In a recent legal battle, a U.S. appeals court grapples with the question of whether medical marijuana users should be allowed to possess firearms, challenging a federal law that restricts gun ownership for users of illicit drugs. The case bears significance not only for the individuals involved but also in the context of Hunter Biden’s criminal case.
A group of Florida residents who use medical marijuana brought their case before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They argued that the federal prohibition on gun ownership for medical marijuana users is unconstitutional when applied to them. Their attorney, William Hall, cited a crucial U.S. Supreme Court decision from the previous year that expanded gun rights. Hall contended that this federal law violated his clients’ Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, established a new test for evaluating gun restrictions. It emphasized that these restrictions should align with the historical traditions of firearm regulation in the nation.
The Florida plaintiffs, who initially filed their case alongside former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, a Democrat, argued that preventing medical marijuana users in states where it is legal from owning guns contradicts the historical norms of firearm regulation. Florida legalized medical marijuana in 2016. Although the drug remains illegal at the federal level, the plaintiffs highlighted a key aspect: the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment prevents the U.S. Department of Justice from using funds to obstruct state medical marijuana programs or prosecute individuals.
The Justice Department, represented by attorney Steven Hazel, countered that prohibiting gun ownership for drug users is analogous to historical laws dating back to the country’s founding that disallowed mentally ill individuals and alcoholics from possessing firearms.
Hall pushed back, asserting that even if state-authorized medical marijuana use was considered a crime, historical precedent did not support disarming individuals when they were sober. He emphasized that the federal law was overly restrictive.
The discussions within the appeals court appeared divided, with some judges expressing concerns about marijuana’s potential to cause paranoia and psychotic symptoms. They emphasized that, as a Schedule I drug, marijuana remains illegal at the federal level.
This case is particularly noteworthy as it could result in a divergence in rulings between different U.S. circuit courts. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans previously ruled that the federal law was unconstitutional when applied to a marijuana user in August.
Furthermore, the same federal law is at the center of the criminal case against Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden. He faces charges, including possession of a firearm while using illicit drugs. Legal experts anticipate that Hunter Biden may challenge the constitutionality of this law.
The case is titled “Florida Commissioner of Agriculture, et al, v. Attorney General of the United States, et al,” and it’s currently before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The legal representation includes William Hall of Dean Mead & Dunbar for the plaintiffs and Steven Hazel from the Justice Department for the federal government.