Lawsuit Alleges Federal Ban on Guns for Cananbis Users is Unconstitutional

​Part of the basis of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade was that there was no historical right to abortions in the constitution. Judge Alito wrote, “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.” The conservative judges used this as a reason for removing federal involvement in the issue, and sent it to individual states for their own governance.

The Supreme Court also used the original constitution as a reason for saying that states cannot deny gun rights to an individual. Judge Thomas wrote, “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.” In other words, there should be no restrictions by the government on if a person should be allowed to have a gun.

Currently there is a federal ban against owning guns by cannabis users. This includes medical marijuana patients.

Because of this ban, a top Democrat in Florida filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department over the issue, calling it unconstitutional.

Based on the recent rulings that defer to the constitution, the plaintiffs’ lawsuit now ask: Is there historical precedent to justify the current federal policy that prohibits people who admit to using cannabis as part of the background check process from purchasing and possessing firearms?

Considering that marijuana was not prohibited during the time the constitution was written, which endorsed gun rights, and the fact that cannabis was actually prescribed by doctors during the early days of the country, and during the time that the second amendment was written, the plaintiffs argued that the current ban is not justifiable.

The revised lawsuit writes, “Quite simply, there is no historical tradition of denying individuals their Second Amendment rights based solely (or even partially) on the use of marijuana.” “In fact, historical evidence shows that marijuana was considered a legitimate and legal form of medicine in England, America, and other western countries through the mid-Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries. It was also discussed and researched for its medical properties in and around the time the Second Amendment was ratified. There was no law or regulation preventing marijuana users from possessing firearms in or around those time periods. Rather, such a ban did not come into existence until around the mid-Twentieth Century.”

Another component of the legal challenge is based on a unique interpretation of a congressional spending bill rider known as the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prevents the Justice Department from using federal funds to interfere in the implementation of state medical cannabis programs. By preventing people from using medical marijuana without risking the loss of their right to buy firearms, the federal government is effectively violating that rider.

The original lawsuit was filed in April, but based on the supreme courts rulings, they asked for time to revise it.

The lawsuit is being headed by Florida Agriculture Commissioner, and gubernatorial candidate, Nikki Fried, along with other plaintiffs.

A judge has set an August 8 deadline for Department of Justice to respond to the updated lawsuit.

​The Department of Justice has already indicated that it plans to file a motion to dismiss, rather than make an argument on the merits of the legal challenge.  

---