Weed legalization may be spreading across the nation, but it comes with limits. One of the most talked about is the ongoing federal ban on ownership of guns by cannabis consumers. Potential gun buyers must affirm they are not an “unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana” on purchase applications. Despite cannabis being legal in the majority of states, the fact that it remains a Schedule I substance means that any weed user who possesses a firearm is breaking federal law. However, that policy could soon be upended after yet another appeals court deemed it unconstitutional.
OG Article: here
View our Fair Use Policy: here
As first reported by Marijuana Moment, an appeals court panel in Texas ruled in favor of a woman who had been charged with federal crimes. Paola Connelly, whom the court referred to as a “non-violent, marijuana smoking gun owner,” became the subject of an investigation after officers responded to a domestic dispute, finding her in possession of a pistol as her husband brandished a shotgun.
In their ruling, the appeals court panel said that restrictions on an intoxicated person carrying a firearm are one thing, but they should not extend beyond that.
“The short of it is that our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon,” the opinion read, “but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”
The panel compared cannabis to alcohol, saying the government does not restrict drinkers from possessing guns. They also pushed back on the idea that marijuana users are more dangerous than non-users, a claim the feds have used to justify their ban. The Justice Department has also argued that cannabis causes mental illness and that pot smokers are less likely to store their firearms safely.
The ruling is in line with a 2023 appeals court decision. A three-judge panel threw out the conviction of a man sentenced to four years in prison for possessing a half gram of cannabis and two guns. They declared that a policy of disarming an individual for getting high or drunk at some point in their lives is not in line with the Second Amendment.
“Throughout American history, laws have regulated the combination of guns and intoxicating substances. But at no point in the 18th or 19th century did the government disarm individuals who used drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another,” the ruling read.
As judges continue to rule the federal ban on firearm ownership for cannabis consumers unconstitutional, it’s possible the policy could soon see a radical change. And if cannabis were to become a Schedule III substance or decriminalized entirely, many wonder if people currently convicted of non-violent crimes relating to weed and gun possession could see their cases reversed. At the very least, the millions of Americans who consume cannabis may have their right to bear arms reinstated.
Comments