The government\u2019s top lawyer is asking the Supreme Court for more time to consider whether to challenge a February appeals court ruling concerning the federal prohibition on gun ownership by people who consume marijuana. It\u2019s the latest development in a series of recent cases around the constitutionality of the firearm restriction.<\/p>\n
The new filing, from Solicitor General D. John Sauer, concerns a case in which the defendant, Keshon Daveon Baxter, was found in possession of both a firearm and a bag of marijuana. The government charged him under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership by \u201cunlawful\u201d users of controlled substances.<\/p>\n
Baxter argued in district court that the prohibition was itself illegal, contending both that \u201cunlawful\u201d use was too vague in the statute to be enforceable and also that the government\u2019s ban on drug users\u2019 possession of firearms was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n
The lower court rejected both arguments\u2014a ruling Baxter appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.<\/p>\n
It a February opinion, an Eighth Circuit panel upheld the portion of the district court\u2019s decision denying Baxter\u2019s vagueness claim but reversed the lower court\u2019s ruling on the constitutionality of the firearms ban. However, judges wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record \u201cfor this Court to review Baxter\u2019s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.\u201d<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit wrote, \u201cWe reverse the district court\u2019s ruling on Baxter\u2019s as-applied Second Amendment challenge and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n
The federal government currently has until May 6 to decide whether to file a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the appeals court ruling. The new filing from Sauer asks for a 30-day extension on that deadline.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Solicitor General has not yet determined whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case,\u201d says the three-page request<\/a>. \u201cThe additional time sought in this application is needed to continue consultation within the government and to assess the legal and practical impact of the court of appeals\u2019 ruling.\u201d<\/p>\n Sauer, an appointee of President Donald Trump, formally assumed his role as solicitor general earlier this month. He previously helped represented Trump in his landmark case on presidential immunity.<\/p>\n Second Amendment advocates at the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which has tracked a number of the cannabis-related court cases, told Marijuana Moment in an email that the group is \u201cencouraged\u201d by the government filing.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are encouraged that the solicitor general is reconsidering the government\u2019s position following President Trump\u2019s \u2018Protecting Second Amendment Rights\u2019 Executive Order,\u201d the group said. \u201cAs we have explained in various briefs like the one in U.S. v. Daniels<\/em>, historically, Americans were only ever disarmed for being dangerous, and 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g)(3) should thus be held unconstitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis conclusion is supported by thorough original research,\u201d FPC added, \u201cand we hope the government\u2019s litigation position in these cases will properly account for the law\u2019s lack of legal and historical foundation.\u201d<\/p>\n One risk to appealing the ruling is that if the Supreme Court does take the case, justices may in fact rule unfavorably to the government, possibly cementing that \u00a7 922(g)(3) is\u2014in at least some cases\u2014unconstitutional.<\/p>\n A number of federal courts in recent months have cast doubt on the legality of \u00a7 922(g)(3), finding generally that while the ban on gun ownership among drug users may not be entirely unconstitutional, there\u2019s scant historical precedent for such a broad restriction of Second Amendment rights on an entire a category of people.<\/p>\n Earlier this year, for example, a federal judge in Rhode Island ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to two defendants<\/a>, writing that the government failed to establish that the \u201csweeping\u201d prohibition against gun ownership by marijuana users was grounded in historical precedent.<\/p>\n In another recent case, 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>. 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\u00a0ruled 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 A federal judge in El Paso, for instance, ruled late last year that the government\u2019s ongoing ban 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> to clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms, though no action has since been taken on that bill.<\/p>\n Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said in January that he supported the legislature\u2019s effort to urge the state\u2019s congressional delegation to call 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 Legalizing Marijuana Led To An Increase In Use\u2014But A Decrease In Problematic Misuse, American Medical Association Study Shows<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n The post Trump\u2019s Solicitor General Asks Supreme Court For More Time To Weigh Challenge To Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The government\u2019s top lawyer is asking the Supreme Court for more time to consider whether to challenge a February appeals court ruling concerning the federal prohibition on gun ownership by people who consume marijuana. It\u2019s the latest development in a series of recent cases around the constitutionality of the firearmContinue 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\/80994"}],"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=80994"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80994\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":80995,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80994\/revisions\/80995"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: Trump\u2019s Solicitor General Asks Supreme Court For More Time To Weigh Challenge To Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"