling to allow the court to observe the outcome of the case. However, this has not been decided and the timing is unclear.
Hall said in a Friday phone interview with Marijuana Moment that he thought the event went well in general. The panel was very well prepared, engaged and interested in the topic.
He said that judges “were definitely dealing with many of the same questions as other courts–open issues that have not been addressed by Supreme Court cases on this issue,” adding that “there were very fair and reasonable questions, and that the court will probably look for further guidance from the Supreme Court.”
Hall stated, “I thought the proceedings went well and I appreciate the time and attention that the court paid to the case.”
The oral hearing on Thursday also discussed a U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit decision in Daniels v. United States that was issued in August. This ruling found that the prohibition against people using marijuana possessing firearms, regardless of whether they use cannabis for medical reasons, is unconstitutional.
DOJ already informed the Eleventh Circuit Court that the ruling it believed was “incorrectly determined,”, and the department’s lawyer reaffirmed the belief of the government that “there are reasons to be uncertain” about the foundations of the appeals courts decision.
Hall stated that what plaintiffs in the case he is pursuing, Florida commissioner of agriculture, et. al., Appellants v. attorney general of the United States et. al. are asking for, “a very narrow holding — even more limited than Danis.”
He said: “We agree with Daniels‘s reasoning, but Daniels used marijuana in a totally illegal manner.” “We are only asking for declaratory aid as it relates to medical marijuana patients that comply with state laws, who we consider distinct. Even if they are not, there is no equivalent for them.”
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.
—
Marijuana Moment tracks more than 1,000 cannabis and drug policy bills that have been introduced in state legislatures, and Congress. Patreon supporters who pledge at least $25/month gain access to our interactive charts, maps and hearing calendar.
Discover more about our marijuana bills tracker. Become a Patreon supporter to gain access.
—
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sent a letter days before the hearing to Arkansas officials stating that the recently passed law allowing medical cannabis patients to get concealed carry gun permits creates “an unacceptable risk” and could compromise the state’s federally approved alternative weapon 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‘s unconstitutionality, arguing 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 its committee last month.
Mast is also sponsoring a separate Bill from Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV), in this session, which would allow medical marijuana patients to buy and possess firearms.
Pennsylvania House approves 280E tax cut for marijuana businesses despite GOP objections
Photo elements are courtesy of Rawpixel, and Philip Steffan.
The first time this appeared was on Marijuana Moment.
