Gun ban on cannabis users unconstitutional: US judge

A US judge has ruled that a gun ban on cannabis users is unconstitutional. US District Judge Patrick Wyrick ruled on February 3, 2023.

It began when Lawton, Oklahoma police arrested Jared Michael Harrison in May 2022 during a routine traffic stop. They searched his car and found a loaded revolver and cannabis. Harrison worked in the state’s legal medical cannabis industry, but lacked proper paperwork.

For the next eight months, Harrison’s attorneys would argue that the government violated their client’s Second Amendment rights.

And sure enough, if you’ve ever completed ATF Form 4473, you’ve come across question 21e.

“Are you an illegal user of marijuana or other tranquilizers, stimulants, narcotics, or other controlled substances?”

Even if cannabis is legal in your state, you are still prohibited from owning a firearm. If you answer no, you could be charged with lying under oath.

Interpretation of the second amendment

Judge Wyrick, appointed by Donald Trump in 2018, sided with Harrison’s right to bear arms. He cited a US Supreme Court ruling dealing with an interpretation of the Second Amendment.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court found that New York’s concealed carry restrictions violated the Fourteenth Amendment by stopping “law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs.”

New York’s gun owners took the challenge forward. They believed that granting gun licenses only to those with “right cause” was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court agreed. Judge Clarence Thomas wrote that the Second Amendment was not a “second-class right” that “does not require individuals to demonstrate special needs to government officials.”

Referring to this case, Judge Wyrick ruled that it was unlawful to strip cannabis users like Harrison of their Second Amendment gun rights.

“For all of the above reasons, this is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison,” Justice Wyrick said.

Most expect the US Department of Justice to appeal the ruling making gun bans on cannabis users unconstitutional.

Banning guns for cannabis users unconstitutional because prohibition is unconstitutional

Although the Second Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be violated,” the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits persons who are “illegal users or dependent on controlled substances” from possessing or using firearms own.

But the US Constitution says nothing about “controlled substances.” The fact is – the cannabis ban is unconstitutional. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments expressly protect the rights to life, liberty and property and guarantee equal protection under the law.

However, courts have generally upheld the constitutionality of federal and state laws prohibiting the use, possession, and sale of cannabis. Just as they have maintained restrictions on free speech even though the constitution is absolutely clear.

Congress may make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or forbidding the free exercise of it; or restriction of freedom of speech or freedom of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

It doesn’t get any clearer. So how can politicians and judges routinely violate the clear provisions of the US Constitution?

Quite simply, according to law professor John Hasnas. There is a difference between “law” and “order”.

The difference between “law” and “order”

John Hasnas argues that there are no neutral interpretations of legal reasoning. This means that all legal reasoning is inherently value-laden and reflects the personal and political biases of those interpreting the law.

John Hasnas writes that all legal concepts, including the idea of ​​neutrality, are not defined objectively but are shaped by cultural and political forces. This means that legal considerations can never be neutral and that the interpreter’s values ​​and beliefs will always influence any interpretation of the law.

John Hasnas writes:

The fact is that there is no government of law and no people. The law is a mixture of conflicting rules and counter-rules, expressed in inherently vague language, which can provide a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion. For this reason, as long as the law remains a state monopoly, it will always reflect the political ideology of those who hold the power to decide.

For these reasons, John Hasnas advocates ending the state legal monopoly. Continuing,

If the distinction between order and law were well understood, the question of whether a state legal monopoly is the best way to ensure an orderly society could be rationally debated. But the state does not want to see this question raised. By collapsing the notion of order into that of law, the state can ensure that this is not the case, since it has effectively eliminated the notion of non-state-created order from public consciousness.

Litmus test of the US Constitution

As mentioned, most expect the US Department of Justice to appeal the verdict. And why shouldn’t they?

In the heyday of the Catholic Church, the Church ignored the basic teachings of Jesus. This eventually led to the Protestant Reformation.

As for the US Constitution? Many still swear by it. If only the current government could “revert” to their constitutional restrictions.

But that ignores history, in which even the first generation of post-revolutionary American politicians could not be bothered with its limitations.

There is also a fundamental problem with the state legal monopoly and the ambiguity of language. Are you considering whether, in time of war, the US government should ban and punish citizens who might reveal military secrets to the enemy?

If your answer is yes, you interpreted the First Amendment’s “Let no law be made” to mean “sometimes, in time of war.”

Okay, what about reasonable objections to free speech? Like shouting “fire” in a crowded movie theater? Or selling a cannabis flower strain with unsubstantiated (but not fraudulent) claims?

Should Congress pass legislation to restrict this type of speech? If so, you’ve reinterpreted the First Amendment “no” to mean “some.”

Congress may pass legislation banning TikTok. Sounds great right? TikTok is a Chinese spyware app that the American public should not use.

Suppose you disagree with this statement. If you think Congress shouldn’t pass legislation banning TikTok, you’ve decided to interpret the words “speech” and “press” as referring to phone apps.

Gun ban for cannabis users? Your opinion depends on how dangerous you think guns and cannabis are.

Gun ban on cannabis users unconstitutional

An unconstitutional gun ban on cannabis users is likely to be appealed. Since at least 1934 there has been a concerted effort by elements of the American system to disarm the Americans. Gun control was part of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime.”

Like everything else from that era, it’s time to pick it up.

Americans have the right to bear arms, whether they use cannabis medicinally or recreationally. Or whether they are consumed occasionally or daily.

Americans have the right to carry guns, even if they smoke a joint during gunnery practice.