A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled unanimously on Wednesday to dismiss federal prosecutions against gun owners who occasionally use marijuana. The panel went further, saying the law itself is unconstitutional.
overview
The panel, made up of two appointees from President Trump and one from President Biden, agreed that charges against Paola Connelly, a Texas gun owner and occasional marijuana user, should be dismissed.
Paola Connelly is a non-violent, marijuana-smoking, gun owner.
El Paso police responded to her home after receiving a report of “shots fired” and, upon arrival, found Paola's husband, John, standing at the neighbor's door firing a shotgun.
After arresting him, police spoke with Paola, who told them she sometimes smoked marijuana to help her sleep and ease anxiety.
A search of the Connelly home revealed drug paraphernalia and multiple firearms, including one belonging to Paola.
There was no indication that Paola was intoxicated at the time.
According to federal law, 18 USC § 922(g)(3), “it is unlawful for any person who is an unlawful user of, or an addict to, a controlled substance to possess a firearm.” Thus, Paola was charged with violating federal law. The district court found her not guilty. The federal government appealed. The court noted:
The appeal seeks to consider whether Paola’s Second Amendment rights were violated, and the answer depends on whether Section 922(g)(3) is consistent with the history and tradition of firearms regulation.
In short, our history and traditions may support placing certain limitations on a currently intoxicated person's right to bear arms, but they do not support taking away a sober person's weapon based solely on past drug use.
And contrary to government claims, restrictions on the mentally ill, and the more general tradition of disarming “dangerous” people, do not apply to nonviolent, sane people who occasionally use drugs.
US prosecutors tried their best to find relevant laws that would show “historical” relevance or similarity to the laws as currently required by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Bruen (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen), but failed to find any. There, the court ruled that “Whether or not she is a marijuana user, Paola is a member of our political community and therefore has a presumptive right to bear arms. By violating that right,[the federal law]violates the language of the Second Amendment.”
Federal Claims
U.S. prosecutors presented three arguments in support of the federal law's constitutionality: 1) there were past laws disarming the mentally ill, 2) there were past laws disarming “dangerous” individuals, and 3) intoxication laws have existed since the founding of the republic.
A three-judge panel dismissed each appeal, noting that “mental illness and drug use are not the same thing…and there has been no clear positive law since the founding of the nation regarding mental illness and firearms.”
First, they ruled that “laws aimed at disarming the seriously mentally ill do not justify depriving people of their Second Amendment rights,” adding:
This analogy only works if someone is intoxicated enough to be considered “insane.” There is no historical justification for taking away weapons from sober citizens who are not currently under the influence of disabling influences, just as there is no historical justification for taking away weapons from sane citizens.
Second, U.S. government lawyers argued that “history and tradition” made federal law feasible and enforceable in this case. But the Board rejected this argument, too. “Our history and tradition of disarming 'dangerous' individuals does not include nonviolent marijuana users like Paola,” they noted, adding:
In fact, there is not a single historical indication that the Founding Fathers, at the time of ratifying the Second Amendment, authorized Congress to disarm anyone they deemed dangerous…
The government has not identified a class of people who, at the time of the nation's founding, were “dangerous” for reasons comparable to those of marijuana users…
The government has not meaningfully responded to the fact that neither Congress nor the states disarmed alcoholics, the group most closely related to 18th- and 19th-century marijuana users. … The government has not cited Founding-era law or practice to disarm intoxicated members of the public, even if intoxication was commonplace.
But the real target of the three-judge ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals was the law itself.
In summary, section 922(g)(3) is far more expansive than historic intoxication laws.
While these laws may address a similar problem – preventing intoxicated people from possessing weapons – they do not impose an equal burden on rights holders….
Section 922(g)(3) goes further, prohibiting all possession, even if the person is not intoxicated, and prohibiting possession for an undefined set of “users.”
Verdict
The Court concluded:
Paola said she occasionally used drugs to help her sleep and ease anxiety, but it is unclear how much she used at the time or when she last used, and there is no evidence she was intoxicated at the time of her arrest.
In fact, under the government's theory, Congress could (if it wanted) ban gun ownership under the Intoxicated Possession Act from people who have several alcoholic drinks a week.
The analogical reasoning proposed by Bruen does not go that far.
At best, historical tradition prohibits individuals from carrying firearms while under the influence of current drugs.
By restricting Paola based on her habitual or incidental drug use, § 922(g)(3) imposes a much greater burden on her Second Amendment rights than our firearms regulation history and tradition can support.
The judgment of dismissal is affirmed….
This is a notable decision, but even though it only affects the 5th Circuit's jurisdiction of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, the government can still appeal it to the full court for review. If the full court upholds the decision, it would set a precedent for nationwide challenges to unconstitutional laws.
