A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a district court ruling that the prohibition on firearm possession by marijuana users is unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case U.S. v. Connelly said the Texas woman involved in the action was a “non-violent, marijuana-smoking gun owner” whose Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms should not have been infringed.
“The short of it is that our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage,” the ruling, written by Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt, stated.
The case revolves around a Texas woman, Paola Connelly, who was indicted after El Paso police officers responded in December 2021 to a report of shots fired at her home after a conflict arose between her husband and their neighbor. Upon questioning, Connelly admitted that she sometimes smoked marijuana, and a subsequent search of the home found several firearms.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that the federal law against gun and ammunition possession by someone who uses marijuana is consistent with other historical restrictions on gun ownership, such as by “mental defectives … and others whose possession of firearms is contrary to the public interests.”
However, the 5Th Circuit judges, leaning mostly on the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, didn’t buy that reasoning.
“Laws designed to disarm the severely mentally ill do not justify depriving those of sound mind of their Second Amendment rights,” the ruling stated. “The analogy stands only if someone is so intoxicated as to be in a state comparable to ‘lunacy.’ Just as there is no historical justification for disarming citizens of sound mind, there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence….”
The ruling then embellished on that thought, stating: “So the Bruen-style analogical question is this: Which is Paola more like: someone whose mental illness is so severe that she presents a danger to herself and others (i.e., someone who would be confined and deprived of firearms under this tradition and history of Second Amendment regulation)? Or a repeat alcohol user (who would not)? Paola falls into the latter camp. While intoxicated, she may be comparable to a severely mentally ill person whom the Founders would disarm. But, while sober, she is like a repeat alcohol user between periods of intoxication, whom the Founders would not disarm….”
The ruling also criticized the DOJ’s argument that the government’s power allowed it to decide who was “dangerous” enough to have rights taken away.
“The government also contends that persons whom Congress deems ‘dangerous’ can have their Second Amendment rights stripped,” the ruling stated. “In doing so, it posits that Paola—a non-violent marijuana user—falls into the category of ‘dangerous.’ But our history and tradition of disarming ‘dangerous’ persons does not include non-violent marijuana users like Paola. Indeed, not one piece of historical evidence suggests that, at the time they ratified the Second Amendment, the Founders authorized Congress to disarm anyone it deemed dangerous.”
The ruling concluded: “Perhaps the government could succeed if it were able to demonstrate that the drugs Paola used were so powerful that they rendered her permanently impaired in a way comparable to severe mental illness. It also might succeed if it were able to demonstrate that Paola’s drug use was so regular and heavy that it rendered her continually impaired. But it shows evidence of neither here.”
Ya know a guy I’ve been friend’s with for over 50 years offered me a joint some 15 years ago when last I saw him. I refused since I had to drive home 45 miles(& haven’t partaken in 40 years). He’s now mayor of a tiny hamlet way down south. He’s got tons of guns. Dunno if he still does the devil’s lettuce but I’m sure there’s a plethora of alcoholic idiots running America. Do I support pot smokers owning gats? Not really but I don’t make law’s. Glad I wasn’t busted in my youth🙄
Between the pot question and the illegal aliens question could we a bipartisan compromise of doing away with the 4473? Everybody gets what they want. Assuming of course the left isn’t ideological driven to be anti-gun-no-matter-what. Something leftists are constantly trying to convince us, unconvincingly, they aren’t.
I want some corn flavored snack chips, or mini pizzas, mini pizzas would taste good to my palate rn
I don’t remember ever smoking pot, but I do remember that I didn’t inhale.
hello bill clinton circa 1999
You know I’m expecting Moniker and a couple of cigars may come in handy.
Dmitar have you seen my box of cigars?
Just my take on this issue.
Pot should be governed the same as alcohol when it comes to firearms carry, possession, or ownership.
Zero tolerance for use while carrying. Otherwise do as you will.
Again, just my opinion here. We as a society, and me as an individual have no right to control what someone else puts in their body. Want to use pot or booze or whatever drug? Ok. but if that use puts others in danger, either because of altered perception, or faulty judgement, then use of the mind altering substance and the use of potentially dangerous equipment should be prohibited. We have a prohibition for aircraft pilots for drug or alcohol use for however many hours before flying. We have a prohibition for driving a vehicle while using intoxicating substances. But no one demands pilots or truck drivers or engineers on the train be tea totaler’s.
As I said above, zero tolerance for drugs or alcohol while carrying a weapon. Do what you will after the guns are put away.
Instead of the mental defective DOJ making a big dope case they should have simply charged the baddies with possible possession, disturbing the peace and discharging a firearm within city limits, etc. Sounds like neighbors from hell who needed a swift kick in the pants.
firearms, vehicles, machinery, etc. are intended for sober people. Unfortunately some sober people are so haphazard they might as well be drunk.
“Unfortunately some sober people are so haphazard they might as well be drunk.”
These types are called dem o cRats.
We got a mentally ill dementia ridden guy for president, probably takes enough medication to keep him going and looped out of his brain all the time. He has his figurative finger on the nuclear button, and plenty of guns & exploding-things at his disposal through the military and federal law enforcement and has not been shy on threatening to use them on innocent American citizens so sounds like a definite red-flag case to me (ya listening you hypocrite Democrat politicians and anti-gun).
But then ya got a mellowed out person that smoked a little pot every now and then but owns a gun and all of a sudden the sky is falling and the world is going to end and cats-n-dogs will be having sex and all the birds will fall from the sky and the government screams “OH NO! LETS THROW ‘EM IN JAIL, THEY ARE A DANGER, NO RIGHT FOR YOU EVER AGAIN!.” (and considering it was the federal government that in essence made pot legal in the state by their actions years ago with agreeing not to prosecute it if it was made legal by the state, so even there is some stark hypocrisy involved here)
Why won’t my comments post? Everything other than this one. After clicking post comments the article jumps to the top with no comments posted.
that’s a weird thing that happens here sometimes. its happend to me a few times over the last few days, had it happen in the past too.
personally, I tend to think its either word press weirdness (there is a lot of word press weirdness)…or …some type of ‘shadow ban’ type of thing … for certain word combinations or phrases.
Obviously the great censor isn’t interested in scientific facts and current federal laws on the subject of in question that can help their readers better understand the issue.