Lawyers clashed this week in a federal appeals court over whether the government can disarm individuals who use marijuana, with the Department of Justice (DOJ) arguing that recent cannabis use is enough to justify disarming someone. The case, heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, centers on U.S. v. Daniels, a case involving a man convicted of possessing a firearm after admitting to using marijuana.
The DOJ contended that the federal statute, Section 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership for “unlawful users” of controlled substances, should apply to individuals who have used marijuana, even if not intoxicated at the time of possessing a firearm. DOJ attorney Jonathan D. Buckner argued that even non-contemporaneous marijuana use can justify gun restrictions.
The judges, however, questioned the DOJ’s stance, referencing a recent Fifth Circuit ruling in U.S. v. Connelly. In that case, the court held that while disarming an actively intoxicated person may be constitutional, disarming a sober person based on past drug use is not. The panel of judges expressed skepticism about whether the DOJ’s argument was consistent with Connelly, which requires a “close temporal nexus” between drug use and gun possession.
Kimberly G. Gore, representing Daniels, argued that the government’s interpretation stretches the law too far, infringing on Second Amendment rights. She insisted that past marijuana use should not automatically disqualify someone from gun ownership, especially if they are not actively intoxicated.
The case comes amid a broader legal debate about federal gun restrictions for marijuana users, as cannabis remains illegal under federal law despite state-level legalization in many places. The Fifth Circuit judges did not indicate when they would issue a ruling, leaving the future of gun rights for cannabis users uncertain.
Read the whole article from Marijuana Moment here.
