The Supreme Court on Monday heard the case of a defendant seeking to reduce his criminal penalty for firearm possession as the result of the federal government\u2019s legalization of hemp in 2018.<\/p>\n
At issue are the boundaries of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a 1984 law that imposes penalties on gun possession for people with past violent felonies or serious drug offenses.<\/p>\n
Initially the law imposes a 10-year maximum penalty for having a firearm, but after three offenses, a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence kicks in. Like other three-strikes laws, the act was intended to dissuade recidivism by ratcheting up criminal penalties for repeat offenses.<\/p>\n
The case before the Supreme Court, Brown v. U.S.<\/em>, which is consolidated with the case of a separate petitioner, centers on what qualifies as a relevant drug charge for ACCA\u2019s purposes given that laws around controlled substances are quickly changing and, in some cases, creating conflicts between state and the federal government.<\/p>\n Notably the ACCA itself doesn\u2019t include a list of substances that qualify under the statute, instead relying on other statutes to determine whether a conviction is relevant.<\/p>\n \u201cWe think the cross-reference to an external body of law that is dynamic is critical here,\u201d Austin Raynor, a Justice Department lawyer, told the court on behalf of the federal government. \u201cIn our view, the cross-reference raises a temporal question. When Congress chooses to reference an external body of law, that raises the question, which version of that body of law is Congress intending to reference?\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The court, in its description<\/a> of the issue presented in the case, highlighted what\u2019s at stake for criminal defendants, noting the distinction \u201cdictates the difference between serving a 10-year maximum or 15-year minimum.\u201d<\/p>\n Justin Brown is one of two petitioners in the consolidated case. He faces a 15-year sentence for gun possession that he asserts was the result of a Pennsylvania court wrongly using his past marijuana offenses to sentence him under ACCA because the federal government legalized hemp through the 2018 Farm Bill. Brown was sentenced in 2021, after the law changed.<\/p>\n \u201cWe submit that the sentencing court should use the schedules that are current at the time of sentencing,\u201d said Brown\u2019s attorney, Jeffrey T. Green. \u201cThis Court has said that the ordinary practice is to apply current law, including at sentencing.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s no reason to deviate from that ordinary practice here,\u201d Green continued. \u201cThe goal of the ACCA is to incapacitate only the most serious offenders\u2026 To do otherwise, as the government suggests, would be to ignore entirely Congress\u2019s choice to change those drug schedules with the 2018 Farm Bill.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIs it true that acceptance of your argument would mean that no marijuana conviction prior to 2018 would count as an ACCA predicate,\u201d asked Justice Samuel Alito.<\/p>\n \u201cNo,\u201d Green replied, \u201cbecause there would have to be a match between the state and federal.\u201d<\/p>\n Some conservatives on the court seemed to side with the idea that the laws in place at the time of the original drug offenses are what courts should look at, while more liberal members suggested courts should look at drug laws at the time of the firearm possession conviction.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen you\u2019re cross-referencing something you\u2019re taking everything with it,\u201d said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. \u201cYou\u2019re picking and choosing and now saying, \u2018I\u2019m only going to take a piece of it, not all of it.’\u201d<\/p>\n She seemed inclined to side with Brown, whose attorney argued that courts should look to laws and regulations on the books at the time of the firearm offense itself.<\/p>\n A conservative justice, Neil Gorsuch, also seemed sympathetic to Brown\u2019s argument.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019re going to have to go look at old sentencing guidelines, sentencing regimes, and some people are going to be denied the benefit of later-enacted revisions to the schedule, you know, reducing penalties under the schedule between the time of federal conviction and federal sentencing,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n The other petitioner in the consolidated case, Eugene Jackson, says his 2017 sentencing failed to take into account the federal government\u2019s rescheduling of ioflupane, a cocaine derivative, in 2015.<\/p>\n \u201cAll the government says is, well, the schedules are not contained in ACA and so amending the schedules is not the equivalent of amending ACCA,\u201d Jackson\u2019s attorney, Andrew Adler, told the court. But \u201cwhere one statute incorporates another or cross references another,\u201d he said, \u201cthat latter statute is effectively contained and written into the former. That\u2019s how cross-references work.\u201d<\/p>\n When a substance is removed from scheduling, he said, that \u201cit is also removed from ACCA\u2019s coverage.\u201d<\/p>\n Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked at one point in the hearing why the government has an interest in incarcerating people for longer periods of time over conduct that is no longer deemed criminal. \u201cWhy would Congress want to incapacitate defendants who have committed crimes that federal law no longer regards as serious?\u201d she said, according to an initial transcript of the oral argument<\/a>.<\/p>\n The high court\u2019s eventual ruling in the case could impact other criminal defendants facing mandatory minimum sentences for gun possession as the result of past drug crimes.<\/p>\n Shawn Hauser, an attorney who co-chairs cannabis-focused law firm Vicente LLP\u2019s hemp and cannabinoids department, said it\u2019s also an especially relevant issue as the federal government mulls possible rescheduling of marijuana<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is fascinating,\u201d she told Marijuana Moment in an email. \u201cAnd certainly will have potential implications for cannabis offenses in the event of rescheduling.\u201d<\/p>\n In the meantime, the Justice Department has found itself defending federal laws around marijuana and firearms frequently in recent years.<\/p>\n Earlier this month, in a case challenging a government rule against drug users purchasing or owning guns, the government told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent \u201ccomfortably\u201d supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they\u2019re \u201cunlikely\u201d to store their weapon properly before using marijuana<\/a>.<\/p>\n In a brief submitted in that case, attorneys for the Justice Department argued the firearm ban for marijuana consumers is justified based on historical analogues to restrictions on the mentally ill and habitually drunk that were imposed during the time of the Second Amendment\u2019s ratification in 1791.<\/p>\n The federal government has repeatedly claimed that those analogues, which must be demonstrated to maintain firearm restrictions under a recent Supreme Court ruling, provide clear support for limiting gun rights for cannabis users. But several federal courts have separately deemed the marijuana-related ban unconstitutional<\/a>, leading DOJ to appeal in several ongoing cases.<\/p>\n The Justice Department asserted similar points during oral arguments in a\u00a0separate but related case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit<\/a>\u00a0last month. That case focuses on the Second Amendment rights of medical cannabis patients in Florida.<\/p>\n Attorneys in both cases have also touched on a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling in\u00a0Daniels v. United States<\/em>\u00a0from August that found\u00a0the ban preventing people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional<\/a>, even if they consume cannabis for non-medical reasons.<\/p>\n DOJ had\u00a0already advised the Eleventh Circuit court that it felt the ruling was \u201cincorrectly decided,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and the department\u2019s attorney reiterated that it\u2019s the government\u2019s belief that \u201cthere are some reasons to be uncertain about the foundations\u201d of the appeals court decision.<\/p>\n The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma also ruled in February that\u00a0the ban prohibiting people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional<\/a>, with the judge stating that the federal government\u2019s justification for upholding the law is \u201cconcerning.\u201d<\/p>\n Also, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a judge ruled in April that banning people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional\u2014and it said that the same legal principle\u00a0also applies to the sale and transfer of guns<\/a>, too.<\/p>\n In August, meanwhile, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) sent a letter to Arkansas officials saying that the state\u2019s recently enacted law permitting medical cannabis patients to obtain concealed carry gun licenses<\/a>\u00a0\u201ccreates an unacceptable risk,\u201d and could\u00a0jeopardize the state\u2019s federally approved alternative firearm licensing policy<\/a>.<\/p>\n Shortly after Minnesota\u2019s governor signed a legalization bill into law in May,\u00a0the agency issued a reminder emphasizing<\/a>\u00a0that people who use cannabis are barred from possessing and purchases guns and ammunition \u201cuntil\u201d federal prohibition ends.<\/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 Meanwhile, attorneys for President Joe Biden\u2019s son Hunter\u2014who has been indicted on a charge of buying a gun in 2018 at a time when he\u2019s disclosed that he was an active user of crack cocaine\u2014have\u00a0previously cited the court ruling on the unconstitutionality of the federal ban<\/a>, arguing that it applies to their client\u2019s case as well.<\/p>\n Republican congressional lawmakers have filed two bills so far this session that focus on gun and marijuana policy.<\/p>\n Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, filed legislation in May to protect the Second Amendment rights of people who use marijuana in legal states,\u00a0allowing them to purchase and possess firearms<\/a>\u00a0that they\u2019re currently prohibited from having under federal law.<\/p>\n Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has\u00a0committed to attaching that legislation to a bipartisan marijuana banking bill<\/a>\u00a0that advanced out of committee last month and it pending floor action.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, Mast is also\u00a0cosponsoring a separate bill from Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV)<\/a>\u00a0this session that would more narrowly allow medical cannabis patients to purchase and possess firearms.<\/p>\n One place where the matter is particularly relevant is Jersey City, New Jersey, where Mayor Steven M. Fulop (D) is suing over a state policy that allows police officers to use marijuana while off duty.<\/p>\n That challenge, however, has sparked pushback from two police officers, who\u2019ve since sued Jersey City over what they say is a politically motivated move<\/a> by Fulop in service of a future gubernatorial campaign.<\/p>\n Ohio Republican Lawmaker Files Bill To Allow Cities To Ban Marijuana Use And Home Grow One Week Before Legalization Takes Effect<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n The post Supreme Court Weighs Whether Hemp Legalization Affects Gun Possession Mandatory Minimums For Man With Marijuana Convictions<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court on Monday heard the case of a defendant seeking to reduce his criminal penalty for firearm possession as the result of the federal government\u2019s legalization of hemp in 2018. At issue are the boundaries of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a 1984 law that imposes penaltiesContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"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\/70551"}],"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\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70551"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70551\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":70552,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70551\/revisions\/70552"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: Supreme Court Weighs Whether Hemp Legalization Affects Gun Possession Mandatory Minimums For Man With Marijuana Convictions<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"