Judge Accepts Biden Admin’s Dubious Argument for Banning Gun Possession by Pot Users

Handcuffs Arrest Resistance
File Photo

Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- President Joe Biden, who recently issued a mass pardon for low-level marijuana offenders, says cannabis consumption should not be treated as a crime. His administration nevertheless defends the federal ban on gun possession by marijuana users, arguing that Second Amendment rights are limited to “law-abiding citizens.”

Last week, a federal judge agreed, dismissing a challenge to that rule by medical marijuana patients in Florida. The reasoning underlying that decision shows that the constitutional right to armed self-defense, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld, is still subject to legislators’ arbitrary whims and irrational prejudices.

Florida is one of 37 states that allow medical use of marijuana, most of which also have legalized recreational use — a policy supported by two-thirds of Americans. Under federal law, by contrast, marijuana remains illegal for all purposes except government-approved research, and simple possession is punishable by a fine of $1,000 or more and up to a year in jail.

For marijuana users who own guns, the potential penalties are much more severe.

They include up to 15 years in prison for illegal firearm possession, up to 15 years for “trafficking in firearms” by obtaining a gun and up to 10 years for failing to report cannabis consumption on the form required for gun purchases from federally licensed dealers.

The plaintiffs in the Florida lawsuit included Nikki Fried, a Democrat who runs the state’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, two patients who participate in Florida’s medical marijuana program, and a gun owner who says he would like to do so but does not want to surrender his right to arms. They argued that the ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers violates the Second Amendment.



Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican who does not agree with Fried about much, expressed support for that argument.

“The governor stands for protecting Floridians’ constitutional rights — including 2nd Amendment rights,” his office said after Fried filed her lawsuit in April. “Floridians should not be deprived of a constitutional right for using a medication lawfully.”

In his ruling last Friday, however, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor agreed with the Biden administration that the deprivation DeSantis condemned was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That is the constitutional test the Supreme Court has said gun control laws must pass.

Winsor noted a long history of banning gun ownership by people convicted of certain crimes. But as Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out in a 2019 dissent as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, that history does not suggest that any crime, or even any felony, will do.

“Legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” Barrett wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are (SET ITAL) dangerous. (END ITAL) “

Are cannabis consumers dangerous? Winsor suggested that they are, accepting the Biden administration’s analogy between the gun ban for marijuana users and laws enacted in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries that prohibited people from either carrying or firing guns “while intoxicated.”

That analogy fails, however, because those laws did not impose general bans on gun possession by drinkers. They applied only when gun owners were under the influence.

The implausibility of the Biden administration’s historical argument is compounded by the fact that the “crime” of consuming marijuana did not exist when the Second Amendment was ratified or when the 14th Amendment required that states respect the right to keep and bear arms. Throughout the 19th century, cannabis, opium, and other currently prohibited substances were legally available over the counter and widely consumed as ingredients in patent medicines.

It seems highly doubtful that Americans of that era would have thought eschewing such products should be a condition for exercising the rights protected by the Second Amendment and state analogs. Yet the Biden administration insists that it should, even as the president decries the injustice wrought by the war on weed.


About Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. During two decades in journalism, he has relentlessly skewered authoritarians of the left and the right, making the case for shrinking the realm of politics and expanding the realm of individual choice. Jacobs’ work appears here at AmmoLand News through a license with Creators Syndicate.

Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum
33 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Montana454Casull

But yet Hunter can smoke crack and buy a gun and all we hear from Joe is crickets . FJB

chiefton

If you follow the overturning of the Roe v Wade ruling, the Federal Government has no authority in the Constitution to make gun rules. Therefore, only the States can make gun rules and those must fully integrate with the Constitutional law of “shall not infringe”. The genius of the abortion ruling set the groundwork for many future rulings where the Feds overstep their rights and dwell into areas in which they have no standing. Since that right defaults to being the right of the States and not the Feds, the Feds lack standing to rule who can and who cannot… Read more »

J.galt

I don’t see how this survives scrutiny under Bruins Text and history requirement. The founders of the country, the writers of the constitution and the adopters of said constitution and bill of rights were growers without restriction of cannabis.

At the time of the adoption of the Bill of rights there was NO LAW or RESTRICTION on the use or possession of.marijuana. Even George Washington grew marijuana and shall not be infringed has always meant what any fourth grade student knows it to mean.

Jonesy

Heels up Harris is still cackling.

Ram

I remember back in the early 80s there was an academic movement
guiding youth into being irresponsible, making it a part of their character.
Now the Marxocrats will rescind our rights for our safety. I once knew
a fellow who at age 50+ voted for the first time in his life. Pot had
finally gotten onto the ballot, and in the previous 25 years nothing
else had been as important.

Tank

At least there is some kinda of a dialogue being had about both. People already have a difficult enough time just driving a vehicle which can also be a weapon, add altered internal mental state & the numbers go up from there. One is a constitutional right the other isn’t. Anytime you have the elements/components such as drugs/money/guns your going to have issues. Certain drugs alter an individuals inner state. Alcohol is another example of a drug that impairs people’s judgement (aka alters inner state). Sociocultural interactions in urban cities cause numerous problems. Rural areas trend a lot less problems… Read more »

Last edited 2 years ago by Tank
Cruiser

Guns and drugs. A bad mix.

grant

“Dubious’,
No, not ‘Dubious’ at all
MJ impairs judgement and motor function.
It is ILLEGAL for anyone to Drive under the influence of ANY substance that impairs judgement and motor function.
WHY are we going to allow a person who insists on partaking of a drug that impairs judgement and motor function to purchase a firearm?
THAT is beyond ‘Reason”