“Neither past nor current cannabis use should automatically preclude someone from legal protections explicitly provided by the US Constitution.”
Judges on the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals have once again rejected arguments that cannabis consumers can be barred federally owning firearms.
On Wednesday, the Court decided in US v Connelly that Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights cannot be infringed solely based upon one’s prior substance use. In its opinion, judges wrote: “[T]here is no historical justification for disarming citizens of sound mind [and] there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence. … Marijuana user or not, [the defendant] is a member of our political community and thus has a presumptive right to bear arms. By infringing on that right, 922(g)(3) contradicts the Second Amendment’s plain text.”
Throughout its opinion, the Court acknowledged that no historical precedent exists for stripping alcoholics of their 2nd Amendment rights.
It concluded: “The government provides no meaningful response to the fact that neither Congress nor the states disarmed alcoholics, the group most closely analogous to marijuana users in the 18th and 19th centuries. … Our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, … but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”
The ruling marks the second time in recent years that judges on the 5th Circuit have held that federal statutes should not be applied so broadly that it criminalizes all gun owners with a history of marijuana use. In a 2023 opinion, judges similarly decided neither “history [nor] tradition … justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage.” NORML’s Legal Committee filed an amicus (aka friend of the court) brief in that case calling on the court to find the ban unconstitutional.
District Court judges in Oklahoma and Texas have recently issued similar opinions.
Commenting on the rulings, NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “Neither past nor current cannabis use should automatically preclude someone from legal protections explicitly provided by the US Constitution.” However, he cautioned that these rulings are not universally applicable or binding nationwide. “Either the Supreme Court or Congress need to ultimately resolve this issue so that responsible cannabis consumers are no longer threatened with federal prison terms simply for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.”
A separate legal challenge to the federal government’s ban, initially brought by former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (who now serves as a member of NORML’s Board of Directors) and several medical cannabis patients, remains pending in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Members of NORML’s Legal Committee have also filed an amicus brief in that case.
This article was republished from NORML. You can read the original version here.
