U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled that prohibiting cannabis users from owning firearms was unconstitutional. Also, the court ruled that the same legal principle applies for the sale and transfer gun. Paola Connelly from El Paso was convicted on separate charges of possessing and transporting a firearm in 2021, while also admitting that she had consumed cannabis.
The Texas case is just one of four federally pending cases involving the government’s policies on marijuana and gun ownership.
Current federal law prohibits cannabis users from purchasing or owning firearms, as they are either an “illegal user” or are addicted to a controlled drug. This ban applies to all users of cannabis, even those who reside in legal states that allow recreational or medical cannabis.
A Federal Ruling Against the Ban
Judge Kathleen Cardone allowed a motion for reconsideration of the case and all charges were dropped last week. Although a previous conviction had been issued by the court, it stated that a recent decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals For the Fifth Circuit warranted a second look. In that case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen it was determined that firearm restrictions had to be compatible with the Second Amendment’s 1791 ratification.
The case filing states that “Quite simply there’s no history of individuals being denied their Second Amendment rights solely or partially due to the use of cannabis.”
Judge Cardone frequently questioned the Justice Department’s efforts to fall back to its usual arguments about cannabis consumption and gun owner, such as comparing the ban with laws against the operation of a firearm while under the influence or gun possession by “unvirtuous”. In addition, she referred to President Biden’s 2022 mass pardon of federal cannabis possession cases.
“…Even though Connelly was convicted for simple marijuana possession, the conviction would be erased by the blanket presidential Pardon of All Such Marijuana Possessions That, Like Connelly’s, Preceded October 6, 2022.” The ruling states even though Biden’s clemency actions didn’t really expunge records.
The Texas DOJ Argument is Dismantled
In addition, the court stated that cannabis possession will only be made a misdemeanor in federal law. “Any historical tradition of disarming illegal individuals does not support disarming Connelly’s alleged cannabis use.” Given that Connelly was never convicted for a cannabis crime, the court resisted the Justice Department’s arguments and ruled in Connelly’s favor. Instead, Connelly admitted that she had used cannabis.
The ruling states that “In summary, the history of disarming illegal individuals seems to principally involve disarming persons convicted of serious offenses after they have been given criminal process.” Section 922(g), on the other hand, allows for disarming those involved in criminal behavior that could lead to misdemeanor or serious criminal charges. However, it does not provide them with the same procedural protections as our criminal justice system. This law is therefore inconsistent with the history of firearm regulation in our nation.
In addition to challenging the claim that marijuana users are dangerous, the court noted that legal cannabis use is now permitted in more than 20 states and that it is a common substance used by many millions of Americans.
Cardone stated, “It is difficult to believe that participating in such a widespread activity can render someone so dangerous or untrustworthy than they should be stripped of their Second Amendment Rights.”
A Similar Rule from a Neighboring Country
This case is similar to a February Oklahoma City decision wherein a federal judge ruled similarly that the prohibition on firearms for cannabis users was unconstitutional. Prosecutors cannot enforce it.
Jared Michael Harrison was the subject of that case. He was stopped by officers in Lawton in Oklahoma when they found marijuana and a loaded revolver inside his vehicle. Harrison claimed he was going to work in a legal cannabis company, but he didn’t have an ID card from the state proving that he is authorized to use medical marijuana.
The charge was challenged by Harrison’s lawyers, who also argued that the ban on firearms is inconsistent with country’s history of regulating firearms. They also cited New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick rejected Harrison’s argument that Harrison was a marijuana user, and said that Harrison should not be stripped of his fundamental rights to own a gun. Wyrick also ruled that the federal ban against firearm ownership “isn’t a constitutionally permissible method of disarming Harrison.”
The full decision of the federal court in Texas is available.
The post Texas Federal Court Rules Firearm Ban for MJ Users Unconstitutional was first published on High Times.
Strain Review: Zashimi from The Prodigal Company