« US Representatives create new "Bipartisan Second Chance Task Force" | Main | A number of notable capital punishment stories to start the week »
February 5, 2023
Federal judge declares federal law criminalizing marijuana users from gun possession violates Second Amendment
In a post last summer right after the Supreme Court's landmark Second Amendment ruling, I wondered "Are broad drug user gun dispossession statutes now constitutionally suspect after Bruen?". In that post, I flagged the notably broad provision of federal firearms law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which categorically criminalizes any gun possession by anyone who is an "unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." I also noted that, in an era in which marijuana use is legal for medical or recreational use in the vast majority of states but still is federal prohibited, this broad federal criminal "unlawful user" gun dispossession statute could function to criminalize the behaviors of tens of millions of gun-owning Americans.
As detailed in this Reuters article, at least one federal judge had decided that the answer to my query is yes, § 922(g)(3) is constitutionally problematic. Here is how the article describes the ruling:
A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights. U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump in Oklahoma City, on Friday dismissed an indictment against a man charged in August with violating that ban, saying it infringed his right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.
Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison's "mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm." He said using marijuana was "not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act," and noted that Oklahoma is one of a number of states where the drug, still illegal under federal law, can be legally bought for medical uses.
"The mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation's history and tradition of firearms regulation supports," Wyrick wrote. Laura Deskin, a public defender representing Harrison, said the ruling was a "step in the right direction for a large number of Americans who deserve the right to bear arms and protect their homes just like any other American."
The full opinion in this case from Judge Wyrick, which runs 54 pages with nearly 200 footnotes, is available at this link. I am inclined to expect that the US Justice Department will plan to appeal this decision to the Tenth Circuit, and Judge Wyrick's thorough opinion will surely give litigants on any appeal and perhaps elsewhere in the country a lot of chew on.
Some (of many) prior recent related posts:
- By 6-3 vote, SCOTUS expands Second Amendment rights by striking down NY public-carry licensing requirements
- Are broad drug user gun dispossession statutes now constitutionally suspect after Bruen?
- District Court declares § 922(n), which criminalizes a person under indictment from receiving a firearm, to be unconstitutional
- Another district court finds § 922(n), which criminalizes a person under indictment from receiving a firearm, to be unconstitutional
- Notable new district court opinion strikes down federal serial number law but upholds felon possession ban applying Bruen
- New district court opinion "holds that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under Bruen's framework"
- Fifth Circuit panel declares unconstitutional federal prohibition on firearm possession for someone subject to domestic violence restraining order
- Third Circuit panel upholds constitutionality § 922(g)(1)'s felon-in-possession gun prohibition after Bruen
- En banc Third Circuit to reconsider constitutionality of § 922(g)(1)'s felon-in-possession gun prohibition after Bruen
February 5, 2023 at 06:35 PM | Permalink
Comments
In an Order I e-mailed to Doug, Chief U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves has also recently concluded that 922(g)(8) is unConstitutional. See, United States v. Combs, (E.D. Ky. Feb. 3, 2023). Doug, can you add a link to Judge Reeves' Order as an update to this post?
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Feb 8, 2023 9:33:07 AM