Justice Department tells U.S. Supreme Court there is “significant disagreement” amongst numerous appellate courts about federal gun ban for marijuana users. This has created a situation in which the justices need to step up and clarify the issue.
Comments were included in a newly filed case where the DOJ asked the Supreme Court not to accept the case due to procedural changes. It also requested that justices take a second case to address the matter while keeping the others on hold for later.
“In short, seven courts of appeals—the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits— have recently issued decisions concerning as-applied Second Amendment challenges to Section 922(g)(3),” the filing says, referring to the federal law that precludes people from owning firearms if they’re deemed to be an unlawful user of cannabis or other illegal drugs, “and each court has resolved that challenge by applying a somewhat different constitutional test.”
U.S. In the brief he filed on Monday, D. John Sauer, Solicitor-General of the United States wrote.
In the filing of the government U.S. v. Baxter Asks that the case be rejected by the Supreme Court. This is also the position of the lawyers representing the respondent Keshon David Baxter. His conviction of unlawful use of a controlled drug while in possession of a weapon was restored by a court of district after it had been remanded from the U.S. Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
Sauer states that “if the Eighth Circuit affirms the decision, the vacatur would be harmless” If the court rules against the petitioner, then the government can, as appropriate, submit a fresh request for a writ.
DOJ has said that for the time being, the court should take the case separately. U.S. v. Hemani, This involves someone who is convicted for possessing a gun while using cocaine, cannabis, and taking part in illegal drug sales.
In its response brief, Hemani. The government explained the conflict that had arisen between the circuits: the Seventh Circuit upheld Section 922 (g)(3) of the Constitution in an earlier decision. NYSRPA v. BruenThe Third, Fifth and Eighth Circuits have all issued rulings since Bruen The brief concludes that “the statute is in violation of the Second Amendment” when applied to many aspects. It refers to the 2022 major case which struck down New York’s gun control laws. The Seventh Circuit, however, has since rejected government claims that the pre-emption law violates the Second Amendment.Bruen decision upholding Section 922(g)(3) remains good law.”
“Taking a fresh look at the relevant history, however, the court determined that ‘historical laws that kept guns out of the hands of the intoxicated and the mentally ill are sufficiently analogous to § 922(g)(3)’s proscription of firearms possession by active and persistent drug users,'” the filing says. Other courts of appeals have also issued decisions regarding as-applied challenge to Section 922g(3).
DOJ argued that the Hemani Case should be moved forward now. It also said, “the court [should] hold other pending requests concerning Section 922g(g)(3) as applied challenges.”
It said: “But, the Court does not have to hear the case in this instance,” referring the Baxter case.
Regarding the Justice Department’s comments about the differing opinions of courts regarding the issue of guns and cannabis, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit, last year, sided with a district court in Oklahoma that had dismissed the indictment of Jared Michael Harrison. Harrison faced charges in Oklahoma after police officers discovered cannabis in the vehicle and a gun during a stop.
Now, the case is being remanded by the court to which it was originally referred. The lower court determined that current law that prohibits “unlawful users” of marijuana from having firearms infringes on the Second Amendment of Constitution.
The lower court largely based his initial decision on an interpretation of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in which the justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights.
According to the ruling, any restrictions must conform with the original historical context in which the Second Amendment was ratified back in 1791.
References to outdated case law that prevented Catholics (and loyalists), slaves, Indians and those who were in the service of the British Empire from possessing firearms are among the historical analogies that Justice Department used to argue that its ban was a consistent one.
Circuit court said, “the government has to show that non-intoxicated users of marijuana pose a future risk” in order to justify the policy. The district court is the best place to conduct this inquiry. It may include fact-finding.
This opinion comes nearly a year after the Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments in the case, with judges questioning not only the firearms prohibition itself but also whether it was within the scope of the appeals panel’s power to review the underlying lower court’s decision. They ultimately determined that the appeals panel did have that authority.
Meanwhile, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District, judges recently ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been considering several cases that challenge the ban on guns for marijuana users.
As a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explained the current legal landscape, a growing number of federal courts are now “finding constitutional problems in the application of at least some parts” of the firearms prohibition.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, recently ruled that a trio of judges vacated a defendant’s conviction, and remanded back the case to a district judge, noting that a retrial with a juror may be needed to decide whether or not cannabis actually caused the defendants to be dangerous, or pose a serious threat to the public.
This opinion differs from the recent Third Circuit decision in that it says not all applications of 922g(3) require[s] An individualized factual conclusion” was made, explaining that the determination of such a nature would be unnecessary if it could be demonstrated that an individual drug makes a class of people dangerous.
By contrast, the Third Circuit recently said in a published opinion that district courts must make “individualized judgments” to determine whether 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to particular defendants.
—
MEDCAN24 tracks hundreds of marijuana, psychedelics, and drug policy legislation in state legislatures this year. Patreon members who pledge at least $25/month gain access to interactive maps, charts, and a hearing calendar.
Discover more about the marijuana bills tracker. Become a patron on Patreon and you will have access.
—
Earlier this year, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to two defendants, writing that the government failed to establish that the “sweeping” prohibition against gun ownership by marijuana users was grounded in historical precedent.
A federal judge in El Paso separately ruled late last year that the government’s ongoing ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. The man was allowed to withdraw his plea, and the court ordered the dismissal of the criminal charges against him.
Another panel of judges, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, heard oral arguments in November in the government’s appeal of a district court ruling that deemed the gun ban unconstitutional.
In a number of the ongoing cases, DOJ has argued that the prohibition on gun ownership by marijuana users is also supported by the Rahimi decision that upheld the government’s ability to limit the Second Amendment rights of people with domestic violence restraining orders.
DOJ has made such arguments, for example, in favor of the firearms ban in a case in a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The group, which includes Florida medical cannabis users, claims that the Second Amendment is being violated by not allowing them to buy guns while they use cannabis as medicine.
The DOJ, under the former president Joe Biden’s leadership, consistently asserted that marijuana users who have firearms pose a danger to public security and a higher risk of self-harm. They are also more likely than others to commit criminal acts “to support their drug habit.”
The Trump administration has not yet decided how it will handle the case. At a NRA conference in 2023, Trump suggested there might be a link between the use of “genetically engineered” marijuana and mass shootings. In 2023, Trump suggested that there might be a link between the use of “genetically engineered” marijuana and mass shootings.
He said: “We need to examine whether psychiatric medications, genetically modified cannabis, and other narcotics are contributing to psychotic episodes” which lead to violence.
DOJ has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.
The Justice Department, in 2023, told the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit, that precedents “comfortably support” the ban. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.
Hunter Biden was found guilty last year by a federal court of buying and possessing an illegal firearm while a crack cocaine user. Two Republican congressmen challenged the basis of that conviction, with one pointing out that there are “millions of marijuana users” who own guns but should not be prosecuted.
Medical marijuana patients, legislators, and advocacy organizations have all been confused by the situation. The National Rifle Association’s (NRA) lobbying arm said recently that the court rulings on the cannabis and guns issue have “led to a confusing regulatory landscape” that have impacted Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Cannabis policy is not a priority for the group. They do not hold an official position. The group said that many of these individuals were law abiding and productive community members who wanted to exercise the right to own and carry arms.
Some states, however, have passed laws that either restrict gun rights or attempt to protect them in relation to marijuana. Recently a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.
Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state, but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short.
As 2024 drew to a close, the ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.
According to the official, while those with guns aren’t expected to give them up if they decide to become state-legal marijuana patients, “those who wish to comply with federal law in order to not violate it” should “make a decision to dispose of these firearms.”
Since then, bipartisan state lawmakers have introduced legislation that would urge Kentucky’s representatives in Congress to amend federal law to clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms, though no action has since been taken on that bill.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said in January that he supported the legislature’s effort to urge the state’s congressional delegation to call for federal reforms to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients, but the governor added that he’d like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level.
Beshear, at a recent press conference said: “I don’t think that focusing on this problem is the way to go. I believe that changing the schedule for marijuana would be the better solution.” We need to alter the marijuana policies of the federal government.
Rawpixel, Philip Steffan and other photographers provided the images.
MEDCAN24 would not be possible without the support of readers. Consider a Patreon subscription if our marijuana advocacy journalism is what you use to keep informed.
