DOJ Doubles Down On Claim That Medical Marijuana Patients ‘Endanger Public Safety’ If They Own Guns

The Justice Department is doubling down on its position that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit”—justifying, in the government’s eyes, a federal ban on gun ownership by cannabis consumers.

Following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that upheld the constitutionality of governments setting certain gun restrictions in a case centered around domestic violence-related prohibitions, the justices remanded a pending cannabis and Second Amendment rights case back to the lower court for reconsideration.

Late last week, plaintiffs and DOJ submitted briefs in a separate case that responded to the potential implications of the high court’s latest decision for the federal statute barring gun ownership by cannabis consumers.

In the filings submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, DOJ urged the panel to affirm an initial district court ruling that deemed the cannabis and firearms ban to be constitutional, while appellants are requesting a reversal of the order.

This is the latest development in the two-year case, with a group of Florida medical cannabis patients arguing 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.

Former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (D), who now serves as chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Party, first raised the lawsuit against DOJ in 2022 in her capacity as a state official. She’s no longer party to the lawsuit since leaving office, and her GOP successor has declined to get involved. In the background of this case, voters in the state are set to decide on a broader recreational marijuana legalization initiative on the ballot in November.

“Armed drug users endanger the public in multiple ways,” the Justice Department said in its new filing in the cannabis and guns case, adding that the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Rahimi demonstrated that governments are afforded “significant leeway to enact firearms regulations.”

“Individuals who possess firearms while engaged in regular use of illegal drugs endanger public safety in multiple ways. First, drug users may mishandle firearms—or use firearms to commit crimes—because of ‘drug-induced changes in physiological functions, cognitive ability, and mood.’”

The federal government argued today that people who use medical marijuana in compliance with their state’s laws can be disarmed because they “endanger public safety in multiple ways”, such as being more likely to “mishandle firearms—or use firearms to commit crimes”, “commit… pic.twitter.com/6BnZtj1x2M

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) July 12, 2024

A footnote in DOJ’s brief also argues that the Biden administration’s ongoing move to reschedule marijuana would not undermine the current statute.

The Justice Department has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.

The government revived that argument in the latest briefs, asserting that “illegal drug users can use firearms to commit crimes that fund their drug habit, to engage in violence as part of the drug business or culture, and to commit suicide.”

It also contested the appellants’ position that the ban should not apply to medical cannabis patients who are not actively impaired. The “risks justify disarming unlawful drug users even between periods of drug intoxication,” it said.

Another point DOJ raised that it’s previously argued is the idea that, if the restriction on medical cannabis patients is found to be unconstitutional, it would cause a domino effect where governments would no longer be able to enforce gun restrictions on any users of controlled substances, “including cocaine, fentanyl, and methamphetamines.”

“That approach is plainly unworkable and would cast doubt not only on the longstanding provision of federal law at issue here,” it said.

On the other side, attorneys for the medical cannabis patients who are challenging the constitutionality of the gun ban said in their brief that there is a clear distinction between the domestic violence case at the center of Rahimi and the right of people who use marijuana in compliance with state laws to buy and possess firearms.

In the former case, a person was convicted of shooting a gun, being subject to a restraining order and continuing to face allegations of acts of violence, it said. “The latter simply ingest marijuana in reliance upon their state’s law, their doctor’s recommendation, and Congress’ express protection of such action.”

“There is no reasonable argument (be it historical or logical) in which Rahimi is law abiding or responsible and the Appellants are not,” the brief said. “Yet, the Supreme Court did not declare Rahimi to be wholly excluded from the Second Amendment’s protections.”

The appellants also disputed the Justice Department’s attempts to link historical laws barring people who are intoxicated or mentally ill from owning guns with those who use cannabis in a state-legal medical context.

The brief says that “Appellants seek only narrow, common-sense relief. Any risk of firearm misuse they pose can be mitigated by prohibited the possession of a firearm while they are under the influence of marijuana.”

“The historical laws and traditions relied upon in Rahimi make clear that the Appellants may not be constitutionally disarmed for their medical marijuana use,” the brief says, seeking an order of dismissal of the district court’s ruling.

These developments about a month after President Joe Biden’s 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 there are “millions of marijuana users” who own guns but should not be prosecuted.

Attorneys for Hunter Biden had similarly argued that prosecutors were applying an unconstitutional statute that would criminalize millions of marijuana consumers acting in compliance with state law if broadly enforced.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking more than 1,500 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

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 remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.

Colorado organizers are also working to qualify a prospective state ballot measure that would remove a barrier around the issuance of concealed handgun permits, specifying that whether someone is an “unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana” should be determined “only as provided in state law and regulations.”

Last year, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled last year that the ban prohibiting people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, with the judge stating that the federal government’s justification for upholding the law is “concerning.”

In U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a judge ruled last April that banning people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional—and it said the same legal principle also applies to the sale and transfer of guns.

Last August, meanwhile, ATF sent a letter to Arkansas officials saying that the state’s recently enacted law permitting medical cannabis patients to obtain concealed carry gun licenses “creates an unacceptable risk,” and could jeopardize the state’s federally approved alternative firearm licensing policy.

Shortly after Minnesota’s governor signed a legalization bill into law last year, the agency issued a reminder emphasizing that people who use cannabis are barred from possessing and purchases guns and ammunition “until” federal prohibition ends.

In 2020, ATF issued an advisory specifically targeting Michigan that requires gun sellers to conduct federal background checks on all unlicensed gun buyers because it said the state’s cannabis laws had enabled “habitual marijuana users” and other disqualified individuals to obtain firearms illegally.

The Hawaii attorney general’s office recently released data showing that, of the roughly 500 firearm permit applications denied by officials in the state last year, more than 40 percent were rejected because of applicants’ status as medical marijuana patients.

Read the DOJ and medical cannabis patient briefs in the federal gun ban case below: 

Pennsylvania Dispensaries Omitted From Medical Marijuana Industry 280E Tax Relief Due To Drafting Error In Bill Governor Signed