A federal appeals court has ruled again that banning gun ownership for people who occasionally use marijuana is unconstitutional.
OG Article: here
View our Fair Use Policy: here
This decision overturned a conviction in a case called U.S. v. Daniels, which stemmed from what the court described as a prosecutorial “error” by the Biden administration.
On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed its stance, rejecting the Department of Justice’s argument that Patrick Daniels, who was convicted under statute § 922(g)(3), should have been barred from owning guns. This conviction came after a 2022 traffic stop where police found firearms and trace amounts of marijuana in his possession.
Daniels’ case began in a district court, where he was sentenced to four years in prison for owning guns while allegedly being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. But the Fifth Circuit previously overturned that conviction, citing a Supreme Court precedent that requires any law restricting Second Amendment rights to have historical analogues.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices declined to issue a final ruling and sent it back to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration in light of another case about gun ownership and domestic violence.
After hearing new arguments in October, the Fifth Circuit has now issued its final opinion. The three-judge panel concluded that while the gun statute could apply in some circumstances, Daniels’ case didn’t meet the standard. Specifically, they found no evidence that he was under the influence of marijuana at the time of his arrest.
“[T]he government’s burden of proof was too low, as it was not required to convince a jury that Daniels was presently or even regularly intoxicated at the time of arrest,” the court wrote. “And even if the government had persuaded the jury that Daniels was frequently intoxicated, here…the government offers no Founding-era law or practice of disarming ordinary citizens ‘even if their intoxication was routine.’”
The judges unanimously ruled to overturn Daniels’ conviction, stating, “Because of this instructional error, § 922(g)(3) must thus again be held unconstitutional as applied to Daniels.”
The court added, “The government has not pointed to sufficiently analogous historical laws to establish why Daniels himself should be considered presumptively dangerous. And, as explained, even had the government supplied sufficient historical briefing to support a theory of dangerousness, the jury instruction employed in Daniels’s trial was too open-ended to support his conviction because it left open the possibility that Daniels had not even unlawfully used a controlled substance in several weeks.”
Despite the ruling, the court made it clear this isn’t a “get-out-of-jail-free card” for others charged under the statute. “The government remains free to reprosecute Daniels under a theory consistent with a proper understanding of the Second Amendment,” the judges noted.
This decision highlights a growing policy debate about cannabis and gun rights, especially as marijuana legalization expands across the country. For instance, a federal judge in El Paso recently ruled in favor of a defendant who challenged the gun ban for habitual marijuana users, calling the prohibition unconstitutional.
Elsewhere, courts are also grappling with these issues. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently heard arguments in a case questioning whether the gun ban applies broadly or only in specific circumstances. Meanwhile, the Justice Department (DOJ) continues to argue that the ban is justified, likening it to historical laws that disarmed groups deemed dangerous, such as people with mental illnesses or those under the influence of substances.
The DOJ has also pointed to a recent Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Rahimi, to defend the ban, arguing that restricting gun rights for cannabis users is consistent with disarming individuals who pose a public safety risk. In one case involving Florida medical marijuana patients, the DOJ argued that such users “endanger public safety,” have a higher risk of suicide, and are more likely to commit crimes to support their drug use.
As these legal battles unfold, some states are taking their own steps. For example, a Pennsylvania lawmaker recently proposed a bill to protect medical marijuana patients’ gun rights, while Colorado activists attempted—but failed—to get a similar initiative on the ballot.
At the same time, federal agencies are doubling down on enforcement. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recently reminded Kentucky residents that participating in the state’s new medical marijuana program would bar them from legally owning or purchasing firearms under federal law. While existing gun owners aren’t required to turn over their firearms, those wanting to comply with federal law would need to give them up voluntarily.
This issue continues to highlight the tension between federal gun laws and evolving state marijuana policies, setting the stage for ongoing debates in courts and legislatures alike.
Комментарии