In the latest series of federal court decisions on the subject, yet another case surrounding federal cannabis gun control legislation has ruled the ongoing ban as unconstitutional.
Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals spoke on the conflict between federal gun laws and cannabis users for the case United States v. Daniels. It held that an admitted, regular cannabis user cannot be criminally liable under the rule making it unlawful for a person “who is an unlawful user of … any controlled substance” (as defined in the Controlled Substances Act) for possessing a firearm while not under the influence of cannabis.
The case was published on Aug. 9, 2023 and joins a growing list of courts that have similarly found the ban unconstitutional.
It involves Patrick Daniels, who was pulled over in April 2022 for driving without a license plate. One of the officers, and a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent, recognized the smell of cannabis and found several cannabis joint roaches in the ashtray. They also found two loaded firearms.
Daniels admitted to smoking cannabis approximately 14 days per month, though the government presented no evidence that he was intoxicated at the time of his arrest nor did it identify when he last used cannabis, according to the case. Still, solely based on his confession of regular usage, a jury convicted Daniels of violating the law.
The current law makes it illegal for people who are “unlawful users of or are addicted to narcotics or other controlled substances” to own guns. Since cannabis is still considered a Schedule I drug through the Controlled Substances Act, even legal recreational or medical cannabis use is disqualifying.
Laws have regulated the combination of guns and intoxicating substances throughout U.S. history, the case notes, but throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, the government didn’t disarm people who had used drugs or alcohol at one time from possessing guns at another.
The Fifth Circuit analyzed the case under a two-prong standard required by N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, another recent landmark Supreme Court decision.
The first prong asks whether the conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit said, though Daniels is not a “model citizen,” he’s a “member of our political community,” therefore a member of “the people” as covered by the Second Amendment.
The second prong requires the government to demonstrate that the law is consistent with the history of U.S. firearm regulation. Ultimately, it found that this case was inconsistent with prior laws, given that no historical law has disarmed sober people because they, at one time, used alcohol.
Some states banned carrying a weapon while actively under the influence, though that scenario doesn’t apply here (and in a number of past cases similarly disqualifying individuals for simply admitting they use cannabis).
“The court held: “In short, our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage,” the court held, adding that this is a second amendment violation when applied to Daniels.
The court’s decision will likely affect an appeal pending in the Eleventh Circuit, Cooper v. Attorney General, which challenges the constitutionality of the rule as it applied to medical cannabis patients.
Both of these opinions are likely to significantly affect the Southern U.S. cannabis industry, as the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have jurisdiction over six Southern states with medical cannabis programs of some sort. Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi are within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction, and Alabama, Georgia and Florida are within the Eleventh Circuit’s jurisdiction.
