Justice Department Maintains Stance Against Gun Ownership for Medical Cannabis Patients

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is firmly reiterating its position that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms pose significant public safety risks. In its latest legal filings, the DOJ argued that such individuals endanger public safety, have a higher risk of suicide, and are more likely to commit crimes to support their drug habits, thus justifying a federal ban on gun ownership for cannabis consumers.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in a case involving domestic violence-related gun prohibitions has led to the reconsideration of a pending case concerning cannabis and Second Amendment rights. Following the ruling, the justices remanded the cannabis-related case back to a lower court. In response, plaintiffs and the DOJ submitted briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, addressing the potential implications of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Background and Legal Context

The ongoing case involves a group of Florida medical cannabis patients who argue that their Second Amendment rights are being violated because they cannot lawfully purchase firearms while using cannabis for medical purposes, despite complying with state law. The DOJ has urged the appellate court to uphold an earlier district court ruling that deemed the cannabis and firearms ban constitutional.

The case was initially brought forward by former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried in 2022. Although Fried is no longer involved due to her departure from office, the case continues to be a focal point in the broader debate on cannabis legalization and gun rights. Meanwhile, Florida voters are set to decide on a recreational marijuana legalization initiative in the upcoming November ballot.

DOJ’s Arguments

In its filing, the DOJ emphasized that “armed drug users endanger the public in multiple ways,” citing the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Rahimi as support for significant leeway in enacting firearms regulations. The DOJ argued that individuals who use cannabis might mishandle firearms or commit crimes due to “drug-induced changes in physiological functions, cognitive ability, and mood.”

The brief further argued that rescheduling marijuana, as proposed by the Biden administration, would not negate the current statute. The DOJ maintained that the federal ban on cannabis consumers owning firearms is consistent with historical practices of disarming “dangerous” individuals, asserting that illegal drug users are likely to commit crimes to fund their habits, engage in violence, or misuse firearms.

Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal

Attorneys for the medical cannabis patients countered the DOJ’s arguments by distinguishing between the domestic violence case in Rahimi and the rights of individuals using cannabis in compliance with state laws. They argued that patients using medical marijuana based on their state’s laws and doctors’ recommendations should not be compared to those convicted of violent crimes.

The plaintiffs’ brief sought “narrow, common-sense relief,” suggesting that any risk of firearm misuse could be mitigated by prohibiting possession while under the influence of marijuana. They contended that historical laws and traditions do not support disarming individuals solely for their medical marijuana use.

Political and Social Implications

The debate over cannabis and gun rights is occurring against a backdrop of significant political activity. Recently, 25 Republican members of Congress sent a letter opposing the rescheduling of marijuana, alleging that the move is politically motivated. Additionally, a GOP-led House committee passed a funding bill to block the Department of Justice from rescheduling or descheduling cannabis.

President Joe Biden’s administration has faced scrutiny from various quarters, with Hunter Biden’s recent conviction for buying and possessing a gun while using crack cocaine adding to the complexity of the debate. Republican congressmen have challenged the basis of that conviction, pointing out that millions of marijuana users own guns without facing prosecution.

State-Level Actions

Amid these federal developments, several states are taking their own approaches to the issue. For example, a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill to remove state barriers for medical marijuana patients carrying firearms. Colorado organizers are also working on a state ballot measure to address the issuance of concealed handgun permits for cannabis users.

The DOJ’s steadfast position against gun ownership for medical marijuana patients underscores the ongoing tension between evolving cannabis laws and established federal regulations. As courts continue to grapple with these complex issues, the outcome of these cases will have significant implications for both gun rights and cannabis policy in the United States.