Longstanding federal legislation making it illegal for those with marijuana convictions to be in possession of firearms has been deemed unconstitutional, according to a ruling by a federal judge in Oklahoma’s Western District.
To my knowledge, this is the first time a federal court has decided against the government’s expansive interpretation of a 1968 law barring the possession or sale of a handgun to an “unlawful user” of a federally banned substance.
The federal government’s interpretation of the law was supported in 2016 by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reasoned that marijuana users “are more likely to be implicated in violent crimes,” therefore the ban “furthers the Government’s interest in reducing gun violence.”
A judge ruled against this line of thinking last week, saying, “the mere use of marijuana does not imply that someone is, in reality, violent” or has a “proclivity for violence.” The judge ruled that “[t]he mere smoking of marijuana contains none of the qualities that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports.”
Marijuana use is not inherently aggressive or dangerous, despite the fact that it is now legal in Oklahoma and can be purchased at over 2,000 different types of stores across the state. Certainly not a “crime of violence.” As for “the actual use or threatened use of force,” that’s not a part of it either. And just because a lawmaker says so doesn’t make marijuana use suddenly aggressive, threatening, or violent.
Here we are, however, with the federal government saying that [the defendant’s] mere position as a user of marijuana warrants revoking his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that this method of disarming [the defendant] is not constitutionally permissible.
Attorney and NORML member Joseph Bondy praised the decision, saying, “In holding mere use of marijuana as grounds to strip a person’s core right to possess a firearm to be unconstitutional, the judge sagely rejected federal prosecutors’ fantastical arguments that cannabis users are ‘unvirtuous,’ ‘presumptively risky,’ ‘dangerous lunatics,’ with ‘difficulty exercising self-control.
who should therefore never possess a Nevertheless, as the court said, it is not consistent with our nation’s tradition of only disarming those who have proved their dangerousness by actual violent or threatening action to restrict weapons possession only on the basis that a person consumes marijuana.
In light of the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling from last year, it’s possible that this decision will soon be followed by others throughout the country. It’s expected that the Justice Department will file an appeal of the decision.
Separately, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is still considering a challenge to the federal government’s interpretation of the 1968 statute that was initially brought by former Florida Agricultural Commissioner Nikki Fried and numerous medicinal cannabis users.
The NORML Legal Committee is currently drafting an amicus brief to be submitted in support of the plaintiff in that case. Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV) filed a bill last month that would make it legal for people with medical marijuana cards to own and keep weapons. U.S. v. James Michael Harrison is the official name of the case.
