Government Asks Supreme Court to Resolve Emerging Issue
As we have previously covered, there are tensions in the law when it comes to the right of an individual to own and handle a firearm (rights which have generally been strengthened in recent years) particularly when that individual also uses drugs, particularly when it comes to marijuana. Although many states have legalized or decriminalized marijuana to some degree, it remains illegal at the federal level. Nonetheless, lower courts have struggled to define where the line is when it comes to gun ownership and drug users. For example, in United States v. Cooper, the Eighth Circuit of Appeals dismissed charges against an individual who was sentenced to three years in prison for possessing a firearm while being a marijuana user, finding that under the standard set by Bruen that, “nothing in its tradition “allows disarmament simply because [the defendant] belongs to a category of people, drug users, that Congress has categorically deemed dangerous.” The Supreme Court is set to discuss whether or not they will hear the case when the Court is in session in September. Such insight would be valuable as Circuits grapple with this issue. For example in another case, United States v. Connelly, the Fifth Circuit found that the law prohibiting the possession of a firearm for an unlawful user of a controlled substance, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), was unconstitutional as it applied to the defendant in that case because as-applied to her circumstances, she admitted, “that she would at times smoke marijuana as a sleep aid and for anxiety.” The court found that while § 922(g)(3) “may apply” to some cases and not run afoul of the Second Amendment right to own a firearm, it only applies, “when it bans a presently intoxicated person from carrying firearms” but not in instances of “a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”
Habitual Versus Past Use Distinction Sought by Federal Government
Perhaps recognizing the limitations of enforcing § 922(g)(3) against all users of controlled substances based on their history, the Federal Government nonetheless remain committed to prohibiting at a minimum “habitual” users of unlawful drugs according to its recently filed reply brief in their petition for Supreme Court review of the case United States v. Hemani. In that case the defendant, Ali Danial Hemani, had text messages that revealed he was a drug dealer of illegal drugs according to the government and they seized a gun, marijuana and cocaine after obtaining a search warrant on his residence and charged him for violating § 922(g)(3). A judge later dismissed the indictment, agreeing that § 922(g)(3) should only apply to presently intoxicated people, or else it is unconstitutional. The government is asking the Supreme Court to not only reverse the decisions of the Fifth Circuit that led to earlier dismissals, but at a minimum in this case see that there is a tradition of disarming habitual users of intoxicants and that the government has a right to regulate habitual users of illegal substances because the statute, “plainly allows a person to regain his ability to possess firearms by ceasing to be a habitual drug user.” Effectively, all that one has to do to have their gun rights restored and not run afoul of the law is to stop using drugs according to the government. Given this defendant’s drug use includes drugs beyond marijuana, they may be inviting the Supreme Court to draw concrete lines between gun rights and the types of drugs individuals have consumed. It will be interesting to watch if/when the Court takes up these cases what conclusions they draw. It is clear that gun enthusiasts, marijuana advocates, recreational drug users, and ordinary citizens are paying attention as the legal and mainstream media continues to cover these developing issues.
