In a recent filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump-led Department of Justice (DOJ) is doubling down on arguments made under former President Joe Biden that users of illegal drugs—including marijuana—”pose a clear danger of misusing firearms.”
That risk, DOJ contends, justifies the longstanding federal prohibition on gun ownership by drug consumers—known as Section 922(g)(3)—despite the Constitution’s broad Second Amendment protections.
U.S. In a request for review before the Supreme Court, U.S. D. John Sauer, Solicitor-General of the United States, argues that the restrictions are still legal despite recent court rulings questioning the constitutionality.
In its filing on June 2, the Government stated that “Section 902(g)(3) is compliant with the Second Amendment”. U.S. v. Hemani, says. “That provision targets an important group who poses a serious risk of misuse of firearms, namely habitual drug users.”
Some lower courts have said the government’s blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.
In the petition for appeal, Hemani, Trump’s Solicitor General said the ban was needed and sufficiently narrowly tailored to survive a legal challenge.
Anyone who ceases to use illegal drugs regularly can resume firearm possession.
The word “habitual”, which is mentioned 40 times by the government in its document, does not appear at 922(g). This statute states that anyone “who has a history of illegal drug use or addiction” is prohibited from buying or owning firearms and ammunition.
Hemani’s legal team must submit a response brief to the Supreme Court no later than 21 July.
When DOJ asks the high court to hear the matter Hemani Two other similar cases abound: U.S. v. Cooper You can also find out more about the following: U.S. v. Baxter Both of which hinge also on the constitutionality 922(g).
The following are some of the ways to get in touch with us CooperEighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Panel dismissed a 3-year prison term against a person convicted of possessing a firearm and being a marijuana user. Judges in that case ruled that government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.
Nowhere in our history does it say that we can disarm ourselves simply by saying so [the defendant] The ruling noted that “belongs to the category of drug users categorically designated dangerous by Congress.”
The following are some of the ways to get in touch with us BaxterEighth Circuit has ruled that 922 (g)(3) is unconstitutional in its application to these facts.
In that case, the judges wrote that “there were not enough factual findings” in the records for this Court to examine Baxter’s Second Amendment as applied challenge. They wrote that they “reverse the district courts ruling on Baxter’s Second Amendment as applied challenge” and sent the case back to district court.
The government requested more time to consider whether it would appeal the cases in recent weeks. When DOJ appealed in CooperIt also asked that the justices slow-walk the case by requesting “that the petition for certiorari be held pending disposition of the complaint in United States v. Hemani…You should decide how to proceed with this petition.”
The high court’s decision could cause DOJ to focus on it Hemani The defendant in this case is a drug user who has also sold cocaine in the past. This may be a reason for his lack of sympathy towards gun rights of drug users. The defendants in other cases had only been found with a firearm as well as marijuana.
The Supreme Court will decide the case. Hemani If the court finds 922(g),(3) to be constitutional, this could lead to a government victory in all remaining cases.
One risk to the government appealing the lower court rulings are that if the Supreme Court does take the case, justices may in fact rule unfavorably to the government, possibly cementing that § 922(g)(3) is—in at least some cases—unconstitutional.
A number of federal courts in recent months have cast doubt on the legality of § 922(g)(3), finding generally that while the ban on gun ownership among drug users may not be entirely unconstitutional, there’s scant historical precedent for such a broad restriction of Second Amendment rights on an entire a category of people.
Earlier this year, for example, 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.
In another case earlier this year, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the firearms ban was unconstitutional as applied to least one defendant. That ruling came on the heels of a string of other judicial decisions casting doubt on the legality of the ban.
A federal judge in El Paso, for instance, 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 then allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea and dismissed the charges.
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.
The panel debated whether or not the case was about a challenge of the ban as applied, rather than a challenge on its face. As in previous cases, the judges focused on whether or no that defendant had been under the influence while possessing a gun.
In a separate federal court case, Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers recently made arguments that the ongoing firearm restriction for cannabis users is “analogous to laws disarming the intoxicated” and other historical laws “disarming many disparate groups that the government believed presented a danger with firearms.”
That brief was the latest response to a case filed by a Pennsylvania prosecutor who’s suing the federal government over its ban on gun ownership by cannabis users. It came two weeks after lawyers for the official, Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to allow the matter to proceed to trial.
In a number of the ongoing cases, DOJ has argued that the prohibition on gun ownership by marijuana users is also supported by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S.In a decision, the court upheld that domestic violence restraining laws can restrict the Second Amendment right of those with restraining measures.
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. A group of Florida medical marijuana patients argues that they have been denied their Second Amendment right because they can’t legally buy firearms while using cannabis for medicine.
Under President Joe Biden, the DOJ has consistently claimed that patients with medical marijuana who own firearms are “a threat to public safety,” they “pose an increased risk of suicide,” and more likely commit crimes in order “to finance their drug addiction.”
Uncertainty remains about how Trump’s administration will deal with the cases. 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 common psychiatric medications, genetically modified cannabis, and other narcotics are leading to psychotic breakdowns” which lead to violence with guns.
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’s was found guilty of violating federal law when he bought and possessed a gun as 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.
This situation has created confusion for medical marijuana patients as well as state legislators and advocacy groups. 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 take a position on the issue. Many of these people are law-abiding, productive and responsible members of the community who want to exercise their rights to bear and keep arms.
While some states passed legislation to further limit gun rights in marijuana-related situations, others attempted to maintain them. Recently, for example, 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.
Officials said people with firearms who become cannabis patients in states that allow it are not “expected” to turn those guns over. However, those “who wish to comply with federal law” and “not be in violation” of the law must “decide to divest” themselves of their 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 marijuana schedule would be the better option.” What we must change is federal marijuana policy.
Silk Road Drug Market Operator Pardoned by Trump Calls for More Prisoners to Be Freed As Democrats Criticize Clemency