The law that bans marijuana users, even those who have medical marijuana licenses in states that legalize medical marijuana use, from possessing of purchasing firearms has faced lots of challenges lately.
Now, before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case U.S. v. Hemani, things have changed somewhat, with President Donald Trump recently rescheduling pot to Schedule III. However, the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to take an anti-Second Amendment stance on the issue, as it has a few other times during the second Trump Administration.
The case challenges the federal law that bars firearm possession by anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The prohibition applies to marijuana users regardless of whether marijuana is legal under state law or used for medicinal purposes.
In a response brief filed with the Supreme Court on February 19, the DOJ argued in favor of the law, asking the court to uphold the provision.
“Respondent also urges that even if habitual users of other drugs could be deemed categorically dangerous, marijuana is too ubiquitous,” DOJ stated in the brief. “But millions of Americans also regularly abuse opioids and cocaine. Whether marijuana is properly scheduled and how dangerous it is are questions the Controlled Substances Act leaves to the Executive Branch.”
The DOJ also stressed in its brief that pot “remains a Schedule I drug, subject to the Controlled Substances Act’s most stringent restrictions.”
“That future rescheduling does not affect respondent’s constitutional defense against his conviction for a past offense,” it stated. “Regardless, Schedule III classification reflects that a drug ‘has a potential for abuse,’ albeit ‘less than’ Schedules I and II, and that its abuse ‘may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.’”
Gun-rights groups, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), are taking the other side of the issue, urging the Supreme Court to strike down the law and protect the rights of pot users.
In a brief filed with the court last month, the NRA wrote: “To justify firearms prohibition for marijuana users when they are not intoxicated, the government must prove that the ban is consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That tradition supports restrictions on the use of firearms while intoxicated, but it does not support disarming individuals when they are sober merely because they sometimes use intoxicants.”
The brief further argues that while Bruen requires the government to prove that its ban “is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the government cites conspicuously few firearm regulations in justifying the law.
“Instead, the government relies on regulations that at most incidentally affected firearm possession: civil commitment, vagrancy, and surety laws,” the brief argues. “Attempting to shoehorn these regulations into a historical tradition of disarmament, the government claims that they targeted people who presented well-recognized dangers.”