![](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/MM_Bill_Tracker_V5_blank-42.jpg\"){kind=tracking}
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
The Justice Department is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that \u201csignificant disagreement\u201d about the federal ban on gun possession by marijuana consumers<\/a> among numerous appeals courts has led to a situation where the justices should step in and provide clarity for the country.<\/p>\n The comments came in a new filing in a case that DOJ is asking the Supreme Court to reject due to recent procedural developments, though it wants the justices to take up a separate case on the issue while holding on to others for later action.<\/p>\n \u201cIn short, seven courts of appeals\u2014the Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits\u2014 have recently issued decisions concerning as-applied Second Amendment challenges to Section 922(g)(3),\u201d the filing says, referring to the federal law that precludes people from owning firearms if they\u2019re deemed to be an unlawful user of cannabis or other illegal drugs, \u201cand each court has resolved that challenge by applying a somewhat different constitutional test.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThose decisions confirm that the question presented recurs frequently, has generated significant disagreement in the courts of appeals, and warrants this Court\u2019s review,\u201d U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the Monday brief.<\/p>\n The government\u2019s filing in U.S. v. Baxter<\/em> asks the justices to reject that case, a stance also shared by lawyers for the respondent, Keshon Daveon Baxter, whose conviction for being unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm was reinstated by a district court after previously being remanded back from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Eighth Circuit affirms that decision, the vacatur of petitioner\u2019s original conviction would be harmless,\u201d Sauer\u2019s filing says. \u201cAnd if the court reverses, the government could, if appropriate, file a new petition for a writ of certiorari.\u201d<\/p>\n For now, DOJ said the court should instead take up the separate case of U.S. v. Hemani,\u00a0<\/em>which involves a person convicted of possessing a firearm while using cannabis and cocaine and participating in illicit drug sales.<\/p>\n \u201cIn its reply brief in Hemani<\/em>, the government explained that the question presented had generated a multi-sided circuit conflict: The Seventh Circuit had upheld Section 922(g)(3) in a decision that predated NYSRPA v. Bruen<\/em>, but the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, each applying different tests, had issued decisions since Bruen<\/em> concluding that the statute violates the Second Amendment in many of its applications,\u201d the brief<\/a> says, referring to a major 2022 case that struck down a New York gun control law. \u201cSince then, the Seventh Circuit has rejected the government\u2019s contention that its pre-Bruen<\/em> decision upholding Section 922(g)(3) remains good law.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cTaking a fresh look at the relevant history, however, the court determined that \u2018historical laws that kept guns out of the hands of the intoxicated and the mentally ill are sufficiently analogous to \u00a7 922(g)(3)\u2019s proscription of firearms possession by active and persistent drug users,’\u201d the filing says. \u201cOther courts of appeals, too, have issued decisions concerning as-applied challenges to Section 922(g)(3).\u201d<\/p>\n While arguing that justices should move forward with the Hemani case now, DOJ said the court \u201cshould also hold other pending petitions concerning as-applied challenges to Section 922(g)(3).\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cBut the Court need not hold the petition in this case,\u201d it said, referring to the Baxter<\/em> case.<\/p>\n On Wednesday, dockets for several pending cases on the marijuana and guns issue were updated to note that the justices are set to discuss them in a closed-door meeting on October 10.<\/p>\n With respect to the Justice Department\u2019s commentary on the diverging opinions among courts on the gun and cannabis issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last month<\/a> sided with a federal district court that dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic stop.<\/p>\n The case has now been remanded to that lower court, which determined that the current statute banning \u201cunlawful\u201d users of marijuana from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.<\/p>\n The lower court largely based his initial decision on\u00a0an interpretation of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling<\/a>\u00a0in which the justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights.<\/p>\n The ruling states that any such restrictions must be consistent with the historical context of the Second Amendment\u2019s original 1791 ratification.<\/p>\n The historical analogues that the Justice Department relied on to make the case that the ban is consistent included references to antiquated case law preventing Catholics, loyalists, slaves and Indians from having guns.<\/p>\n The circuit court, for its part, said that \u201cthe government must show non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a risk of future danger\u201d to support the current policy. \u201cThis inquiry, which may involve fact finding, is best suited for the district court.\u201d<\/p>\n This opinion comes nearly a year after the\u00a0Tenth Circuit heard oral arguments in the case<\/a>, with judges questioning not only the firearms prohibition itself but also whether it was within the scope of the appeals panel\u2019s power to review the underlying lower court\u2019s decision. Ultimately, they determined that they did possess that authority.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District,\u00a0judges recently ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients<\/a>\u00a0who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.<\/p>\n In the background of these developments, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a series of cases challenging the gun ban for people who use marijuana.<\/p>\n As a\u00a0recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explained the current legal landscape<\/a>, a growing number of federal courts are now \u201cfinding constitutional problems in the application of at least some parts\u201d of the firearms prohibition.<\/p>\n In a recent ruling, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated a defendant\u2019s conviction and remanded the case back to a district court<\/a>, noting that a retrial before a jury may be necessary to determine whether cannabis in fact caused the defendant to be dangerous or pose a credible threat to others.<\/p>\n The opinion appears to differ from a recent Third Circuit ruling in that the new decision says that not every application of 922(g)(3) \u201crequire[s] an individualized factual determination,\u201d explaining that such determinations wouldn\u2019t be necessary if the government could demonstrate that a particular drug made an entire class of users dangerous.<\/p>\n By contrast, the\u00a0Third Circuit recently said in a published opinion that district courts must make \u201cindividualized judgments\u201d to determine whether 922(g)(3) is constitutional<\/a>\u00a0as applied to particular defendants.<\/p>\n \u2014 Earlier this year, a federal judge in Rhode Island\u00a0ruled 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 A federal judge in El Paso separately ruled late last year 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 In a number of the ongoing cases, DOJ has argued\u00a0that the prohibition on gun ownership by marijuana users\u00a0is also supported by the\u00a0Rahimi\u00a0<\/em>decision<\/a>\u00a0that 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 former 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 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, 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\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 Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel<\/a> and Philip Steffan<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The post Trump DOJ Notes \u2018Significant Disagreement\u2019 On Marijuana Consumer Gun Ban In New Supreme Court Filing<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
The Justice Department is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that \u201csignificant disagreement\u201d about the federal ban on gun possession by marijuana consumers among numerous appeals courts has led to a situation where the justices should step in and provide clarity for the country. The comments came in a new filingContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":458,"featured_media":83468,"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\/83467"}],"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=83467"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83467\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":83469,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83467\/revisions\/83469"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/83468"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83467"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83467"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83467"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nMarijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills<\/a> in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters<\/a> pledging at least $25\/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don\u2019t miss any developments.<\/strong>
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/MM_Bill_Tracker_V5_blank-41.jpg\"){kind=tracking}
<\/a>
\nLearn more about our marijuana bill tracker<\/a> and become a supporter on Patreon<\/a> to get access.
\n\u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n
\nRead More: Trump DOJ Notes \u2018Significant Disagreement\u2019 On Marijuana Consumer Gun Ban In New Supreme Court Filing<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"