Federal charges against a non-violent, cannabis-using gun owner were unconstitutional.
A federal appeals court panel upheld a lower court’s ruling on Wednesday, declaring that federal charges against a non-violent, cannabis-using gun owner were unconstitutional.
“The short of it is that our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon,” the court wrote in the new opinion, “but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”
Mental Defectives?
Judges have also contested assertions made by Department of Justice attorneys that individuals who use cannabis pose a greater danger than their fellow Americans.
“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.”
The DOJ has contended in this and other recent legal proceedings that the federal prohibition on gun and ammunition possession by individuals who use marijuana aligns with historical limitations on gun ownership, including those applied to individuals deemed mentally defective and others whose firearm possession poses a risk to public safety.
The Fifth Circuit panel disagreed.
“We must ask: why was severe mental illness a reason the Founders disarmed people, and is that ‘why’ ‘relevantly similar’ to § 922(g)(3)?”
Referring to the legal provisions that prohibit individuals who engage in the use of illegal drugs from owning firearms.
Judges also said the government failed to demonstrate that lawful restrictions on gun ownership by domestic abusers or the mentally ill were sufficiently similar to its law against firearm possession by drug users.
“Marijuana user or not,” opined the court, “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.”
“Laws designed to disarm the severely mentally ill do not justify depriving those of sound mind of their Second Amendment rights,” the court wrote. “The analogy stands only if someone is so intoxicated as to be in a state comparable to ‘lunacy.’”
Legal Help
If you’re facing charges for a firearm offense while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance in Michigan, it’s essential to seek legal counsel immediately. A trained and experienced DUI attorney can provide guidance potentially helping to mitigate penalties or even challenge the charges.
Legal defense Attorney Michael Komorn is trained and certified in Field Sobriety Tests (FST), Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus and the infamous breathalyzer and has been representing clients charged with DUI and alleged crimes since 1993. Call Komorn Law 248-357-2550 when you’re ready to challenge DUI or any alleged criminal charges.
DOJ has made similar arguments in a case in a separate case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
In that matter, a group of Florida medical cannabis patients contends that their Second Amendment rights are being violated because they cannot lawfully buy firearms so long as they are using cannabis as medicine, despite acting in compliance with state law.
Meanwhile back at the ranch…
The Biden administration, meanwhile, argues that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.”
Probably until October 2024
Last year, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.
Earlier this year, President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was found guilty by a federal jury of breaching the law by purchasing and possessing a firearm while actively using crack cocaine.
Cases
The case, U.S. v. Connelly, is one of a handful of federal court cases.
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.
Read the rest here US Court of Appeals – 5th District US v Conelly – Non Violent Cannabis User and Firearms
Recent
![Nuclear waste headed to southeast Michigan landfill](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Michigan-Van-Buren-Park-Beach-Nuclear-Waste-Kids-Fountains.jpg)
Nuclear waste headed to southeast Michigan landfill
What happened to the nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project? It's coming to Michigan so New York can be a cleaner place.August 2024, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is transporting nuclear waste from the Manhattan Project (Read it) to the Wayne Disposal facility in...
![Video kept family shows police force, not drugs, killed son](https://komornlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Police-beating-Inhumae-Treatment.jpg)
Video kept family shows police force, not drugs, killed son
police and paramedics inflicted “inhumane acts of violence”A mother has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that, while her son was experiencing a seizure in his Tennessee apartment, police and paramedics inflicted “inhumane acts of violence” on the 23-year-old instead...
Other Articles
When Can Your Silence Be Used Against You in a Legal Situation?
US Supreme Court - Salinas v. TexasWhen Can Silence Be Used Against You? In the realm of criminal law, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals critical protections, including the right to remain silent and the right against...
Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment
Supreme Court 8-1 Gun Possession Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape Forever!Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term...
Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests
Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the...
People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights
Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ. Introduction In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan...