A federal judge in Rhode Island has ruled that a law banning gun ownership by people who use illegal substances is unconstitutional as applied to two defendants who challenged the prohibition in court.<\/p>\n
The two defendants, David Worster and Alexzandria Carl, were charged with unlawfully possessing firearms while being regular users of marijuana. Worster was also charged with unlawfully owning a firearm while a felon, while Carl faced additional charges related to lying about her drug use on a gun purchase form.<\/p>\n
Both argued that the Second Amendment\u2019s protections on gun ownership meant the charges should be thrown out.<\/p>\n
Judge John J. McConnell Jr. largely agreed.<\/p>\n
In a decision earlier this month, McConnell dismissed the cannabis-related charges against both defendants, letting stand only the charge related to Worster\u2019s status as a convicted felon.<\/p>\n
Citing various recent federal appeals court decisions, McConnell wrote that the government failed to establish that the \u201csweeping\u201d prohibition against gun ownership by marijuana users was grounded in historical precedent.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Court struggles to see an on-point historical analogue,\u201d the ruling says, quoting a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit opinion saying that \u201cthe government offers no Founding-era law or practice of disarming ordinary citizens \u2018even if their intoxication was routine.’\u201d<\/p>\n
A federal statute, \u00a7 922(g)(3), bars people from purchasing or possessing firearms if they\u2019re an unlawful user of a controlled substance. But over the past year or so, a growing number of federal courts have imposed limits to that law, for example ruling that a person\u2019s occasional drug use doesn\u2019t justify a sweeping ban on gun ownership.<\/p>\n
Although a drug user might be legally disarmed if intoxicated and dangerous to others, courts have ruled that categorically banning gun ownership is constitutional.<\/p>\n
In the current case, \u201call the government alleged was that Mr. Worster had a medical marijuana card in his name, \u2018a small marijuana grow with two mature marijuana plants, and a small back of dried marijuana\u2019 at the time of the search,\u201d McConnell\u2019s ruling says. \u201cThat tells the Court little about his drug use, and, most importantly for the constitutional analysis, nothing suggests he was intoxicated at the time of arrest.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the case of Carl, the other defendant, banning her from owning a gun \u201cbased on habitual or occasional drug use,\u201d the decision says, \u201cimposes a far greater burden on her Second Amendment rights than our history and tradition of firearms regulation can support.\u201d<\/p>\n
The decision notes \u201ca growing Circuit consensus that the Second Amendment still protects those charged under \u00a7 922(g),\u201d pointing to appellate opinions out of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal for the Fifth, Sixth and Third circuits.<\/p>\n
While other district courts within the First Circuit, which includes Rhode Island, have ruled differently, McConnell acknowledged, \u201cthat approach cannot be squared with the clear constitutional text, recent Supreme Court precedent, and persuasive\u2014and increasingly pervasive\u2014Circuit reasoning.\u201d<\/p>\n
The recent ruling also threw out charges against Carl for making false statements about her drug use on federal firearms forms, with McConnell writing that the government failed meet its burden of establishing that the test was constitutional.<\/p>\n
Despite his decision to throw out all the cannabis-related charges, McConnell rejected a separate Second Amendment challenge to the ban on felons owning firearms. That prohibition, he said, was better grounded in both historical precedent and public safety.<\/p>\n
While he acknowledged the existence of First Circuit precedent saying that the law might be challenged as applied if \u201cthe underlying felony is \u2018so tame and technical as to be insufficient to justify the ban,’\u201d the judge ruled that \u201cWorster\u2019s criminal history, however, falls outside the scope of that exception.\u201d<\/p>\n
The judge noted that Worster\u2019s record includes \u201cmultiple drug-related crimes, multiple firearm-related crimes, and two counts of possessing an explosive device\u201d\u2014activities the court called \u201cfar from \u2018tame and technical.’\u201d<\/p>\n
The case, U.S. v. Worster and Carl<\/em>, was first reported by Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly<\/a>.<\/p>\n The ruling<\/a>, dated February 5, comes as more federal courts question the legality of \u00a7 922(g)(3). Also earlier this month, for example, an Eighth Circuit panel dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana<\/a><\/p>\n Judges in that case ruled that government\u2019s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances\u2014not always.<\/p>\n \u201cNothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [the defendant] belongs to a category of people, drug users, that Congress has categorically deemed dangerous,\u201d their ruling said.<\/p>\n In another case earlier this year, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the firearms ban was unconstitutional as applied to least one defendant<\/a>. That ruling came on the heels of a string of\u00a0other judicial decisions casting doubt on the legality of the ban<\/a>.<\/p>\n Separately, a federal judge in El Paso recently ruled that the government\u2019s ongoing\u00a0ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is unconstitutional<\/a>\u00a0in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. The court allowed the man to withdraw the plea and ordered that the indictment against him be dismissed.<\/p>\n Another panel of judges, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit,\u00a0heard oral arguments in November<\/a>\u00a0in 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. And, as in other cases, judges zeroed in on whether or not that defendant was actually under the influence of marijuana while in possession of a firearm.<\/p>\n In a\u00a0separate federal court case, Department of Justice (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 who\u2019s\u00a0suing 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 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\u00a0case 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 DOJ under President Joe Biden consistently argued 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 It remains unclear how the Trump administration will approach the cases. At a NRA conference in 2023, Trump suggested there\u00a0might be a link between the use of \u201cgenetically engineered\u201d marijuana and mass shootings<\/a>. He listed a number of controversial and unproven factors that he said at the time he would direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate as possibly causing the ongoing scourge of mass shooting afflicting the country.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have to look at whether common psychiatric drugs, as well as genetically engineered cannabis and other narcotics, are causing psychotic breaks\u201d that lead to gun violence, he said.<\/p>\n DOJ 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\u00a0\u201cunlikely\u201d to store their weapon properly<\/a>.<\/p>\n Last year, 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 The situation has caused confusion among medical marijuana patients, state lawmakers and advocacy groups, among others. The\u00a0National Rifle Association\u2019s (NRA) lobbying arm said recently that the court rulings on the cannabis and guns issue<\/a>\u00a0have \u201cled to a confusing regulatory landscape\u201d that have impacted Americans\u2019 Second Amendment rights.<\/p>\n \u201cMarijuana use is no longer limited to the domain of indigenous religious customs or youth-oriented counterculture and now includes a wide variety of people who use it for medicinal or recreational reasons,\u201d said the advocacy group, which does not have an official stance on cannabis policy generally. \u201cMany of these individuals are otherwise law-abiding and productive members of their communities and want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.\u201d<\/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, the\u00a0ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents<\/a>\u00a0that, if they choose to participate in\u00a0the 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 Since then, bipartisan state lawmakers have introduced\u00a0legislation that would urge Kentucky\u2019s representatives in Congress to amend federal law<\/a>\u00a0to clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms.<\/p>\n Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said last month that he supports the legislature\u2019s effort to urge the state\u2019s congressional delegation to\u00a0call for federal reforms to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients<\/a>, but the governor added that he\u2019d like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level.<\/p>\n \u201cI think the right way to deal with that is not just to focus on that issue, but to change the schedule of marijuana,\u201d Beshear said at a press conference. \u201cWhat we need to change is the overall marijuana policy by the federal government.\u201d<\/p>\n Trump Says He\u2019s \u2018Ready\u2019 To Impose Death Penalty On People Who Sell Illicit Drugs, Calling Policy \u2018Very Humane\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n The post Another Federal Judge Rules Against The Government\u2019s Ban On Gun Ownership By Marijuana Consumers<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
A federal judge in Rhode Island has ruled that a law banning gun ownership by people who use illegal substances is unconstitutional as applied to two defendants who challenged the prohibition in court. The two defendants, David Worster and Alexzandria Carl, were charged with unlawfully possessing firearms while being regularContinue 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\/80364"}],"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=80364"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80364\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":80365,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80364\/revisions\/80365"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: Another Federal Judge Rules Against The Government\u2019s Ban On Gun Ownership By Marijuana Consumers<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"