The state of California is about as drug-friendly a state as exists in the nation. Interestingly, that drug-friendly nature doesn’t extend to gun owners who might like to smoke a joint now and then.
In the case U.S. v Hermani, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the law restricting marijuana users from purchasing or possessing guns. A lower court ruled for the plaintiffs and found that the restriction violates the Second Amendment-protected rights of those pot users. That ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Now, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with AGs from 20 other states, have filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the federal government’s argument that a federal law prohibiting unlawful drug users from possessing firearms is constitutional. After all, Bonta and other blue-state AGs have seldom seen a gun ban they didn’t embrace, even if it infringes on the rights of drug users.
“Drugs and guns are a dangerous combination,” AG Bonta said in a news release announcing the filing of the brief. “Potentially dangerous drug users should not possess firearms—this is a commonsense notion to prevent people who use drugs from harming themselves, their loved ones, or their communities.
“Both red and blue states alike—recognizing the dangers posed by combining habitual drug use with firearms—have imposed firearm restrictions to prevent gun violence. Today I urge the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court decision, uphold public safety, and keep firearms out of the reach of people who are drug users.”
In the brief, the AGs claim that marijuana users possessing firearms are far more dangerous than people who possess firearms while intoxicated. They also claim habitual drug use can cause some individuals to experience chronic psychological disturbances that affect their conduct and decision-making, including their ability to handle firearms safely. Additionally, they claim that because much drug use is illicit, habitual drug users frequently interact with the illegal drug trade, which is inherently dangerous and drives criminality. The brief did not address the fact that medical marijuana is legal in several states, and possession of a firearm is illegal under federal law, even though the use of the drug is legal under state law.
Other states where their AG signed on to the amicus brief include Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, along with the District of Columbia.
In addition to the AGs, several gun ban groups have also filed briefs supporting the federal government’s stance, including so-called Everytown for Gun Safety, the Brady Center (formerly known as Handgun Control Inc.), Giffords and Global Action on Gun Violence.
The Supreme Court ruling in this case will likely resolve a conflict brewing in the respective circuit courts. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the government does not violate the Second Amendment when it disarms “presumptively risky people,” such as habitual drug users. At the same time, the 8th Circuit has said the government should only be able to enforce the statute after proving that the drug users “pose[s] a credible threat to the physical safety of others.” Additionally, the 5th Circuit has held that the statute should only apply to individuals who were actually impaired by the drug use at the time they possessed a gun.
More on how lawmakers are treating marijuana users and gun ownership:
