NRA, NORML File Briefs in Supreme Court Case Challenging Federal Firearms Ban for Cannabis Consumers
The National Rifle Association (NRA), Independence Institute, and FPC Action Foundation joined the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) in the filing of amicus briefs in United States v. Hemani – a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges the federal prohibition of the possession of firearms by anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
The brief from the NRA, Independence Institute, and FPC, notes that throughout history, restrictions on discharging firearms by intoxicated persons, along with sales to intoxicated persons, were imposed by U.S. states and territories, but those restrictions ended when the individual was sober. The brief further notes that “Alcohol was ubiquitous in early America” and that “hemp has been cultivated in America since Jamestown.”
The NRA-led brief also takes aim at the brief filed in support of the ban by Smart Approaches to Marijuana that contends cannabis legalization has led to an increase in bullying and that cannabis potency “is greater than before.” The NRA amicus brief points to a study funded by the National Institute of Justice that examined the effects of cannabis legalization on crime in Colorado and Washington which found that cannabis “legalization and sales have had minimal to no effect on major crimes” in those states, finding “no statistically significant long-term effects of recreational cannabis laws or the initiation of retail sales on violent or property crime rates in these states.”
“This Court should hold [the federal statute] unconstitutional as applied to Hemani because the government failed to demonstrate that disarming him based on marijuana use is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” — Brief of the National Rifle Association of America, FPC Action Foundation, and Independence Institute as Amici Curiae In Support of the Respondent
NORML’s brief also notes the historical role of cannabis in the U.S., noting “For centuries, Americans cultivated, consumed, and prescribed cannabis without any suggestion that doing so warranted loss of firearms rights. And state-legal medical cannabis users readily continue to do so today with the protection of Congress.”
“The historical analogs the government identifies concern temporary restrictions on carrying or firing weapons while intoxicated or on persons adjudged dangerous – not blanket bans on all users of a disfavored substance,” the brief states.
The brief contends that cannabis consumers “are among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms the Second Amendment protects.”
“For centuries, Americans cultivated, consumed, and prescribed cannabis without any suggestion that doing so warranted the loss of firearms rights,” the brief states. “State-authorized medical cannabis patients continue to do so today, under regimes Congress has repeatedly chosen to protect.”