Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that marijuana users are not “dangerous” person and cannot be disarmed under the Second Amendment and the ban against gun ownership by weed users is “inconsistent with our history and tradition of firearms regulations.” As the court ruled, “our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon…but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”
Chalk up another win for Bruen.
The facts of the case were thus . . .
Paola Connelly is a non-violent, marijuana smoking gunowner. El Paso police came to her house in response to a “shots fired” call. When they arrived, they saw John, Paola’s husband, standing at their neighbor’s door firing a shotgun. After arresting him, they spoke with Paola, who indicated that she would at times smoke marijuana as a sleep aid and for anxiety. A sweep revealed that the Connellys’ home contained drug paraphernalia and several firearms, including firearms owned by Paola. There was no indication that Paola was intoxicated at the time.
The Fifth Circuit panel concluded that . . .
Marijuana user or not, Paola is a member of our political community and thus has a presumptive right to bear arms. By infringing on that right, 922(g)(3) contradicts the Second Amendment’s plain text.
Second Amendment rights still stand, as the Court ruled, as long as you’re not under the influence.
Just as there is no historical justification for disarming citizens of sound mind, there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.
And despite the DOJ’s arguments, marijuana users aren’t inherently “dangerous.”
Nor, contrary to what the government contends, do restrictions on the mentally ill or more generalized traditions of disarming “dangerous” persons apply to nonviolent, occasional drug users when of sound mind.
Ultimately, the Court sees no difference between alcohol use and marijuana use.
As applied to Paola, § 922(g)(3) restricts her rights more than would any of the historical and traditional laws highlighted by the government. While older laws’ bans on “carry” may be analogous to § 922(g)(3)’s ban on “possess[ion],” there is a substantial difference between an actively intoxicated person and an “unlawful user” under § 922(g)(3). …
Paola stated that she would at times partake as a sleep aid or to help with anxiety, but we do not know how much she used at those times or when she last used, and there is no evidence that she was intoxicated at the time she was arrested. Indeed, under the government’s reasoning, Congress could (if it wanted to) ban gun possession by anyone who has multiple alcoholic drinks a week from possessing guns based on the intoxicated carry laws.
The Fifth Circuit upheld a District Court ruling that the charges against Paola violated her Second Amendment rights. They made it clear, however, that their ruling is narrow.
[This] holding is narrow. There undoubtedly exist circumstances where § 922(g)(3) may apply constitutionally, such as when it bans a presently intoxicated person from carrying firearms . . .
You can read the full ruling here. The government will undoubtedly appeal the ruling. Watch this space.
I’m not so sure the government will actually appeal this one. The last thing the current administration wants is give SCOTUS an “easy” Bruen test case like this — I think they want to try and take up cases where a straightforward application of Bruen will yield results that will make Barrett and Roberts (and perhaps Kavanaugh) queasy (e.g., Rahimi, the recent machinegun case, etc.), and thus hope to further weaken the strict application of Bruen.
Plus, the feds have 90 days to file a cert petition. If PDT wins the election, the last thing the current DoJ would want is a pending cert petition that would be argued *after* they leave office, which the incoming administration could do a swan dive on and thus cause an expansion of Bruen. Better for them to wait and see who wins the election, and if PDT does then they would allow the cert clock to expire before they leave office.
“(e.g., Rahimi, the recent machinegun case, etc.),”
Rahimi seems to have provided a path around Bruen. Rather than strict adherence to Bruen, SC created a new analysis/standard where “kinda/sorta/close enough” is sufficient for “text, tradition, history”; preponderance of the evidence.
i’ll give it a try ——–1 – second hand smoke, (starting with tobacco products), is known affect those near by, probably more in an enclosed structure.
2 – the spouse of the smoker was observed at a neighbor’s dwelling, firing a shotgun, (something else that i am sure is known to affect others.
And despite the DOJ’s arguments, marijuana users aren’t inherently “dangerous.”
I’m going to catch some heat for this, but I’m adamant in my stance that marijuana users can absolutely be dangerous, so let’s avoid overly broad strokes with this pro-2A conversation and try to argue they’re not. I’ve seen it myself several times. Watched a former co-worker (who reported to work high, as later proven in a drug test) put a forklift through a wall due to compromised ability to handle machinery. Knew another person (extended family relative) who was high lose his life as a result of his actions while stoned. And so on.
A person should absolutely be able to have a drink and own a gun. Want to go so far as to get drunk? Go ahead…just don’t handle a gun until you’re sober. Likewise, a person should be able to consume cannabis and own a gun. Want to go so far as to get baked? Go ahead…just don’t handle a gun until you’re sober. People should not be prohibited from ownership just because they smoked a joint a while back, but carrying a deadly weapon is a deadly serious responsibility.
I myself will enjoy a good ale from time to time, but I carry, so I’m acutely aware of the potential of a DGU leading to charges or lawsuit against me. Any zealous D.A. would likely ask if I were under the influence of any substance at the time I had to defend myself. I would not want to be a defendant who fired his gun soon after toking a joint.
Hmm. Moderated. I wonder if it’s because I used the same words mentioned in the article? Let’s test this and see…by modifying the spelling of two words:
And despite the DOJ’s arguments, mar!juana users aren’t inherently “dangerous.”
I’m going to catch some heat for this, but I’m adamant in my stance that mar!juana users can absolutely be dangerous, so let’s avoid overly broad strokes with this pro-2A conversation and try to argue they’re not. I’ve seen it myself several times. Watched a former co-worker (who reported to work high, as later proven in a drug test) put a forklift through a wall due to compromised ability to handle machinery. Knew another person (extended family relative) who was high lose his life as a result of his actions while stoned. And so on.
A person should absolutely be able to have a drink and own a gun. Want to go so far as to get drunk? Go ahead…just don’t handle a gun until you’re sober. Likewise, a person should be able to consume cannab!s and own a gun. Want to go so far as to get baked? Go ahead…just don’t handle a gun until you’re sober. People should not be prohibited from ownership just because they smoked a joint a while back, but carrying a deadly weapon is a deadly serious responsibility.
I myself will enjoy a good ale from time to time, but I carry, so I’m acutely aware of the potential of a DGU leading to charges or lawsuit against me. Any zealous D.A. would likely ask if I were under the influence of any substance at the time I had to defend myself. I would not want to be a defendant who fired his gun soon after toking a joint.
Nope. Both times moderated. Oh well. I guess SNW is behaving the same as the old site was. I’m done for the week and will be back in a few days. Don’t have time for guessing and re-writing to get past the Moderation Police today.
I haven’t really tested it because you can’t edit the comments here, but it seems to be the exact same mod system that was in place at TTAG when Dan left. That means d-r-i-n-k / d-r-i-n-k-i-n-g is one of words that gets you moderated.
Tried to post a comment on this story and it refused to accept it. Numerous times. Just like on TTAG. Fortunately the censors at AMMOLAND still believe in free speech, especially when it is factual and provides helpful information to their readers.