A coalition of gun rights organizations is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to expand its examination of the constitutionality of a federal ban on firearm ownership by people who use marijuana—telling justices that a recent case on the issue it accepted would not properly settle the question of the current law’s constitutionality.
After the Supreme Court has given cert U.S. v. Hemani earlier this month—which the Trump administration had pushed for—the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and five other gun rights advocacy groups filed an amici brief on Wednesday in a separate case pending before the justices.
On Thursday, Justice Department also requested additional time for filing its initial brief. U.S. v. HarrisThe court has not yet granted certification to the. A deadline extension was granted by the government from October 30 until December 1, “in order to complete the preparation of government’s response which has been delayed because the lawyers handling the matter were overloaded with other cases.”
In their brief, the gun-rights groups asked for the following: Harris Supreme Court of the United States jointly examines Hemani The following are some examples of how to get started: Harris The constitutional challenge against the gun ban, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).
The main argument against focusing solely on Hemani, In the court brief, it is stated that the case “is not limited to cannabis.”
The report states that “it also concerns illicit drugs, which are not subject to the same social acceptance as marijuana and its increasing legalization nor do they share its relative safety or medicinal uses.” It also involved a defendant who had highly unusual facts. This included alleged drug-dealing and alleged ties with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
SAF Executive Vice-President Alan M. Gottlieb, in a release to the press stated that Harris case is “critical because it affects millions of law-abiding Americans who face losing their Second Amendment rights simply for using a substance legal in their state—often for medical reasons.”
In addition to SAF, the brief was also joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Operation Blazing Sword-Pink Pistols, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center.
The groups stated that it would be unfair for the Court to make a decision affecting millions of Americans solely based on Mr. Hemani’s unique case.
The Petitioner is a better representative of the majority of otherwise law-abiding marijuana users (often doing so in accordance with state laws). Both cases must be taken into consideration to ensure that this Court comes up with the correct answer on this question.
Amid numerous legal challenges to § 922(g)(3) as it applies to cannabis consumers, the Justice Department has consistently defended the prohibition, likening marijuana users to mentally ill people and those who are habitually intoxicated, for example. Some people suspect that the federal government is pushing for judges to consider marijuana legalization. Hemani Multiple drugs that are involved in the case could be a factor.
This new brief addresses the question whether the ban on firearms and marijuana is analogous with the founding period of the United States. DOJ argues that some laws prohibiting people from owning guns when drunk, are sufficient to justify the ban.
The best historical example is alcohol. Its widespread use predated the founding of the United States. The groups argued that because alcohol and guns are dangerous, many laws have been passed to keep intoxicated individuals from carrying firearms. What never existed was a law that prevented people from possessing firearms because they occasionally drink. Marijuana should not be treated differently in the modern age.
According to the group, “the current statute is not equivalent to prohibiting drunkards from possessing firearms. Instead it’s like prohibiting anyone with a 6-pack of Budweiser stored in their refrigerator to own guns.”
The brief highlights the “dramatic change” in the public’s opinion of cannabis and its laws, pointing to the fact that Donald Trump is currently actively considering a move to Schedule III from Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act.
“Yet, because of the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), if Americans choose to use marijuana or other cannabis products (that often are legal in their state), they must surrender their Second Amendment right before they do so—and not only when they are intoxicated,” it says. They may even be prohibited from owning firearms, if they consume cannabis regularly. It is not consistent with how firearms and alcohol have been regulated for centuries.
The brief concluded that marijuana, in terms of social acceptance and promethazine, was not the same as the other petition which had recently been granted certiorari.
Intoxication does not allow responsible gun use. However, our tradition allows occasional drinkers of alcohol or marijuana, as long as they don’t consume them while intoxicated, to possess and use guns. This Court’s involvement in the case would be welcomed for the reasons that were discussed in the Petitioner’s Brief and above. It will help to end the split in the Circuit on this matter. The Court should grant certiorari and consider this matter alongside Hemani.”
In a last-week motion sent by the Trump Administration to the Court, DOJ stated that there had been a mutual understanding between the attorneys representing its clients and the respondents in the case. Hemani It is suggested that due to “the pressure of other cases”, the current deadlines for briefs, reply briefs, and briefs in support of motions be revised.
The Justice Department has been told that it must file its initial brief before the court no later than December 4. However, they are asking for an extension to December 12th. This would extend the deadline of January 20 for the respondent.
In a separate August filing for the case, the Justice Department also emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” When requesting the court to grant cert, the solicitor-general also mentioned that the defendant, who is both an American citizen and a Pakistani, has alleged links to Iranian groups hostile to America, which puts him on FBI’s radar.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to take up HemaniIf justices rule that 922(g),(3) is constitutional, this could lead to government victories in other cases. Last week the High Court denied a request for cert. U.S. v. CooperYou can leave pending decisions in the meantime U.S. Daniels The following are some examples of how to get started: U.S. v. Sam.
The court also recently denied a petition for cert in another gun and marijuana case, U.S. v. Baxter, It was a bit surprising that the DOJ, along with the defendants, advised the court not to pursue the case further after an earlier lower court reinstated his criminal conviction as a drug user in possession of a gun.
Meanwhile, in recent interviews with MEDCAN24, several Republican senators shared their views on the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana—with one saying that if alcohol drinkers can lawfully buy and use firearms, the same standard should apply to cannabis consumers.
Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last month sided with a federal district court that dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic 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 Supreme Court ruling in which the justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights.
Separately, 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.
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 recent ruling, 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.
The Third Circuit separately 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.
The Justice Department has argued that Supreme Court’s recent decision on the issue of gun bans for people using medical marijuana is a reason to defer proceedings. Hemani Justifies a stay of proceedings in the lower courts.
—
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 the hearing calendar.
Find out more about our marijuana law tracker. To gain access, become a Patreon supporter.
—
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. This court permitted the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and dismissed the charges.
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.
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 cannabis patients who can legally use it in their state, anyone who wants to adhere to federal law without violating it must “decide” to get rid of 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.
MEDCAN24 could not exist without readers’ support. Please consider making a Patreon monthly pledge if you depend on our cannabis journalism for information.
