The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear the appeal of a ruling by a circuit court that the restriction violates Second Amendment.
The Congressional Research Service, or CRS, noted that a legal sidebar was published in this month that explained how three cases relevant to the case are being considered by the nation’s top court. This could be the final resolution.
The Justice Department distributed briefs for one of these cases — United States Vs. Daniels —for a Supreme Court Conference this month. Justices had a choice of several cases to choose from. The Justice Department asked the court to delay its petition for a certiorari request until it decided a separate case, which justices are currently reviewing due to “overlaps”.
The conference did not result in a decision, so there is no way to know if the Supreme Court ultimately grants the government’s request.
DOJ appeals the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit . The court examined Section 922g)(3) of the federal law that prohibits “unlawful users” of illegal drugs from purchasing or possessing firearms. The court ruled that the policy was unconstitutional when it applied to a man convicted for using cannabis while in possession a firearm.
As a result, the Justice Department has been forced to defend its statute in a number of court cases across the nation. The Fifth Circuit, which covers jurisdictions in Mississippi Louisiana and Texas, is the current highest court that has ruled against this ban.
The legal argument against this policy is based in part on the interpretation of a previous Supreme Court decision, which ruled that restrictions on guns must be consistent with the historic context of 1791’s ratification by the Second Amendment. The federal law was challenged by those who argued there is no historical precedent, but the DOJ argues that the historical laws that prohibited guns for certain groups such as the mentally sick and the habitually intoxicated justify its enforcement.
The federal government now has asked the Supreme Court not to take action on the Danels case, until it makes a decision on another issue relating to the constitutionality of the law that restricts firearms to people convicted of domestic violence. DOJ claims that there are legal parallels which could be used to inform the Danels case.
In a new brief released this month, Congressional researchers summarized the Second Amendment challenges. They outlined the cases that have been brought before the Supreme Court as well as briefly describing the “considerations” for Congress if they were to address the issue.
The CRS Report states that the Daniels Case “has attracted attention because it’s one of the rare cases where a federal gun law is held to be unconstitutional, at least in its application and it could lead to Supreme Court involvement.”
The article added that “Sections 922(g),(3), has gained wider public attention due to a recent indictment”, against President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden who was charged with possessing a firearm while admitting unlawfully using crack cocaine many years ago.
Hunter Biden’s attorneys recently asked the U.S. District Court for Delaware to dismiss the case. They argued that prosecutors were applying an unconstitutional law that, if widely enforced, would criminalize thousands of marijuana users who are in compliance with state laws.
The Biden administration claimed that cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, partly because they are “unlikely” to store their weapon properly. The Biden administration claimed that cannabis consumers who own guns are a special danger to society. This is because they are “unlikely to” store their weapons properly.
The federal government has claimed repeatedly that historical precedents support limiting the gun rights of cannabis users. But a number of federal courts have ruled the marijuana-related prohibition unconstitutional . This has led DOJ to appeal several ongoing cases.
In October, the Justice Department made similar arguments during oral argument in a related but separate case before the U.S. Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit. This case is about the Second Amendment rights for medical cannabis patients living in Florida.
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled last summer that the prohibition on people using marijuana possessing firearms was unconstitutional. The judge stated that the federal government’s justification for maintaining the law was “concerning.”
In U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a judge ruled last April that banning people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional–and it said the same legal principle also applies to the sale and transfer of guns.
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sent a letter in August to Arkansas officials stating that the recently passed law allowing medical cannabis patients to get concealed carry gun permits, “creates an unacceptably risk” and could compromise the state’s federally approved alternative weapon licensing policy.
issued a warning shortly after Minnesota’s Governor signed into law a legalization measure in May. The agency reminded that cannabis users are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms and ammunition until the 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.
A little-noticed FBI memo from 2019, which recently surfaced, shows that the federal government generally does not view it as a crime for medical cannabis caregivers or growers to own guns .
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 South Dakota House of Representatives passed two bills this month to inform patients of the federal restrictions for marijuana users on firearm ownership. The first bill would require medical cannabis patients to include a warning about the federal gun ban in their applications. The second would mandate informational signs at dispensaries and fine businesses who don’t comply.
Colorado activists have proposed a ballot initiative for 2024 that would permit marijuana users to carry concealed guns.
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 last year to protect the Second Amendment right of marijuana users who live in states where the drug is legal. This 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 last year and awaits 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.
Rhode Island Marijuana retailers shatter monthly sales records, capping off $100 million in cannabis purchases by 2023
Photo elements are courtesy of Rawpixel, and Philip Steffan.
The post Supreme Court Considers Case Challenging Federal Gun Ban for Marijuana Users – Congressional Researchers Report in Legal Brief first appeared on Marijuana Moment.
