Supreme Court Affirms 2nd Amendment Gun Rights for Cannabis Consumers
The US Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutional rights of cannabis consumers to legally possess firearms.
In its ruling today in United States v. Hemani, the Court determined that efforts by the federal government to categorically ban firearm ownership for individuals with a history of marijuana use violate the Second Amendment.
Gun Rights for Cannabis Consumers
US Supreme Court Justices rejected arguments that the government’s ban was rooted in historical precedent or that cannabis consumers are either “categorically or unusually dangerous.”
The majority said “(The federal government) asks us to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing. … (Specifically,) the government maintains that it may automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm because he uses marijuana a few times a week. More than that, because he possessed a gun despite this prohibition, the government insists it may imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life. … All based on little more than its current say-so, one at odds with its own regulatory actions. Affording the government that kind of ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment.”
NORML Board Chair and co-counsel of record for NORML’s amicus filing in the case Joseph A. Bondy applauded the decision.
“Today’s decision is a measured but important vindication of personal freedom and constitutional principle,” he said. “The Court recognized what NORML urged. That responsible adults do not forfeit their Second Amendment rights merely because they consume cannabis, absent any individualized showing of dangerousness. Our Constitution protects people, not stereotypes. And it does not permit the government to convert cannabis use alone into a categorical mark of civic unworthiness. I am deeply grateful to NORML’s Amicus Committee for its dedication, judgment, and commitment to defending the rights and dignity of cannabis consumers nationwide.”
NORML’s Amicus Committee has played a sustained role in this emerging body of law. It previously filed amicus briefs in United States v. Daniels, where the Fifth Circuit concluded that neither “history (nor) tradition … justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage,” and in Cooper v. Attorney General of the United States, where the Eleventh Circuit held that the federal firearms ban does not apply to individuals who possess medical cannabis in compliance with state law. That case had been brought by former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who now serves as a member of NORML’s Board of Directors and was a co-author of NORML’s amicus brief in Hemani.
The issue of gun rights for cannabis consumers and medical cannabis patients has been a long-standing federal issue.
Many people in America love guns and legally own them. So it has been a terrible shame that, technically, they were deprived of the benefits of the sacred herb.
