The Department of Justice asked a federal court on Monday to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to overturn a policy blocking medical marijuana patients from buying or owning guns. The filling is partly premised on the government\u2019s position that it would be too \u201cdangerous to trust regular marijuana users to exercise sound judgment\u201d with firearms.<\/p>\n
In making its case for dismissal, DOJ also drew eyebrow-raising historical parallels to past gun bans for groups like Native Americans, Catholics, panhandlers, those who refuse to take an oath of allegiance to the government and people who shoot firearms while drunk.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit at hand, which was filed by Florida\u2019s Democratic agriculture commissioner Nikki Fried<\/a> and several medical cannabis consumers, asserts that the federal government is unlawfully depriving patients of their constitutional rights on multiple grounds, and the plaintiffs filed a revised complaint last month<\/a> following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on an unrelated gun rights case in New York.<\/p>\n As plaintiffs anticipated, DOJ submitted the motion to dismiss the case on Monday, the court-imposed deadline for a response. The government provided a justification for its dismissal request in an attached memorandum.<\/p>\n At a top level, the Justice Department said the gun rights are generally reserved for \u201claw-abiding\u201d people. Florida might have legalized medical cannabis, but the department said that doesn\u2019t matter as long as it remains federally prohibited. It also said that, while two of the plaintiffs who were denied firearms after admitting on a federal form that they use medical marijuana might have standing for injury, it said neither the commissioner nor a separate defendant could say the same.<\/p>\n DOJ\u2019s memo is also full of curious references to precedent and historic gun policies, in addition to dismissing the definition of medical marijuana altogether because the government upholds that cannabis \u201chas no currently accepted medical use.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis memorandum uses the phrase \u2018medical marijuana\u2019 for convenience, but Congress has found that marijuana \u2018has no currently accepted medical use.’\u201d<\/p>\n While the department insists that federal law preempts state law, ignoring the numerous medical conditions that qualify for patients for cannabis in states like Florida, it also cites Florida\u2019s law itself to justify the gun ban. It cites state policy requiring doctors to inform patients that medical marijuana use \u201cimpairs judgment, cognition, and physical coordination.\u201d<\/p>\n Of course, so do many legal prescription drugs and alcohol, but DOJ zeroed in on Florida\u2019s disclosure rule to support its argument that cannabis consumers with firearms pose a unique public safety danger.<\/p>\n The memo also pushes back against the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling, which generally creates a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights. At a high level, the ruling states that any such restrictions must be consistent with the historical context of the Second Amendment\u2019s original 1791 ratification.<\/p>\n The Justice Department memo lists what it believes to be adequate \u201canalogous\u201d examples of gun restrictions that give precedent to the current marijuana policy and its ongoing enforcement.<\/p>\n \u201cAnalogous statutes which purport to disarm persons considered a risk to society\u2014whether felons or alcoholics\u2014were known to the American legal tradition,\u201d the memo argues.<\/p>\n Disarming unlawful drug users \u201cis consistent with this Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation,\u201d DOJ said. \u201cTwo related historical traditions are analogous: the tradition of excluding those who engage in criminal activity from the right to bear arms, and the tradition of disarming those whose status or behavior would make it dangerous for them to possess firearms.\u201d<\/p>\n At one point, DOJ cited scholars who have said that, historically, \u201cthe right to bear arms was tied to the concept of a virtuous citizenry.\u201d It\u2019s not clear if the department is actually suggesting here that marijuana use makes a person unvirtuous\u2014<\/em>but it wouldn\u2019t be the first time<\/a>.<\/p>\n A \u201chistorical tradition exists of regulations that restrict or prohibit firearms possession by those whose possession of firearms the government deems dangerous,\u201d the filing says, adding that \u201cthe impairing effects of illegal drugs, including marijuana, make it dangerous for regular unlawful drug users to possess firearms.\u201d<\/p>\n Here are some other choice analogues DOJ offered in its memo for a motion to dismiss:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cIn England and in America from the colonial era through the 19th century, governments regularly disarmed a variety of groups deemed dangerous. England disarmed Catholics in the 17th and 18th centuries\u2026Many American colonies forbade providing Indians with firearms\u2026.During the American Revolution, several states passed laws providing for the confiscation of weapons owned by persons refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to the state or the United States\u2026States also have disarmed the mentally ill and panhandlers.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cPerhaps most relevant here, a long tradition exists of viewing intoxication as a condition that renders firearms possession dangerous, and accordingly restricting the firearms rights of those who become intoxicated. In 1655, Virginia prohibited \u2018shoot[ing] any gunns at drinkeing\u2026\u2019In 1771, New York prohibited firing guns during the New Year\u2019s holiday, a restriction that \u2018was aimed at preventing the \u2018great Damages \u2026 frequently done on [those days] by persons\u2026being often intoxicated with Liquor.’\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe historical tradition embodied by these laws continues today, with a majority of states \u2018restrict[ing] the right of habitual drug abusers or alcoholics to possess or carry firearms,\u201d DOJ said. It continues to say that cannabis \u201ccauses significant mental and physical impairments that make it dangerous for a person to possess firearm.\u201d<\/p>\n While plaintiffs aren\u2019t saying that medical marijuana patients should have the right to use a firearm while intoxicated from cannabis, DOJ said that there\u2019s a \u201cflaw\u201d in that logic because \u201cmarijuana use impairs judgment\u2014as Florida\u2019s Board of Medicine puts it, \u2018the ability to think, judge and reason.’\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIt is therefore dangerous to trust regular marijuana users to exercise sound judgment while intoxicated, a fact tragically borne out by the frequency with which marijuana users drive while impaired and suffer fatal collisions,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n \u201cMarijuana users with firearms pose a danger comparable to, if not greater than, other groups that have historically been disarmed. For example, \u2018like the mentally ill,\u2019 drug users \u2018are more likely to have difficulty exercising self-control, making it dangerous for them to possess deadly firearms.\u2019 In addition, the impairments caused by marijuana use are analogous to those caused by \u2018intoxicat[ion]\u2019 with alcohol, which has historically justified firearms restrictions. In fact, greater justification exists for firearms restrictions on marijuana users because, unlike alcohol, marijuana is an illegal drug. Such restrictions are therefore also analogous to firearms restrictions on those engaged in criminal activity.\u201d<\/p>\n Fried, who is running in a Democratic gubernatorial primary for a chance to challenge incumbent Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in November, told Marijuana Moment on Friday that she expected the department to request a motion to dismiss, but she\u2019s confident they will ultimately prevail if the court allows the case to gets to the merits.<\/p>\n \u201cI would imagine how this is going to eventually fold out, because of the new SCOTUS opinion from a couple weeks ago, I do believe the department is going to recognize that they\u2019re going to have to make changes to this [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] form,\u201d she said, referencing the ATF background check form that asks about a person\u2019s marijuana use.<\/p>\n \u201cI would imagine that, along the way, they\u2019re going to keep fighting it until they get told by a judge to do it,\u201d Fried said. \u201cBut right now, we\u2019re still monitoring it.\u201d<\/p>\n The plaintiffs decided to file the amended lawsuit because of the recent SCOTUS ruling. They argued that, because marijuana prohibition was enacted more than a century years after the ratification of the Second Amendment\u2014and the fact that cannabis was previously prescribed by doctors before the plant was criminalized\u2014the existing ban should not hold up in court with the new precedent.<\/p>\n DOJ clearly spent time attempting to find holes in that argument after\u00a0the department requested more time to respond<\/a> in the case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. In doing so, however, the department highlighted historical precedent that show a pattern of instituting several controversial gun policies, like restricting firearm rights for Native Americans and people who wouldn\u2019t pledge their patriotism.<\/p>\n Also notably, the department explicitly acknowledges that the U.S. attorney general \u201chas authority to \u2018transfer between schedules\u2019 any drug or \u2018remove any drug or other substance from the schedules\u2019 if, after considering scientific and medical evaluations and recommendations from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, he finds that the drug meets criteria for a different schedule or does not meet the requirements for any schedule.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSince enactment of the CSA, however, the Executive Branch has denied various requests to reschedule marijuana, and marijuana has been and remains a Schedule I drug,\u201d it said, highlighting the Biden administration\u2019s refusal thus far to follow through on campaign pledges to change federal cannabis laws.<\/p>\n Fried previously told Marijuana Moment in an interview that the challenge is not about expanding gun rights, per se. It\u2019s a matter of constitutionality that she and other key allies in the gun reform movement feel would bolster public safety if the case<\/a> goes in their favor.<\/p>\n Specifically, because state-compliant medical cannabis patients are required to fill out an ATF form that asks about marijuana use (and answering in the affirmative would render them ineligible for a gun purchase), Fried says that creates an incentive to either lie, buy a gun on the illicit market or simply forgo a constitutional right.<\/p>\n In 2020, ATF\u00a0issued an advisory specifically targeting Michigan<\/a>\u00a0that requires gun sellers to conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers because it said the state\u2019s cannabis laws had enabled \u201chabitual marijuana users\u201d and other disqualified individuals to obtain firearms illegally.<\/p>\n Fried brought the lawsuit alongside two medical marijuana patients in the state, as well as Neill Franklin, a retired police officer and former executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP) who has declined to use medical cannabis despite its therapeutic value for pain he experiences because of the potential gun rights ramifications.<\/p>\n Another component of the legal challenge is based on a unique interpretation of a congressional spending bill rider known as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prevents the Justice Department from using federal funds to interfere in the implementation of state medical cannabis programs.<\/p>\n By preventing people like Franklin from using medical marijuana without risking the loss of their right to buy firearms, the federal government is effectively violating that rider by blocking Florida from adding new patients to grow its program, according to the suit.<\/p>\n DOJ said in its new memo that Franklin doesn\u2019t have standing in the case because he hasn\u2019t faced any specific injury. It also said that the protections of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment are limited, and it pointed out that it hasn\u2019t spent dollars to interfere in the implementation of Florida\u2019s medical cannabis program.<\/p>\n There have been previous efforts in Congress to specifically protect medical cannabis patients against losing their right to purchase and possess guns,\u00a0but those efforts have not been enacted<\/a>.<\/p>\n Read the Justice Department\u2019s motion to dismiss and justification memo below<\/a>:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Colorado Activists Say It\u2019s \u2018Very Unlikely\u2019 Second Psychedelics Legalization Initiative Will Make Ballot As Alternative To State-Certified Measure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n The post Biden DOJ Says Medical Marijuana Patients Are Too \u2018Dangerous To Trust\u2019 In Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit On Gun Rights<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The Department of Justice asked a federal court on Monday to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to overturn a policy blocking medical marijuana patients from buying or owning guns. The filling is partly premised on the government\u2019s position that it would be too \u201cdangerous to trust regular marijuana users toContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":458,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56416"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/458"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56416"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56416\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56417,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56416\/revisions\/56417"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56416"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56416"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56416"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: Biden DOJ Says Medical Marijuana Patients Are Too \u2018Dangerous To Trust\u2019 In Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit On Gun Rights<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"