A federal appeals court has handed medical marijuana patients a major victory, ruling that the government hasn’t shown that banning them from owning guns lines up with America’s long-standing traditions of firearm regulation.
In a ruling issued this week, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a lower court’s dismissal and said the plaintiffs had plausibly claimed a violation of their Second Amendment rights.
The dispute focuses on federal provisions that ban “unlawful drug users” of controlled substances, including marijuana, from possessing or purchasing guns.
Florida law allows medical marijuana, but the drug remains illegal under federal law.
Marijuana Users Are Not Criminals
Two residents, Vera Cooper and Nicole Hansell, who use marijuana for health reasons, were denied gun purchases after disclosing their use, while a retired police officer, Neill Franklin, owns a firearm but has avoided joining the medical program despite being eligible, fearing prosecution.
The Justice Department argued that marijuana users are comparable to felons or dangerous people historically barred from having guns. The district court agreed, pointing to traditions of disarming felons, alcoholics, and the mentally ill. The appeals court, however, disagreed, finding no basis, at least at this stage, for treating medical marijuana patients as criminals or dangerous.
“Viewing these allegations in the light most favorable to Cooper and Hansell, it appears they use rational thought in making their decision to use marijuana… Cooper’s and Hansell’s mental state is a far cry from that of addicts and alcoholics whose actions are controlled by their need to use,” the court wrote.
The court further noted that the complaint described conduct that, at most, could constitute a federal misdemeanor, and did not include any allegations of addiction, impairment, or other criminal activity.
The judges made clear, however, that the law still stands, but the plaintiffs can continue to fight their case, while the Justice Department may still try to prove later that some marijuana users pose risks similar to intoxicated or dangerous people historically barred from having guns.
“The Federal Government has failed, at the motion to dismiss stage, to establish that disarming Appellants is consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation,” the court said.
A Long Trend
The ruling aligns with recent decisions by other federal appeals courts and adds momentum to a case challenging whether medical marijuana users can be barred under federal law from owning or buying firearms.
Last year, a U.S. appeals court said a Texas woman who owned a gun and used marijuana could not be prosecuted under federal law, ruling it unconstitutional to disarm her based on past drug use. The panel said that while restrictions may apply to people who are actively intoxicated, taking away firearms from a sober, non-violent person for past or occasional use does not align with historical gun laws.
In 2023, a federal judge in the Western District of Oklahoma also struck down the long-standing federal ban on marijuana users possessing firearms, calling the prohibition unconstitutional.
Courts, therefore, have questioned whether automatically banning marijuana users fits with the country’s long-standing tradition of firearm regulation, emphasizing that using medical marijuana doesn’t automatically make someone a danger and shouldn’t strip them of their Second Amendment rights without cause.