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
People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024
People who are going to need a LawyerMan so drunk field sobriety tests were ‘too dangerous’ sentenced to life in prison for repeated DWI convictions‘Several terabytes’: Diddy prosecutors shed light on ‘voluminous’ discovery, including iCloud accounts and dozens of...
Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court
Oral arguments in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank will beginThe justices are set to review securities law as they hear arguments in a significant case linked to the 2015 data breach involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. The tech giant’s effort to fend off federal...
Other Articles
Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan
Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan.In Michigan, the laws surrounding firearms are strict, especially when it comes to felony firearm possession. If you’re charged with a felony and found to be in possession of a firearm during the crime, the penalties can be...
Do the passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?
Do Passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights against Search and Seizure?Passengers in a vehicle are afforded Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, though the scope of these rights varies based on the specific circumstances...
Probable Cause v Reasonable Suspicion
What's the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion?Definition of Probable Cause Probable cause refers to the belief held by a reasonable person that a crime is currently being committed, has already been committed, or is likely to be committed in...
Are there exceptions that justify warrantless searches?
Exceptions to your 4th Amendment Rights against Search and Seizure (more to come).The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution safeguards citizens by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and generally mandates the necessity of a warrant for such intrusions....
