If there were ever a reason for Congress to step in and settle the cannabis question once and for all, it would be the ongoing conflict between federal and state regulations. Those conflicts are at the center of a new Department of Justice (DOJ) filing with the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS).
The DOJ is asking the court to intervene to settle the question of Second Amendment gun rights and their application to cannabis users. At the heart of the filing is the DOJ’s contention that there is far too much disagreement among federal courts. They cite a number of conflicting decisions in their filing.
What It’s All About
Whether or not SCOTUS intervenes as the DOJ wants them to, the department’s main contention is absolutely true. Different federal courts across the country have issued conflicting verdicts in cases involving cannabis users prosecuted for illegally possessing firearms.
Under federal law, people possessing, using, or distributing illegal drugs do not enjoy Second Amendment gun rights. They are barred by law from owning or possessing guns. Following the letter of the law would mean that no medical cannabis patient in the U.S. could own or possess firearms.
Arguments in Favor
Arguments in favor of the current statute point to the fact that marijuana is still a Schedule I controlled substance. Calling marijuana medical cannabis does not change the fact. And until marijuana is legalized or moved to another schedule, it is in the same company as drugs like heroin and cocaine.
Those in favor of keeping the current statute as-is point out that state decriminalization does not equal federal legalization. Cannabis remains illegal under federal law. Therefore, medical cannabis users are still prohibited from owning or possessing firearms.
Arguments Against the Statute
Those who would argue against the current statute contend that the federal government’s decision to turn a blind eye to state-level decriminalization amounts to passive approval. Whether approval is active or passive, they contend that the federal government cannot have it both ways.
Cannabis advocates also argue that Second Amendment rights preempt federal drug laws because of their constitutional status. They contend that the government cannot apply gun restrictions to cannabis users except in the most narrowly tailored way and for the purposes of achieving a narrowly defined objective.
What It Means in a Practical Sense
The big question on a lot of minds is what it all means in a practical sense. If SCOTUS decides not to intervene for the time being, things will continue as usual. Cannabis users, whether their use is medical or recreational in nature, will remain barred from owning or possessing firearms.
A medical cannabis patient visiting the Beehive Farmacy in Salt Lake City, Utah would not be allowed to have firearms in his car. He would not be allowed to carry a sidearm or keep hunting rifles at home. Practically, enforcement would be a difficult task unless the person did something to get the attention of federal agents.
If SCOTUS does decide to intervene, there are only two possible outcomes:
- The current federal statute is upheld; or
- The statute is deemed unconstitutional.
Upholding the statute would maintain the status quo. Striking it down would immediately establish 2nd Amendment rights for cannabis users nationwide.
What will SCOTUS do? Given so many disagreements among lower courts, I strongly suspect they will take up a related case in order to decide on the matter once and for all. As for how they rule, that is anyone’s guess. I could see the eventual decision going either way. And so we wait.
