Most of the time, when I write about gun ownership for marijuana users, I point out the inconsistent enforcement of federal laws. Washington turns a blind eye to marijuana being sold out of storefronts that are explicitly set up to sell it, even though it’s illegal under federal law, but if someone who goes to one of those storefronts and buys it also owns a gun, they will prosecute him for that.
I don’t like inconsistency in enforcing the law. If you’re going to legalize pot, legalize it.
As for the gun ownership question, colonial-era laws prohibited people from carrying a gun while drunk, but the law in question doesn’t just preclude carrying while under the influence, but owning a gun at all, while having ever consumed an illegal substance. So I don’t see a legal leg to stand on.
But the DOJ, that is supposedly pro-gun, has not just defended the inconsistency of enforcement at all, but apparently has a view of enforcing that law which is completely inconsistent with itself.
The U.S. Justice Department is again defending the federal law prohibiting people who use marijuana from owning or possessing firearms—in part by drawing a contrast between those affiliated with gangs and a hypothetical “frail and elderly grandmother” who uses medical cannabis.
In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit last week, attorneys for DOJ said judges should uphold the earlier denial of a motion to dismiss the case, U.S. vs. Baxter, where the defendant was convicted of violating a statute known as Section 922(g)(3).
As in multiple related cannabis and gun cases, the Justice Department argued that disarming people who use marijuana does not constitute a violation of the Second Amendment because the law is grounded in historical precedent with the country’s founding. Specifically, the federal government claimed there are relevant historical analogues prohibiting gun ownership by the mentally ill, those who induce terror and “habitual drunkards.”
“Because Baxter’s marijuana use makes him a particularly dangerous gun possessor, this Court should affirm the denial of his motion to dismiss,” DOJ said.
In defending its position, the department made repeated references to an earlier case that went before the Eighth Circuit, U.S. vs. Veasley, in which the court indicated that historical precedent might not justify disarming a “frail and elderly grandmother” who uses medical cannabis and keeps a gun for protection.
“Notably, however, disarmament of drug users is comparable to founding-era laws only if it is ‘limited to those who pose a danger to others,’” DOJ said in the latest filing. “The Second Amendment, for example, may tolerate disarmament of a PCP user but not a ‘frail and elderly grandmother’ who ‘uses marijuana for a chronic medical condition.’”
So who draws the line? Who decides that this particular user is a danger to everyone and this one isn’t?
Baxter wasn’t a convicted felon. He’d been suspected of gang activity, but so far as I can tell, he’d never broken any actual laws. Yes, he ran from the police, which isn’t a good look, but he also used pot and had a gun, so I kind of get it. I mean, it’s not like he didn’t get arrested.
I bring this up because it’s kind of hard to claim someone has been using pot since age 13, which prosecutors alleged in Baxter’s trial, which makes him a habitual user, and say that means he’s “particularly dangerous” when, at 22, he’s never been convicted of a violent crime so far as I can find.
Moreover, though, there is the inconsistency with how this law must be defended at all costs, but the laws against marijuana use just kind of stop applying anywhere else.
So it’s fine to use it recreationally, but not to own a gun if you do.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
