While the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a number of cases that challenge the ban on gun possession by marijuana users, another federal appellate court ruled for medical cannabis patients seeking to exercise their Second Amendment right to own firearms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals’ Eleventh District panel, composed of three judges, in an opinion authored Judge Elizabeth Branch, departed the decision of a previous district that upheld federal law Section 922g(3) that prohibits anyone who is “unlawful user” of controlled substance from purchasing or owning firearms.
While the Justice Department has repeatedly argued that people who use cannabis, in compliance with state law, are uniquely dangerous—and that there are historical analogues in U.S. gun laws that justify the ban—the appeals court disagreed, vacated the prior ruling and remanded the case back to a lower court.
According to the federal government, “the allegations in the operative lawsuit do not lead one to infer that plaintiffs have a similarity to felons and dangerous people.”
Vera Cooper and Nicole Hansell are two registered medical cannabis participants who have been denied access to firearms because of their participation in the program. Neill Franklin, a retired police officer, wants to be able to use medical marijuana, without compromising his right to own a weapon.
Nikki Fried was the former Florida agriculture commissioner who led the initial lawsuit. She left the state after she had been removed. She was replaced by a Republican Commissioner who declined to get involved with the case.
The 2022 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the justices created a new standard of policy that seeks to restrict gun rights is one of the controversial issues in the numerous firearms and cannabis cases. According to the ruling, any restrictions on gun rights must adhere to the original context in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified.
In order to achieve this, the Justice Department has claimed that due their dangerousness and alleged criminal activities of the two Florida patients who are using medical cannabis should have their firearm rights revoked.
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that after examining the ruling by the district court on appeal “nothing was in dispute”. [complaint] This is a good example of a sign. [plaintiffs] “They have not committed any felonies or been convicted in any criminal offense (felony, misdemeanor or other), never mind that medical marijuana makes them dangerous.”
“Thus, the government failed to meet its burden—at the motion to dismiss stage—to establish that disarming medical marijuana users is consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation,” the opinion says.
Nothing in the ” [complaint] It is not clear that Cooper and Hansell have any involvement in the drug industry other than Florida’s medical marijuana, which has strict regulations and must be adhered to by dispensaries. These laws are enforced and regulated by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. It is not clear from the [complaint] that Cooper and Hansell ‘pose a credible threat’ to the public safety of others based solely on their use of medical marijuana.”
Judges also pointed out that this new opinion was “in line with previous precedents in sister circuits”. U.S. v. Connelly. The court found that in that case the government had failed to prove that its laws against gun possession by drug addicts and domestic abusers were similar enough to the law that restricts firearm ownership to those who are mentally ill or abusive to their families.
Eleventh Circuit’s decision comes two weeks after Trump’s administration requested that the U.S. Supreme Court take up the specific case regarding the federal government’s prohibition on marijuana users and others illegal drugs to own firearms, and uphold this prohibition. They argued it was consistent with 2nd Amendment.
In order to achieve this, the DOJ’s solicitor general has asked SCOTUS for a hearing on one of five pertinent cases in an effort to settle conflicting decisions by lower courts regarding gun rights and cannabis users.
In the request, the solicitor general reiterated his position that, despite recent appeals court decisions calling into question the constitutionality of the firearms ban for people who use cannabis—even in compliance with state law—the restriction is nevertheless lawful.
The nine justices were set to privately discuss whether to take up the case requested by DOJ, as well as three other cannabis and gun rights cases, in a private meeting next month—but the dockets for the cases now say the matter has been “rescheduled,” though a new date has not yet been announced.
In recent months, a number of federal court have questioned the constitutionality of 922 (g) (3), concluding that, while it may not be unconstitutional to ban gun ownership by drug users, the restriction on Second Amendment rights for an entire category is unprecedented.
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.
In a ruling last month, for instance, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated a defendant’s conviction and remanded the case back to a district court, noting that a retrial before a jury may be necessary to determine whether cannabis in fact caused the defendant to be dangerous or pose a credible threat to others.
This new Eighth Circuit decision appears to be different from the recent Third Circuit ruling, in that it says that 922(g),(3) does not “require” that every case is reviewed by a court.[s] “An individualized factual decision”, explaining that these determinations would not be needed if the Government could prove that a specific drug rendered an entire group of users hazardous.
By contrast, the Third Circuit earlier this month 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.
It was ruled by the appeals panel that, while “a person need not harm someone or threaten harm to justify disarming him,” “the history of gun law in this country demands that district courts make individual judgments to determine that disarming drug users is necessary to reduce the risk he will pose to other people.”
Judges in that case noted that historical restrictions on gun ownership under “drunkenness and lunacy laws” in the U.S. “were still always based on an ‘individualized assessment’ rather than a categorical judgment.”
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 2023, Trump made a similar suggestion at an NRA event. He suggested that “genetically-engineered” marijuana could have a correlation with mass shootings. Trump listed several controversial and unproven causes of the mass shootings that plague the United States. He said he’d direct the Food and Drug Administration to look into them.
He said: “We need to examine whether common psychiatric medications, genetically modified cannabis, and other narcotics are leading to psychotic breakdowns” which lead to violence with guns.
Hunter Biden, son of then-President Joe Biden, was found guilty by a jury in federal court of buying and possessing an illegal firearm while he used crack cocaine. 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.
This situation has created confusion for medical marijuana patients as well as state legislators and advocacy groups. NRA’s NRA-lobbying arm recently said the recent court rulings regarding cannabis and firearms have led to “a confusing regulatory environment” which have affected Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
Some states, however, have enacted their own gun laws that either restrict or attempt to protect the rights of marijuana users to carry firearms. 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.
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 2nd Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients, but the governor added that he’d like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level.
Below, you can read the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit in the case involving medical marijuana and gun ownership.