US Supreme Court Could Loosen Law Barring Pot Users From Owning Guns
- The Supreme Court appeared poised to narrow the federal law that prohibits marijuana users from owning guns, showing skepticism about its justification.
- Justices from both liberal and conservative sides questioned the evidence that marijuana use makes individuals dangerous, citing conflicts between federal and state marijuana laws.
- The case challenged historical precedent used to justify the law, with references to laws against “habitual drunkards” contested as not comparable to typical cannabis use.
- Unusual alliances formed in the case, with groups like the ACLU and NRA supporting the marijuana user’s gun rights, while some gun-safety organizations opposed them.
The Supreme Court seemed likely Monday to loosen a federal law that bars marijuana users from owning guns in a case that crossed typical political lines.
A majority of justices appeared to lean toward a narrow ruling in favor of a Texas man who argued he shouldn’t have been charged with a crime just because he owned a gun and smoked marijuana a few times a week.
The Trump administration asked the high court to revive a criminal case against Ali Danial Hemani under a law that bans all illegal drug users from owning guns. But both liberal and conservative justices seemed skeptical.
“What is the government’s evidence that using marijuana a couple of times a week makes someone dangerous?” said conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The Trump administration has asked the court to strike down other gun control laws in the past, but Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris defended the illegal drug user law as a reasonable measure to keep firearms from potentially dangerous people.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, though, pointed out that a growing number of states have legalized cannabis, though it remains illegal on a federal level. “What do we do with the fact that marijuana is sort of illegal and sort of isn’t and that the federal government itself is conflicted on this?” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.
He was part of the conservative majority court that expanded gun rights with a landmark case in 2022 known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The court said that any gun laws must have a strong grounding in the nation’s historical traditions. Liberal-leaning Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said a ban on firearms for cannabis users didn’t seem to have strong historical roots. “I think your argument sort of falls apart under the Bruen test,” she said.
The government pointed to historical laws that barred “habitual drunkards” from having guns, calling that clear historical evidence in favor of the law.
But an attorney for Hemani, Erin Murphy, said those laws were for extreme cases of people who were almost continuously drunk.
There are many modern cannabis users who regularly take gummies as sleep aids, for example, who are very capable of making safe decisions about firearms, Murphy said.
The case made for some unusual political alliances. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association both supported Hemani’s case, as did cannabis legalization groups like NORML. On the other side were gun-safety groups like Everytown, which usually finds itself on the other side of the Trump administration on Second Amendment issues.
Read the full article at CityNews