A federal appeals court has thrown out a firearms conviction after ruling that the underlying charge—possessing a gun as a marijuana user—is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, escalating a national legal clash over cannabis and gun rights.
In a decision Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the conviction of Kevin LaMarcus Mitchell, finding that the federal statute used to prosecute him, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), fails under the Supreme Court’s Bruen test, which requires firearm restrictions to be rooted in the nation’s historical regulatory tradition.
The court said the “central question” was whether the Constitution allows the government to “permanently dispossess” someone of a firearm based solely on being a habitual marijuana user. Judges concluded it does not.
Crucially, the panel found prosecutors offered no “sufficient evidence of present intoxication” at the time Mitchell had the firearm. An admission of habitual use, they ruled, cannot justify a lifetime ban. “The implication of a ruling to the contrary would be that Mitchell was always intoxicated from age nineteen onward,” the decision states.
The ruling reverses the district court’s refusal to dismiss the indictment and wipes out Mitchell’s conviction and sentence. A government motion to supplement the record was deemed moot.
The decision lands as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review the constitutionality of the federal gun ban for cannabis users in U.S. v. Hemani. The Biden administration recently secured extra time to file briefs, pointing to a packed docket. Multiple circuit courts have split over how Bruen applies to § 922(g)(3), creating mounting pressure for a definitive national ruling.
Federal judges in the Tenth, Eleventh and Eighth Circuits have similarly found constitutional problems with enforcing the ban, while other courts have upheld it. Several cases—including U.S. v. Daniels, Sam, and a Florida medical marijuana challenge—remain pending.
The Justice Department argues the law fits within a historical tradition of disarming “dangerous” individuals, asserting cannabis users may pose safety risks. But advocates counter that the federal ban treats marijuana users more harshly than alcohol consumers, despite widespread state legalization.
For now, the Fifth Circuit’s decision adds momentum to a growing line of rulings holding that cannabis use alone cannot justify stripping Americans of their Second Amendment rights—setting the stage for a potentially landmark Supreme Court showdown.
Read the whole article from Marijuanamoment here.
