The federal law banning possession of a firearm for illegal drug users has become more and more contentious as additional states have passed laws allowing medicinal, and even recreational use, of marijuana. Consequently, there have been a number of recent high-profile court cases involving pot and guns.
We reported last month 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. More recently, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law violated the Second Amendment, although it then remanded it back down to the district court for further examination.
A similar case is now on the docket for the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. In the case Greene v. Bondi, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) recently filed its opening brief with the Third Circuit in its case challenging the federal ban on gun ownership by medical marijuana users.
SAF is joined in the case by two private citizens: Warren County, Pa., District Attorney Robert Greene and James Irey. Greene possesses a medical marijuana ID card (MMID) under Pennsylvania law and desires to possess firearms and ammunition. Irey is a disabled veteran who wishes to obtain an MMID to treat his service-related injuries but doesn’t want to forfeit his Second Amendment rights in the process.
“Unlike prescription pain pills, marijuana is federally classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic, even if a state has legalized it for medical purposes,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said in a news release announcing the filing of the brief. “That poses a dilemma for anyone who legally uses medical marijuana—either give up your Second Amendment rights or receive relief from your symptoms. This is an absurd choice to force someone to make, especially given that anyone taking prescription pain killers, such as oxycodone, are allowed to purchase firearms.”
The SAF brief argues: “Prohibiting Greene, Irey, and SAF’s similarly situated members from purchasing, possessing, or utilizing firearms and state-authorized medical marijuana is a clear violation of their Second Amendment rights to bear arms, as there is no analogous historical tradition of firearms regulation in the United States.”
Ultimately, SAF and the other plaintiffs want the court to strike down the law so those legally using medical marijuana can also practice their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
“This Court should consider this matter en banc, adopt the categorical approach to analyzing Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g), and thereafter, reverse the district court’s judgment granting the Government’s motion to dismiss and find that challenged laws and regulations are facially, or alternatively, as applied to the Plaintiffs, unconstitutional,” the brief concludes.
Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, said as more and more states legalize the use of medical marijuana, the decision to use cannabis or exercise the right to keep and bear arms is placing an undue burden on citizens.
“If a person chooses to legally use medical marijuana, it should not automatically translate to surrendering their Second Amendment rights,” Gottlieb said. “We look forward to fighting this restriction and vindicating the rights of those who wish to use medical marijuana and exercise their constitutional rights.”
