Supreme Court’s Domestic Violence Ruling Underscores Why Marijuana Users Shouldn’t Own Guns, DOJ Tells Federal Court

In a new court filing this week, lawyers for the Justice Department argued that the federal government’s ban on marijuana users owning guns—what it described as “temporary disarmament of unlawful drug users”—is supported by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the government’s ability to limit the Second Amendment rights of people with domestic violence restraining orders.

The cannabis case, United States v. Daniels, was set to be considered by the high court but was among a number of firearms-related cases remanded back to lower courts following last month’s domestic violence ruling.

In its brief filed with the Fifth Circuit on Monday, the government says the Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Rahimi, reinforces the constitutionality of restricting firearms for cannabis consumers, whom it calls “presumptively risky people.”

“In Rahimi, the Supreme Court clarified the methodology for assessing whether a modern regulation is consistent with the history that underpins the Second Amendment,” wrote the government attorneys. “Applying Rahimi on remand, this Court should hold that history and tradition support the Government’s authority to prohibit firearm possession by individuals whose gun possession presents an inherent risk of danger to themselves and others.”

A Fifth Circuit panel previously ruled in favor of the individual in the case, who faced a conviction after admitting to having used cannabis while in possession of a gun. The court said the federal statute known as Section 922(g)(3), which prevents someone who is an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug from buying or possessing firearms, was unconstitutional.

DOJ then appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.

In its new brief, the government writes that the 1968 policy that barred firearm possession by “narcotic addicts, mental defectives…and others whose possession of firearms is contrary to the public interests” is “consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of temporarily prohibiting firearm possession by individuals who present a special danger of misuse armed.”

“This historically justified category includes armed drug users,” the filing continues, citing a concurring opinion in a 1991 Supreme Court case, Harmelin v. Michigan, in which then-Justice Anthony Kennedy linked drugs and crime, writing:

“Quite apart from the pernicious effects on the individual who consumes illegal drugs, such drugs relate to crime in at least three ways: (1) A drug user may commit crime because of drug-induced changes in physiological functions, cognitive ability, and mood; (2) A drug user may commit crime in order to obtain money to buy drugs; and (3) A violent crime may occur as part of the drug business or culture.”

Some studies, the government wrote in the new brief, associate cannabis use with “an altered perception of time, short-term memory loss, impaired perception and motor skills, and even hallucinations.”

“Moreover, according to the Center for Disease Control, people who use marijuana are more likely to develop psychosis and long-lasting mental disorders, including schizophrenia—which is even more likely when the use begins at an early age and is frequent… Marijuana use is also associated with depression, thoughts of suicide, suicide attempts, and suicide,” the brief says. “These findings, by courts and studies, are corroborated by real life stories of people losing their lives in drug deals gone bad.”

The federal government argued today that marijuana users can be banned from owning guns because they are more likely “to develop psychosis and long-lasting mental disorders”, commit suicide, and “los[e] their lives in drug deals gone bad”: https://t.co/Eve8ggcR6A pic.twitter.com/peyMjvnFOm

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) July 29, 2024

Two “particular categories” of people who “present a special danger of misuse” are “the intoxicated and the mentally ill,” says the 13-page document, filed by U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi Todd W. Gee and assistant U.S. attorneys Gaines H. Cleveland and Jonathan D. Buckner. Restrictions on both categories, they added, are backed by historical precedent.

As for the person in the current case, the lawyers argued that the “constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3) is evident when applied to Daniels.” The Fifth Circuit panel erred in its ruling, DOJ said.

“Daniels was not charged with being addicted to a controlled substance; he was charged with being an unlawful user of a controlled substance at the time that he possessed the weapon,” the brief says. “Thus, Daniel’s own illegal conduct in connection with his possession of the firearm posed a risk of dangers to others.”

DOJ lawyers similarly doubled down on the government restriction on firearms by marijuana users earlier this month in a separate case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In that matter, which was also remanded after the Rahimi decision, 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.

The Biden administration, meanwhile, argues 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.”

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.

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 latest DOJ filings come 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.

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.”

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 latest DOJ brief in U.S. v. Daniels below:

Federal Drug Agency Awards $2.9 Million To Study And Improve Cannabis Warning Labels To Communicate Risks Of Use