Multiple Federal and State Cases Highlight Confusing Regulatory Landscape
As we have previously covered, courts have been struggling to grapple with regulations surrounding marijuana users and the application of federal rules that forbid drug users from owning and possessing firearms, particularly as marijuana is increasingly legalized to some degree at the state level. Recently, a federal judge in Rhode Island, Judge John J. McConnell Jr., dismissed two criminal cases which charged the individuals with violating federal law because they unlawfully possessed firearms while being regular users of marijuana. Given the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which we have previously covered, the judge said that the sweeping ban on gun ownership for marijuana users was not grounded in historical precedent, saying, “the government offers no Founding-era law or practice of disarming ordinary citizens ‘even if their intoxication was routine’” in dismissing the marijuana related charges. McConnell is not the only federal judge who has reached this conclusion, with different federal judges across the United States finding that the occasional drug use of an individual shouldn’t disqualify an individual’s Second Amendment rights, despite a separate federal statute that prohibits firearm possession for users of a controlled substance. While he acknowledged that other courts within the Circuit have ruled differently when it comes to drug users, the judge could not justify the sweeping prohibition or the burden it places on marijuana users’ Second Amendment rights, which would preempt any federal regulation given it’s a Constitutional right.
The actions taken by this judge are part of a larger change to the legal landscape where judges are grappling with the effects of the varying legalization of marijuana in many states. For example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives recently warned Kentucky residents that if they planned on participating in the state’s upcoming legalized medical marijuana program, they must “make the decision to divest themselves of those firearms” so as to not violate federal law, which has been met with pushback from state lawmakers and the governor of Kentucky. The DOJ recently claimed that the federal government should be allowed to continue to deny marijuana users access to guns, in part, because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly which makes marijuana users fall under the classification of “dangerous” individuals which they argue has a long history that predates the Second Amendment. Despite this position, expect further challenges to these prohibitions in the future. Anyone who has been unable to possess a firearm due to their history of marijuana use should pay attention to any legal developments in the courts and consult with an attorney to see if there is currently an avenue to challenge the prohibition and have their rights restored.
