The federal government is relying on \u201cstartling and dangerous\u201d arguments to defend banning medical marijuana patients from owning firearms, attorneys argued in their latest filing in an ongoing federal appeals case.<\/p>\n
Weeks after the Justice Department submitted its brief to the court<\/a>, asserting that lifting the ban would have \u201cwide-ranging\u201d unintended consequences, attorneys representing Florida medical cannabis patients filed their response last week, disputing the government\u2019s position point-by-point.<\/p>\n Many of the areas of legal disagreement are familiar to those who\u2019ve followed the case over the past year. Plaintiffs are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to overturn a federal district court\u2019s decision to dismiss the lawsuit<\/a>, maintaining that the gun ban for state-legal marijuana patients is unconstitutional and inconsistent with recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.<\/p>\n In the court\u2019s ruling in that separate case out of New York<\/a>, justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights. The ruling states that any such restrictions must be consistent with the historical context of the Second Amendment\u2019s original 1791 ratification.<\/p>\n DOJ has approached the case from a number of angles, including some that caught headlines for comparing medical cannabis patients to people who are mentally ill, panhandlers, Catholics and other groups that were previously deprived of the right to possess firearms.<\/p>\n Most recently, the Justice Department said that allowing medical marijuana patients to have guns could undermine the government\u2019s ability to restrict firearm ownership by people who are addicted to controlled substances like fentanyl, cocaine and methamphetamine.<\/p>\n In their response brief last week, the plaintiffs pushed back on that line of argument.<\/p>\n \u201cLikely realizing the lack of historical support for their position as applied to state law-compliant medical marijuana users, the Appellees attempt to lump such use in with more serious and dangerous substances such as cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamines,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n \u201cThey seemingly hope that potentially permitting such fully illicit drug users to possess or purchase firearms will dissuade the Court from siding with the Appellants,\u201d the brief says. However, that ignores the fact that, unlike cannabis, possession of those other substances can constitute a felony that could warrant gun restrictions.<\/p>\n DOJ has also routinely dismissed arguments about the relevance of unique federal cannabis policy considerations, like the long-standing congressional rider that\u2019s prevented the department from using its funds to interfere in the implementation of state medical marijuana laws.<\/p>\n \u201cWhatever Congress\u2019 policy rationale for creating its \u2018half-in, half-out\u2019 marijuana policy, the Court should decline to simply ignore this substantial distinction in considering whether the Challenged Laws are \u201ccomparably justified\u201d to historical criminal regulations,\u201d the plaintiffs said.<\/p>\n They also said the Justice Department makes a \u201cstartling and dangerous contention\u201d that, because the plaintiffs have possessed cannabis multiple times, those would-be misdemeanor offenses would rise to a felony justifying the loss of Second Amendment rights\u2014even though they haven\u2019t been prosecuted for the offenses.<\/p>\n \u201cThey argue that, to the extent [plaintiffs] have used marijuana multiple times, they are actually repeat offenders who have committed what is equivalent to felony offenses,\u201d the brief says. \u201cHowever, as the laws the Appellees rely upon clearly show, it is a prior conviction for marijuana possession, not repeated use, which can render such an act a felony.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cEssentially, the Appellees invite the Court to categorize [the plaintiffs] as having been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime even if none of that has occurred,\u201d it says. \u201cBeyond being completely anti-textual, this argument should be frightening to anyone concerned with basic due process and the protections of law.\u201d<\/p>\n Now both parties will wait to see whether the court will schedule oral arguments in the case\u2014a step that the Justice Department recently said it supports, seemingly acknowledging the novelty and significance of the legal challenge.<\/p>\n Former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (D), who now serves as chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party,\u00a0first raised the lawsuit against DOJ last year<\/a>\u00a0in her capacity as a state official. She\u2019s no longer party to the lawsuit since leaving office, and her\u00a0GOP successor has declined to get involved<\/a>.<\/p>\n Relevant to the case at hand is\u00a0the fact that a separate federal court ruled in February<\/a> that the firearms ban for any cannabis consumer is unconstitutional. The government has since appealed that decision<\/a> by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.<\/p>\n Attorneys in the Florida case also submitted a notice of supplemental authority on Friday that cites a development in yet another related federal lawsuit.<\/p>\n They advised the court that, in the new case, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted a motion finding that a person\u2019s admission to misdemeanor marijuana activity \u201cwas not sufficient to place her within the class of persons who could be historically disarmed for being non-\u2018law abiding.’\u201d<\/p>\n Ultimately, the judge determined that the federal ban<\/a> prohibiting people who use marijuana from possessing, transferring or selling firearms is unconstitutional.<\/p>\n \u201cThese findings and conclusion mirror several positions the Appellants have advanced in the present matter,\u201d the supplemental notice says.<\/p>\n Advocates have argued that the fight to end the federal ban for cannabis consumers isn\u2019t about expanding gun rights, per se. Rather, it\u2019s a\u00a0matter of constitutionality and public safety<\/a>.<\/p>\n Supporters of the Florida lawsuit have argued that the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau (ATF) requirement effectively creates an incentive for cannabis consumers to either lie on the form, buy a gun on the illicit market or simply forgo their right to bear arms.<\/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 Read the latest filings<\/a> in the medical marijuana patients\u2019 gun rights case below:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Marijuana Equity Advocates Release \u2018Anti-Monopoly Toolkit\u2019 To Shape Legalization Laws<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n The post Justice Department Makes \u2018Startling And Dangerous\u2019 Claims To Defend Medical Marijuana Patient Gun Ban, Attorneys Say In New Filing<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The federal government is relying on \u201cstartling and dangerous\u201d arguments to defend banning medical marijuana patients from owning firearms, attorneys argued in their latest filing in an ongoing federal appeals case. Weeks after the Justice Department submitted its brief to the court, asserting that lifting the ban would have \u201cwide-ranging\u201dContinue 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\/63719"}],"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=63719"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63719\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63720,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63719\/revisions\/63720"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63719"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63719"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63719"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: Justice Department Makes \u2018Startling And Dangerous\u2019 Claims To Defend Medical Marijuana Patient Gun Ban, Attorneys Say In New Filing<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"