U.S. Supreme Court Sends Marijuana And Gun Case Back To Lower Court, Emboldening DOJ’s Defense Of Firearm Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court has sent a case concerning gun rights for marijuana consumers back down to a lower court after issuing a potentially relevant ruling in a separate Second Amendment case, and the Justice Department is now reiterating its position that cannabis use warrants a ban on firearm ownership.

The high court has remanded several gun cases to their respective lower courts in light of the ruling in United States v. Rahimi, which affirmed the government’s right to restrict gun rights for a man with restraining orders for domestic violence. The cases heading back to lower levels include at least one related to the cannabis ban, and DOJ is now arguing that the SCOTUS decision “undermines” a federal court’s ruling that deemed the prohibition for marijuana consumers to be unconstitutional last year.

In a supplemental letter brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where the United States vs. Daniels case was remanded by SCOTUS, the Justice Department said history “supports the government’s authority to disarm categories of persons whose firearm possession would endanger themselves or others.”

“Consistent with that principle, Congress may temporarily disarm unlawful users of controlled substances during periods of active drug use, when they present a special danger of firearm misuse,” it said. “The Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi also is in tension with this Court’s opinion in United States v. Daniels, which made some of the very methodological errors that Rahimi corrected to find Section 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to a marijuana user. The district court’s judgment should be reversed.”

DOJ has argued in multiple federal cases over the couple year 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 federal government argued today that Rahimi allows the disarmament of marijuana users, saying their “unlawful use of illegal intoxicants presents a heightened risk of harm to themselves or others”. The government’s letter also includes its first post-Rahimi argument for why… pic.twitter.com/ZpAdrDFGCy

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 28, 2024

That position has been challenged in various lawsuits after a prior Supreme Court ruling stipulating that gun restrictions must have a historical analogue, with plaintiffs arguing that the ban being applied to cannabis consumers is not analogous and, therefore, represents a violation of the Second Amendment.

With the latest ruling in Rahimi, however, DOJ is evidently feeling emboldened.

“Three longstanding regimes support the government’s authority to disarm those whose unlawful use of illegal intoxicants presents a heightened risk of harm to themselves or others: historical laws regulating firearm possession and use by those under the influence of alcohol, historical practices disarming categories of individuals whose firearm possession presented a special danger to themselves or others, and historical restrictions on firearm possession by the mentally ill,” it said in the letter to the Fifth Circuit.

The temporary prohibition on people who are current marijuana users “fits neatly within the tradition of keeping firearms out of the hands of the intoxicated, those who threaten others, and the mentally ill,” DOJ said, arguing that the federal district court’s ruling in Daniels should be reversed.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court remanded Daniels and other gun cases back to lower courts for reconsideration in light of Rahimi.

In another filing on Monday, DOJ also defended the gun ban that was contested in a separate case out of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, arguing that the policy is constitutional in part because “the widespread unlawful use of controlled substances” was “unprecedented at the founding” of the country.

The federal government argues that the ban on gun ownership by marijuana users is constitutional under Rahimi because “the widespread unlawful use of controlled substances” was “unprecedented at the founding”: https://t.co/q014J7893Z pic.twitter.com/jSrSqcHwp1

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) July 2, 2024

These developments come weeks 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.

German Marijuana Clubs Can Now Officially Launch Under Country’s Legalization Law, Though States Have Varying Rules