Supreme Court questions denying gun rights to marijuana users in test of the 2nd Amendment
WASHINGTON— The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court on Monday: 2. Limiting the scope of the amendment and denying gun rights to “habitual” drug users, including marijuana.
But most of the judges seemed skeptical. They questioned whether marijuana users were so dangerous that they should not own firearms.
They also noted that President Trump recently signed an executive order to reclassify marijuana as a less controlled substance.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch asked, “Why is this a test case?” he asked.
Federal laws on “controlled substances” and the 2nd Amendment have created a conflict between gun rights and illegal drugs, but Gorsuch said marijuana users are not considered a particular danger to the public.
“This is an odd case to choose” to resolve this legal dispute, he said.
Most justices said they were cautious about making sweeping decisions to decide the legal status of other addictive drugs.
At issue was a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits the possession of a gun by any person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
The Justice Department says about 300 people a year are charged with crimes under this provision. They include the former president’s son, Hunter Biden, who was accused and convicted of lying about his drug addiction when he applied for a gun permit.
The case has united civil libertarians and gun rights advocates who say millions of Americans could face criminal charges if the government’s view is approved.
Assistant Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who represents the administration, said the court should enforce the law that prohibits those who use illegal drugs from using guns.
“Congress has determined that mixing firearms with controlled substances is dangerous,” he said.
But Washington attorney Erin Murphy said gun owners don’t realize that keeping a handgun at home can sometimes lead to criminal prosecution if they use marijuana.
He said the court should have made a “narrow” decision that protected his client.
Texan Ali Hemani was investigated by the FBI in 2020 due to his family’s suspected ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has been designated a terrorist group.
When the FBI obtained a warrant to search his home, agents found a Glock handgun, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine in his mother’s room. Hemani said he uses marijuana every other day.
He was charged with illegal weapon possession because he was an illegal drug user.
But a federal judge and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the 2nd Amendment, dismissed the charges on the grounds that he was not under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest.
The appellate Trump administration said the Supreme Court should uphold the 1968 law and ban guns from being issued to people who are “regular users” of illegal drugs.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer said this prosecution “is within the authority of Congress to temporarily disarm categories of dangerous persons, here habitual drug users.”
Since the country’s founding, “habitual drunks” could be prohibited from owning guns, and this historical principle supports the ban on guns to habitual drug users.
The American Civil Liberties Union defended Hemani and said the government’s opinion threatened to vastly expand the scope of criminal law.
“Like tens of millions of Americans, Ali Hemani owned a gun for self-defense and kept it safely stored in his home. Like most Americans, he consumed marijuana several days a week,” they said in their summary.
“In the government’s view, these two facts alone were sufficient to make him an ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance who could face criminal penalties.”
