,
A federal ban on allowing cannabis users to buy firearms has been bumping up against legal challenges in the last few years. Marijuana advocates say the ban is unconstitutional while the feds say it’s a matter of public safety.
Now the U.S. Supreme Court might take up the case if justices decide to hear an appeal by the Department of Justice (DOJ) of a circuit court ruling that the ban is unconstitutional.
The appeal was presented to Supreme Court justices in December for their consideration. The case involves a man named Patrick Darnell Daniels Jr., who was arrested during a 2022 traffic stop in Mississippi for possessing firearms and a small amount of weed after he admitted that he occasionally uses marijuana unlawfully.
The DOJ didn’t claim that Daniels was intoxicated during the traffic stop or that the firearms were purchased illegally. The only violation it cited was that the man was both a gun owner and a weed user. That was enough for him to receive a four-year prison sentence.
Under federal law, current cannabis users are not allowed to purchase or own a firearm. Not only that—anyone who buys a gun has to fill out a form that asks if they are current users of illegal drugs. If a weed user answers “no,” they are committing a felony—it doesn’t matter if that person lives in a state where marijuana has been legalized.
In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has added a warning to the form that specifically calls out state-legal weed use: “The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.”
Back in 2011, the ATF even published an open letter to licensees explaining the agency’s policy and calling for firearm retailers to keep a watchful eye out for customers in possession of medical cannabis cards as it would give the seller “reasonable cause to believe” that the person was a user of illegal drugs and require that they refuse the sale.
An appeal against the lower court’s ruling in Daniels’ case was heard last August in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where judges ruled against the DOJ, noting that historically, restrictions placed on gun possession related to intoxication only applied in cases where the gun owner was actively impaired. Since the feds weren’t claiming that the man was intoxicated during the traffic stop, the judges ruled that the man’s Second Amendment rights were violated and overturned his sentence.
The DOJ is asking the Supreme Court to put a pause on the ruling until after it decides on a separate case involving gun ownership bans for people convicted of domestic assault. The department says that the ruling in that case could affect how the Daniels case goes.
A good question to be asking right about now is: Why is the DOJ fighting so hard to keep guns out of the hands of weed users?
According to the DOJ, their only goal is to make America a safer place. Again and again, the agency has claimed that pot users are dangerous, anti-social criminals incapable of practicing proper gun safety and likely to suffer from mental health disorders.
During a separate 2022 lawsuit over the gun ban, a federal judge said any firearm restrictions would need to have historical analogs to be valid. In its motion to dismiss, the DOJ argued that considering weed users to be “unlawful” citizens aligned with past gun restrictions on comparable groups.
“In England and in America from the colonial era through the 19th century, governments regularly disarmed a variety of groups deemed dangerous,” wrote the department. “England disarmed Catholics in the 17th and 18th centuries …. Many American colonies forbade providing Indians with firearms …. During the American Revolution, several states passed laws providing for the confiscation of weapons owned by persons refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to the state or the United States …. States also have disarmed the mentally ill and panhandlers.”
Detractors were quick to point out that some of the examples given would be decried in today’s social and political climate, but the DOJ stuck to its guns.
“Two closely related traditions are analogous: the tradition of restricting the firearms rights of those who commit crimes and therefore are not ‘law-abiding citizens’ … and the tradition of disarming those whose behavior or status would render their firearms possession a danger to themselves or the community,” read the filing.
But officials at the DOJ aren’t stupid, and they aren’t blind. No one living in the U.S. in 2024 can honestly say that pot consumers are dangerous criminals—not with half the country living in states that have legalized the drug. There must be another intent behind keeping the outdated policies in place.
It could come down to the most common motivation of all: Simple money loss. Any federal weed bust involving legally-purchased firearms could potentially add up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine to any existing marijuana charges. While it might just be a trickle compared to other revenue sources, those numbers add up at the end of the year, and it’s likely that the DOJ is unwilling to take that loss.
Now all eyes are on the Supreme Court. The next move it makes could have major consequences. If the justices decide to take up the appeal and rule in favor of the feds, it will mean that the gun ban for cannabis users isn’t going anywhere. If they decide to drop the case, the DOJ might be forced to reform its policy, and cannabis consumers will no longer be second-class citizens.