Lawyers faced off in the Fifth Circuit Court over the federal government’s authority to disarm individuals who use marijuana. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that a person’s recent marijuana use is sufficient to disqualify them from legally possessing a firearm. However, judges expressed skepticism about this interpretation, referring to a recent ruling within the circuit that states disarming sober individuals based on past substance use is unconstitutional.
The case, U.S. v. Daniels, has significant implications for gun ownership rights among marijuana users. Earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit had ruled in favor of Daniels, stating that the federal statute preventing “unlawful users” of drugs from possessing firearms was unconstitutional. The argument centered on whether the court’s previous decision in U.S. v. Connelly was binding, which established that there should be a “tight temporal nexus” between marijuana use and firearm possession.
Federal attorney Jonathan D. Buckner suggested revisiting the Connelly decision, insisting that convictions could occur if individuals are determined to be “active users,” even if their use is not contemporaneous with firearm possession. In contrast, Kimberly G. Gore, representing Daniels, argued that the government was attempting to broaden its ability to restrict Second Amendment rights unjustly.
The court appeared hesitant to outright dismiss Daniels’s conviction but indicated that a remand for retrial could provide an opportunity for prosecutors to present evidence of Daniels’s active marijuana use at the time of his firearm possession.
The DOJ’s stance on this issue reflects a broader trend across the country, where courts are grappling with the constitutionality of prohibiting gun ownership for marijuana users. The Biden administration has maintained that marijuana consumers pose a public safety risk, reinforcing the argument for restricting their Second Amendment rights.
As discussions continue, various state legislatures have begun to address the tension between gun rights and marijuana use, with some seeking to clarify or amend laws to protect the rights of medical cannabis patients. The outcome of the Daniels case could set a precedent for similar cases in the future, underscoring the ongoing debate over gun rights in the context of evolving marijuana laws.
For more updates on cannabis industry news and business insights, subscribe to our daily newsletter.
