In a recent case before a federal appeals court, the Justice Department and medical cannabis patients presented opposing interpretations of the United States v. Rahimi decision, which could significantly impact the federal ban on gun ownership for medical marijuana users.
OG Article: here
View our Fair Use Policy: here
Cannabis patients argue that the federal prohibition on firearm possession for cannabis users is unconstitutional, citing a lack of historical precedent for such restrictions dating back to the Second Amendment’s ratification in 1791. They maintain that being a medical marijuana patient does not inherently disqualify someone from their Second Amendment rights (Marijuana Moment) (Marijuana Moment).
The Justice Department counters this argument by drawing historical analogies to past gun bans for groups deemed dangerous, such as alcoholics and the mentally ill. They assert that cannabis use impairs judgment and cognitive function, thus justifying the restriction. This stance is part of a broader effort to uphold the federal law despite the legal status of medical marijuana in various states (Marijuana Moment).
The case's outcome may hinge on the upcoming Supreme Court decision in Rahimi, which addresses whether individuals with domestic violence injunctions can be disarmed, potentially setting a precedent for the broader issue of what constitutes a "law-abiding" citizen concerning gun rights
Comments