The fate of a federal law banning marijuana users from owning firearms might soon be decided by the Supreme Court. The question is: Which case will be the one that ultimately determines whether the law will finally be struck down.
The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in the case of Ali Danial Hemani, a “drug dealer who uses illegal drugs,” according to court documents. He admitted to using marijuana “about every other day” while also possessing cocaine.
Local police responded toa domestic violence call at his home. Federal agents later recovered “a Glock 9mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4. Grams of cocaine” from his home. The Fifth Circuit ruled that there was “no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”
The Justice Department argued in its request that this case would be ideal for resolving what it calls a “four-way circuit conflict” over whether the statute violates the Second Amendment. Indeed, four circuit courts have issued different rulings on the statute. Appellate courts have issued four different rulings on the law. Each one struck it down under the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The Justice Department defended the gun control law, saying it is “a modest, modern analogue of much harsher founding-era restrictions on habitual drunkards,” and that it “fits comfortably within this Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.”
The petition further argues that the law imposes “a limited, inherently temporary restriction—one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use.”
Even further, the Justice Department contends that “habitual users of drugs, which are unlawful, pose a greater danger than habitual users of alcohol” and that “drugs and guns are a dangerous combination.”
Because of the Bruen ruling, every gun control law must be analogous to restrictions enacted during the Founding era. Laws that do not pass the Bruen test are considered unconstitutional. The Justice Department claims the statute complies with this test because it aligns with founding-era practices of disarming dangerous people.
The petition also points out that “at least 32 States and territories have enacted similar laws restricting the possession of firearms by drug users and drug addicts” and insists that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling “invalidates an important federal statute in the vast majority of its applications.”
Still, getting over the Bruen hurdle will be no easy task for the Justice Department. The agency has referred to founding-era laws related to drunkenness. But courts have rejected this example because these laws were meant for members of the militia, not private citizens. You can’t have someone guard a fort when they are three sheets to the wind, right?
But even under this law, the individual would get his gun back after he sobered up. The fact that he would consume alcohol did not automatically disqualify him from owning a firearm.
Moreover, the agency will have to prove that those who use marijuana or other illegal drugs are inherently violent. This will be difficult to prove, given that the vast majority of users do not engage in violent crimes. In the Hemani case, the defendant was not intoxicated at the time of the incident and his arrest, which adds another layer to this debate.
The Supreme Court is reportedly considering other cases related to the statute, so it is not clear which one it will choose. Either way, this could be setting the stage for another landmark Second Amendment ruling.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member