5th Circuit Court Rules Federal Ban on Cannabis Users Owning Guns Unconstitutional

LOS ANGELES- The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declared that prosecuting a cannabis user for gun ownership under federal law is unconstitutional, marking a significant ruling that challenges longstanding federal restrictions. The decision stems from the case of Paola Connelly, a Texas resident who admitted to occasional cannabis use and was subsequently charged with violating federal firearms laws.

Case Overview and Court’s Ruling

The case began in December 2021 when El Paso police responded to a report of gunfire at Connelly’s home. Although the incident primarily involved her husband, Connelly admitted to police that she occasionally used cannabis for sleep and anxiety. This admission led to charges against her for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

In a ruling delivered by U.S. Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt, the three-judge panel concluded that prosecuting Connelly violated her Second Amendment rights. The court’s decision relied heavily on the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that modern firearm regulations must align with the nation’s historical traditions.

Judge Engelhardt highlighted that, historically, there was little regulation of drugs like cannabis, and that disarming individuals for substance use was not a common practice until the 19th century. He further noted that while laws have historically prohibited carrying weapons while intoxicated, they did not ban gun ownership by those who consumed alcohol or other substances regularly.

Government’s Argument and Court’s Response

The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that cannabis users pose a danger comparable to individuals with severe mental illness, both of whom are restricted from owning firearms under federal law. However, the court rejected this comparison, stating that occasional, nonviolent cannabis use does not equate to the conditions that justify disarming individuals with severe mental health issues.

The ruling emphasized that restrictions on gun ownership should not apply to sober individuals solely based on past cannabis use, drawing a parallel between repeat cannabis users and repeat alcohol users, both of whom are generally considered to be of sound mind when sober.

Broader Implications for Gun Rights and Cannabis Laws

This decision underscores the growing tension between federal and state laws regarding cannabis use and gun ownership. While cannabis remains classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, many states have legalized it for medical or recreational use, creating a legal conflict for cannabis users who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The court’s ruling in Connelly’s case sets a precedent that could lead to further legal challenges to federal restrictions on gun ownership for cannabis users. As more states move toward legalization, the constitutionality of disarming individuals based on their cannabis use may face increasing scrutiny.

This decision may also influence public perceptions of cannabis users, challenging the stereotype that they are inherently dangerous. The court’s ruling suggests a need to evaluate individuals on a case-by-case basis rather than relying on broad generalizations about substance use.

As societal attitudes toward cannabis continue to evolve, this ruling could prompt lawmakers to reconsider existing laws and regulations surrounding gun ownership and cannabis use, potentially leading to reforms that better balance public safety concerns with individual rights.