Appeals Court Says Banning Marijuana User From Gun Ownership Is Unconstitutional

A federal appeals court has ruled that banning a marijuana user from gun ownership is unconstitutional.

At a Glance

A federal appeals court ruled in favor of Paola Connelly, declaring charges against her for owning a firearm as a marijuana user unconstitutional.
The court stated historical traditions support limits on intoxicated individuals carrying weapons but not disarming sober individuals based on past substance use.
Judges rejected DOJ claims that marijuana users are inherently more dangerous.
The ruling may impact other cases in the future.

Federal Appeals Court Ruling

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that federal charges against Paola Connelly, a Texas woman, for owning a firearm as a cannabis user are unconstitutional. The court’s decision challenges the long-standing federal prohibition under § 922(g)(3), which bans gun ownership by marijuana users. The ruling emphasizes that such a ban infringes upon Second Amendment rights without sufficient historical precedent or evidence of increased danger.

Judges in the case noted that while historical traditions support some limits on intoxicated individuals carrying weapons, they do not support disarming sober individuals based solely on past use. The court also rejected the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) claims that marijuana users pose inherent dangers. The implications of this decision are significant and may influence other cases questioning similar statutes.

Marijuana user cannot be banned from gun ownership, US court rules https://t.co/dIO1ZVPqoA pic.twitter.com/LElWCXJf3V

— Reuters (@Reuters) August 28, 2024

The Fifth Circuit panel articulated that restrictions on the mentally ill or dangerous individuals do not apply to nonviolent, occasional drug users who are of sound mind. The court underscored that historical prohibitions focused on disarming dangerous persons, a category not applicable to individuals like Connelly. By doing so, the court effectively argued that the federal statute contradicts the Second Amendment’s plain text.

“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, “but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”

The Broader Issue

This is not the first time a court has ruled gun restrictions on marijuana users unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, for instance, threw out charges against a man accused of violating the firearms ban on marijuana users back in early 2023. Another court also argued later in the year that drug users couldn’t be barred from owning guns.

States have taken varied approaches to this issue. Some states have enacted laws either restricting or preserving gun rights related to marijuana use, reflecting the ongoing national debate over federalism and states’ rights versus federal oversight. The impact of this decision may prompt further legal challenges and potentially influence state-level legislation regarding gun ownership and drug use.

This complex issue could shape future interpretations of the Second Amendment, particularly in cases involving nonviolent, occasional drug users. The debate over gun rights and marijuana use continues, especially considering the evolving legal landscape of marijuana in the United States.