Attorneys in an ongoing federal appeals case argued that the federal government relies on “startlingly and dangerous” arguments in order to defend banning medical marijuana patients owning firearms.
The Justice Department filed its brief to court weeks after. It claimed that lifting the ban would have “widely-ranging” unintended effects. Last week, lawyers representing Florida medical cannabis patients filed their response, challenging the government’s position.
Many of these areas of disagreement are well-known to anyone who has followed the case for the past year. The plaintiffs want the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, to reverse a Federal District Court’s decision to dismiss their lawsuit. They claim that the ban on state-legal marijuana patients is illegal and incompatible with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
The court’s decision in the separate case from New York established a higher standard for policies attempting to restrict gun rights. This ruling says that such restrictions must conform to the historical context of Second Amendment’s 1791 ratification.
DOJ approached the case from many angles, including comparing medical cannabis patients with people who are mentally ill, panhandlers or Catholics.
Recently, the Justice Department stated that allowing marijuana patients to own guns could compromise the government’s ability restrict firearm ownership for people addicted to controlled substances such as cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamine.
The plaintiffs countered this line of argument in their brief response last week.
They stated that they were likely to realize the absence of historical support for their position in relation to state-compliant medical cannabis users. The Appellees tried to mix such use with more dangerous and serious substances like heroin, cocaine, fentanyl and methamphetamines.
The brief states that they hope that allowing fully illegal drug users to own or purchase firearms would dissuade Court from siding with them. This ignores the fact, however, that possession of these other substances, which is not cannabis, can be a felony and could lead to gun restrictions.
DOJ also routinely rejected arguments about the importance of specific federal cannabis policy considerations like the long-standing congressional rider, which prevented the department’s use of its funds to interfere with the state implementation of medical marijuana laws.
The plaintiffs stated that “Whatever Congress’ policy justification for creating its “half-in, one-out” marijuana policy, the Court should not ignore this distinction when considering whether the Challenged Laws “comparably justified” to historical criminal regulations.
They said that the Justice Department makes the “startling, dangerous contention” the plaintiffs possess cannabis multiple times and these would-be misdemeanor offenses would be elevated to a crime justifying the loss Second Amendment rights, even though they have not been prosecuted.
The brief states that “they argue that, to [plaintiffs] having used marijuana multiple times, they’re actually repeat offenders who’ve committed what is equivalent felony offenses.” “However, the Appellees clearly point out that it is a prior conviction, not repeated marijuana use, that can make such an act a felony.
It states that “essentially, the Appellees ask the Court to categorize [the Plaintiffs] as having been arrested and prosecuted and convicted of any crime even though none of those things have occurred.” “This argument is not only anti-textual but should alarm anyone who cares about basic due process and the protections afforded by law.”
Both parties will now wait to see if the court will schedule oral argument in the case – a step the Justice Department recently supported, apparently acknowledging the novelty of the legal challenge.
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.
The fact that a separate federal court ruled that any firearm ban on cannabis consumers was unconstitutional in February is relevant to this case. This decision has been appealed by the government to the U.S Court of Appeals for Tenth Circuit.
On Friday, the Florida attorneys also filed a notice of supplemental authorization that cites an incident in another federal lawsuit.
The court was informed by them that the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Texas granted a motion in this case finding that an individual’s admission of misdemeanor marijuana use “wasn’t sufficient to place her in the category of persons who could be historically disarmed as being non-law abiding.” ‘”
The judge ruled that the federal ban on marijuana users possessing, selling, or transferring firearms was unconstitutional.
The supplemental notice states that “These conclusions and findings mirror many positions the Appellants have made in this matter.”
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.
View the latest files below the case regarding medical marijuana patients’ gun rights.
Marijuana Equity Advocates Launch ‘Anti-Monopoly Toolskit’ To Shape Legalization Laws
The post Justice Department makes ‘Startling and Dangerous’ Claims to Defend Medical Marijuana Patients Gun Ban, Attorneys Say in New Filing appeared originally on Marijuana moment.
