We reported recently how a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit of Appeals ruled that medical marijuana users may still exercise their Second Amendment rights, finding no evidence that use alone makes them dangerous.
In the ruling, the judge explained that the State of Florida had not made a legitimate case that medical marijuana use had made any of the individual plaintiffs in the case a threat.
Now, the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled similarly in an Oklahoma case, United States v. Harrison, saying the sweeping gun ban on marijuana users violates the Second Amendment. However, the court remanded the case back to the district court to answer some questions concerning whether the government can prove non-intoxicated marijuana users “pose a risk.”
The case stems from Lawton resident Jared Harrison’s 2022 arrest after being pulled over for running a red light. Officers searching Harrison’s vehicle found a loaded revolver, marijuana residue, marijuana cigarettes and THC gummies. While Oklahoma has a liberal medical marijuana law, Harrison did not have a medical card.
After Harrison’s attorneys argued in district court that the ban “unconstitutionally infringes on an individual’s right to bear arms under the Second Amendment,” that court agreed and ruled in favor of the defendant.
In a 54-page order, the district court held that the Second Amendment’s text covered Harrison’s conduct because he is among “the People” to whom the amendment refers. The court further held that applying the statute to Harrison was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The government, of course, appealed the case to the 10th Circuit, which had many of the same observations as the lower court.
“We endorse much of the district court’s analysis and reasoning,” the 10th Circuit ruling stated. “At Bruen step one, we fully agree with the district court that the Second Amendment applies to Mr. Harrison’s conduct. At Bruen step two, we agree with the district court in part…”
A discussion in the ruling of who “the people” actually entails was an interesting one, indeed.
“Today, we hold the “people” for purposes of the Second Amendment include, at least, all Americans,” the ruling stated. “As the district court recognized, a broad reading of ‘people’ follows the Supreme Court’s clear directive in its Second Amendment jurisprudence.
“A contrary conclusion would defy law and logic. The First and Fourth amendments also refer to the ‘people,’ and nobody contends only ‘law-abiding citizens’ enjoy the rights protected by these constitutional guarantees.”
Ultimately, however, instead of upholding the district court’s ruling, the 10th Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to have some questions answered.
“We hold the historical tradition supports a principle that legislatures may disarm those believed to pose a risk of future danger,” the ruling concluded. “And we further hold the district court must inquire into the government’s assertion that non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a risk of danger.”
