A federal judge in El Paso has ruled that the U.S. government\u2019s 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. The court this week allowed the man to withdraw the plea and ordered that the indictment against him be dismissed.<\/p>\n
The new ruling stops short of declaring that the law against firearm ownership by cannabis users\u201418 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(3)\u2014is itself unconstitutional. As applied to the defendant in the case, however, it says that government lawyers failed to demonstrate that the restriction aligns with the nation\u2019s history of regulating gun ownership, noting that that they did \u201cnothing in the way of proving that Defendant was intoxicated by marijuana at the time of this incident.\u201d<\/p>\n
David Briones, a senior U.S. District Court judge for the Western District of Texas, also acknowledged in the decision that the legal landscape around marijuana and the Second Amendment had evolved since the court first accepted the guilty plea. In the interim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, ruled that\u00a0while \u201csome limits on a\u00a0presently\u00a0<\/em>intoxicated person\u2019s right to carry a weapon\u201d may be constitutional, \u201cdisarming a sober person based on past substance usage\u201d is not<\/a>.<\/p>\n That case,\u00a0U.S. v. Daniels<\/em>, was\u00a0set to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court<\/a>\u00a0earlier this year but was among\u00a0a number of firearms-related cases remanded back to lower courts<\/a>\u00a0following a separate Supreme Court\u00a0decision about firearms and domestic violence.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the past two years alone,\u201d Briones, a Clinton appointee, wrote in the new ruling, \u201cthe Fifth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court have heard and considered the following cases: Daniels<\/em>, Rahimi<\/em>, and Bruen<\/em>. These cases have changed the law when it comes to the Second Amendment, and in the case of Daniels<\/em>, have challenged the constitutionality of the very statute under which Defendant is charged.\u201d<\/p>\n In the case, the El Paso Police Department responded to a 2021 call at the defendant\u2019s home, entered the house and found two bags of marijuana. A search also found multiple guns inside the home. The defendant allegedly told officers that he\u2019d used marijuana regularly for years and understood it was illegal to have both a medical marijuana card and a gun.<\/p>\n After the guilty plea, the defendant appealed his case to the Fifth Circuit, which later remanded it back to the district court in light of the recent precedent-setting opinions.<\/p>\n \u201cThis court now has a fuller picture of the Second Amendment jurisprudence as it stands today,\u201d the order says, \u201cand has reconsidered its position.\u201d<\/p>\n A Texas federal judge ruled today that the federal ban on gun+drug possession is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant who was not shown to be “intoxicated by marijuana at the time of [the] incident, or at the time he was arrested.” https:\/\/t.co\/vpIKrTwlQO<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/7Unsf7Ccfx<\/a><\/p>\n \u2014 Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) December 30, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n In response to the challenge to the firearm restriction\u2019s constitutionality, Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers argued that the defendant wasn\u2019t part of \u201cthe people\u201d referred to in the Second Amendment, \u201cbecause illegal drug users and addicts are, by definition, not \u2018law-abiding\u2019 citizens covered by the amendment\u2019s text.\u201d<\/p>\n But the court disagreed, noting that the\u00a0Daniels<\/em> opinion points to five mentions of \u201cthe people\u201d in the Bill of Rights and says that \u201cIn each place, it refers to all members of our political community, not a special group of upright citizens.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cDefendant is part of \u2018the people\u2019 whose conduct is covered and protected by the Second Amendment,\u201d the ruling concludes. \u201cBecause he is part of \u2018the people,\u2019 the Government had the burden to identify a historical analogue similar enough to 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(3) to show that individuals like Defendant were disarmed at the time of the Founding. The Government failed to meet its burden. Therefore, the Court finds that 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to Defendant.\u201d<\/p>\n One issue that Briones emphasized in his ruling is the lack of evidence that the defendant was actually under the influence of marijuana.<\/p>\n \u201cHere, while the Government goes to great lengths to disclose that Defendant \u2018admitted being a daily user of marihuana since age 14\u2019 and that Defendant \u2018just like[d] good weed,’\u201d the order says, \u201cit does nothing in the way of proving that Defendant was intoxicated by marijuana at the time of this incident, or at the time he was arrested.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIn line with the Fifth Circuit\u2019s reasoning in Connelly<\/em>,\u201d it adds pointing to another recent opinion, \u201cthis Court agrees that \u2018based on habitual or occasional drug use \u00a7 922(g)(3) imposes a far greater burden on [Defendant\u2019s] Second Amendment rights than our history and tradition of firearms regulation can support.’\u201d<\/p>\n In addition to the guilty plea being withdrawn, the indictment dismissed and the federal firearm restriction being deemed unconstitutional as applied, the ruling also ordered that the defendant be released from any pretrial or bond conditions.<\/p>\n Because it is a district court decision, the new ruling does not create any precedent for other courts to follow. Nevertheless, it\u2019s the most recent indication of where judges stand as higher courts adjust their interpretations of federal firearm law.<\/p>\n Separately, a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments in November<\/a> in the government\u2019s appeal of\u00a0a district court ruling that deemed the gun ban unconstitutional<\/a>.<\/p>\n Much of the panel\u2019s discussion at oral argument in that case surrounded whether the underlying dispute was a facial challenge to the gun ban or an as-applied challenge. Judges also zeroed in on whether or not that defendant was actually under the influence of marijuana while in possession of a firearm.<\/p>\n Judges did not indicate during oral\u00a0argument how they plan to rule on that dispute, instead taking the matter under submission.<\/p>\n In a\u00a0separate federal court case, DOJ lawyers recently made arguments<\/a>\u00a0that the ongoing firearm restriction for cannabis users is \u201canalogous to laws disarming the intoxicated\u201d and other historical laws \u201cdisarming many disparate groups that the government believed presented a danger with firearms.\u201d<\/p>\n That brief was the latest response to a case filed by a Pennsylvania prosecutor suing the federal government over its ban on gun ownership by cannabis users<\/a>. 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\u00a0to allow the matter to proceed to trial<\/a>.<\/p>\n In the plaintiffs\u2019 earlier brief, attorneys for Greene and others argued that the firearm prohibition for cannabis users is distinct from other laws prohibiting gun ownership by potentially dangerous individuals, noting that the other restrictions \u201conly permitted the deprivation of one\u2019s Second Amendment rights\u00a0after<\/em>\u00a0a hearing, providing for due process, and then, only temporarily.\u201d<\/p>\n While the government has framed its marijuana gun ban as similarly temporary, plaintiffs said that in practice the prohibition is much broader.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile the Government disingenuously contends throughout its brief that the challenged regulations only \u2018impose a temporary prohibition on firearms possession and receipt during the time period that a person is\u00a0actively engaged in unlawful drug use<\/em>,\u2019\u201d the plaintiffs\u2019 last brief said, \u201cthe truth of the matter, which the Government elects not to disclose to this Court, is that\u2026an unlawful user includes those \u2018even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Lawyers in a separate federal appeals court case also\u00a0faced off over when the government may lawfully disarm someone for using marijuana<\/a>, with DOJ arguing in that dispute that a person\u2019s recent use of the drug is indeed sufficient to establish that they\u2019re in violation of the law and should not legally be able to possess a gun.<\/p>\n In a number of the ongoing cases, DOJ has argued\u00a0that the prohibition on gun ownership by marijuana users\u00a0is also supported by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision,\u00a0U.S. v. Rahimi<\/em><\/a>, that upheld the government\u2019s ability to limit the Second Amendment rights of people with domestic violence restraining orders.<\/p>\n 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>. In that matter, a group of Florida medical cannabis patients contends that their Second Amendment rights are being violated because they cannot lawfully buy firearms so long as they are using cannabis as medicine, despite acting in compliance with state law.<\/p>\n The Biden administration, meanwhile, argues that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms \u201cendanger public safety,\u201d \u201cpose a greater risk of suicide\u201d and are more likely to commit crimes \u201cto fund their drug habit.\u201d<\/p>\n The Justice Department has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that\u00a0the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns<\/a>\u00a0is constitutional because it\u2019s consistent with the nation\u2019s history of disarming \u201cdangerous\u201d individuals.<\/p>\n In 2023, for example, the Justice Department 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<\/a>.<\/p>\n Last year, President Joe Biden\u2019s son Hunter was convicted by a federal jury of violating statute by buying and possessing a gun while an active user of crack cocaine. Two Republican congressmen challenged the basis of that conviction, with one pointing out that\u00a0there are \u201cmillions of marijuana users\u201d who own guns<\/a>\u00a0but should not be prosecuted.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws either further restricting or attempting to preserve gun rights as they relate to marijuana. Recently, for example, a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to\u00a0remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms<\/a>.<\/p>\n Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November\u2019s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state, but\u00a0the campaign\u2019s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short<\/a>.<\/p>\n As 2024 drew to a close, however, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a warning to Kentucky residents<\/a> that, if they choose to participate in the state\u2019s medical marijuana program that\u2019s set to launch imminently<\/a>, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.<\/p>\n The official said that while people who already own firearms aren\u2019t \u201cexpected to\u201d turn them over if they become state-legal cannabis patients, those who \u201cwish to follow federal law and not be in violation of it\u201d must \u201cmake the decision to divest themselves of those firearms.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The post Federal Judge In Texas Rules That Ban On Gun Ownership By Marijuana User Is Unconstitutional As Applied<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
A federal judge in El Paso has ruled that the U.S. government\u2019s 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. The court this week allowed the man to withdraw the plea and orderedContinue 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\/79559"}],"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=79559"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79559\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":79560,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79559\/revisions\/79560"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: Federal Judge In Texas Rules That Ban On Gun Ownership By Marijuana User Is Unconstitutional As Applied<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"