In an ongoing lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice, it has filed a brief before a federal appels court in response to the ban that prevents medical marijuana patients possessing firearms.
Many of the arguments made by DOJ in Wednesday’s brief mirror those made earlier in the case. This included in a federal court that dismissed the lawsuit, which is now being appealed. The latest document emphasizes the “wide-ranging implications” that a ruling favoring the plaintiffs would have on the Biden administration.
These plaintiffs are Florida medical cannabis patients who challenge the constitutionality and validity of the firearms ban. They argue that it violates the Second Amendment on multiple grounds.
The department stated that plaintiffs had “attacked the constitutionality of a longstanding section of the Gun Control Act,” and therefore oral argument was appropriate. Previously, DOJ had only moved for dismissal. However, it seems they are now recognising the need for an appeals court to seriously consider the issue before making any decision.
A different federal court ruled that the ban on marijuana users possessing guns was unconstitutional last month in a case that is also being appealed.
The Florida case is based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a Second Amendment Case our of New York, where justices generally set a higher standard of policies that restrict gun rights.
According to the ruling, any restrictions must conform with the historical context of Second Amendment’s 1791 ratification.
Plaintiffs claim that there is no historical precedent that would justify preventing medical marijuana patients who are state-registered from owning guns. DOJ disagrees with this argument, drawing parallels between laws against firearm possession for people who have been intoxicated by alcohol.
It stated that although drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and Fentanyl weren’t common at the time of the founding, contemporaneous thinkers recognized that alcohol rendered users unable safely to bear arms, and saw those who were regularly intoxicated as a threat to the social and political order.
The department also suggests that if U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit accepts plaintiffs’ argument, it would prohibit the government from imposing a ban on firearms for all controlled substance users.
The brief states that even though plaintiffs want to use marijuana, their arguments are not limited to marijuana. They would rather cast doubt on Congress’s ability to disarm illegal users of any controlled substances, such as cocaine, fentanyl or methamphetamines.
DOJ has provided other historical parallels in past filings that raised eyebrows to support the ban on firearms for cannabis patients. It compared these patients to mentally ill people, panhandlers and Catholics who were previously denied the right to own firearms.
The federal government stated that the ratifiers to the Second Amendment “understood” that intoxicating substances deprive people of reason. It also cited historical references to “children,” ‘lunatics, and “idiots” whose rights were restricted.
DOJ stated that “if adopted, plaintiffs’ contention would have wide-ranging consequences.” This extraordinary result is not supported by history or Second Amendment doctrine.
Over time, the arguments of defendants in this case have changed. The department appeared to partially retract its previous assertions that marijuana makes people more likely to commit violent crime. However, it did state that those who use cannabis are intrinsically too risky to own guns, even though they are violating federal law.
Next, the federal appeals case will require plaintiffs to submit their briefs. This is due next month.
Nikki Fried, former Florida Agriculture Commissioner (D), is now chairwoman of Florida Democratic Party. She first brought the case against DOJ in her capacity as a state official last year Since her departure, she has not been involved in the lawsuit and her GOP successor declined to participate.
Although the Justice Department’s most recent brief includes some new arguments and references it is missing is acknowledgment of that a separate federal court last month ruled that the firearms ban on any cannabis consumer was unconstitutional.
The government appealed the decision of the U.S. District Court, Western District of Oklahoma earlier this month to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Advocates argue that ending the federal ban on cannabis consumption is not about expanding gun rights. It’s a matter of constitutionality and safety .
Florida supporters argue that the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Bureau’s (ATF) requirement creates an incentive for marijuana consumers to lie on the forms, buy guns 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.
A GOP Pennsylvania senator encouraged law enforcement to remove state gun ownership restrictions for cannabis consumers in light of the Federal Court’s decision last month. He emphasized that they should focus on medical marijuana patients.
A key House committee held a hearing in Maryland last month about 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.
See the latest brief from DOJ in the case of firearms and medical marijuana patients below:
Minnesota Marijuana Legalization Bill Moves through Another Senate Committee
The post Justice Department Declares Ending Gun Ban for Medical Marijuana Patient appeared first on Marijuana Minute.
