Hunter Biden was a hard drug user when he purchased his firearm. He lied on a federal form in doing so. No ambiguity could be seriously considered in his case, yet his daddy pardoned him. For marijuana users, the matter is a little different.
See, there are a lot of mixed signals on marijuana use by the government at all levels. It's illegal under federal law, but the DEA doesn't do anything about marijuana dispensaries in states that have legalized it in any way. The general policy is "hands off."
But the ATF doesn't necessarily see it that way, nor do some other law enforcement agencies, which has led to some people getting arrested for being a drug user in possession of a firearm, even though other feds look the other way on the drug.
Now, the Eighth Circuit has issued a ruling on such a case that might be pretty interesting.
In yet another federal court ruling questioning the U.S. government’s blanket ban on firearm possession by marijuana users, an appeals court on Tuesday vacated a defendant’s conviction under the statute known as Section 922(g)(3) and remanded the case back to a district court, noting that a retrial before a jury may be necessary to determine whether cannabis in fact caused the defendant to be dangerous or pose a credible threat to others.
In a 14-page opinion, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted that after an Iowa district court initially decided the case, the appeals court issued new guidance in a February ruling that said the prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.
In returning the current case—U.S. v. Cordova Perez—to the Southern District of Iowa, judges said the lower court failed to make a determination as is now required in the Eighth Circuit as to whether defendant Aldo Ali Cordova Perez Jr.’s marijuana use made him a credible threat to public safety.
“The proper question is whether Cordova Perez’s marijuana use caused him to act in an outwardly erratic or aggressive manner that would, in context, be reasonably perceived as disturbing or dangerous to others,” says the opinion, written by Circuit Judge Jane L. Kelly, an Obama appointeee.
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, it became clear that the Court figured that laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people had sufficient historical precedence to be found constitutional.
The question is whether drug users are inherently dangerous.
The founding-era laws in question dealt with carrying a gun while drunk, after all. It didn't ban ownership from people who consume alcohol. That raises questions about whether someone who uses marijuana--which is legal in multiple states to some degree or another--should be considered dangerous.
Now, the individual in this case isn't getting a free pass back on the streets, it sounds like, but would likely land him in front of another jury where they'd determine whether he was or wasn't a threat.
For me, though, the mixed signals here are the crux of the issue. If marijuana users are so erratic and dangerous to the public, why continue to look the other way as states allow this stuff to be sold on every street corner? If they're not dangerous, then why continue the prohibition on guns for them?
It's the inconsistency on display that's so infuriating to me.
