11th Circuit Revives Challenge Against Federal Gun Ban for Medical Cannabis Users
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has reinstated a constitutional challenge against a federal law that prohibits users of illegal drugs, including medical marijuana patients, from owning firearms. In a decision issued on October 11, 2023, a three-judge panel unanimously determined that the federal government did not sufficiently demonstrate that the law, as applied to state-authorized medical marijuana users in Florida, aligns with the historical context of firearm regulation in the United States. This ruling references the constitutional test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2022 case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Judge Elizabeth Branch, a nominee of former President Donald Trump, articulated that the allegations presented by the plaintiffs do not suggest they are comparable to felons or dangerous individuals, the two categories the government used to justify the disarmament. The court vacated the previous district court ruling and instructed for further proceedings to take place consistent with this opinion.
The legal journey began with a lawsuit filed by Nikki Fried, who served as Florida’s commissioner of agriculture and consumer services, in April 2022. Fried raised concerns regarding 18 USC 922(g)(3), which criminalizes firearm possession for “unlawful users” of controlled substances. She argued that Floridians should not have to choose between their constitutional right to bear arms and the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes, which is legal under state law.
Her stance found support from Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican who typically holds conservative views on drug policy. Following Fried’s lawsuit, DeSantis’s office stated, “Floridians should not be deprived of a constitutional right for using a medication lawfully.” In a campaign event in January 2024, when asked about the law’s implications for cannabis users, DeSantis expressed skepticism about its constitutionality.
Prior to the appellate ruling, Judge Allen Winsor, also appointed by Trump, dismissed Fried’s initial lawsuit, asserting that the law complied with the Bruen standard even for medical marijuana users. Following Fried’s departure from office, the lawsuit continued with two remaining plaintiffs: Vera Cooper, a septuagenarian using cannabis for chronic pain, and Nicole Hansell, a veteran treating post-traumatic stress disorder. Both are seeking to purchase firearms for self-defense.
In its ruling, the 11th Circuit rejected the government’s argument that medical marijuana users do not constitute “the people” entitled to Second Amendment protections. Judge Branch noted that both Cooper and Hansell have no felony convictions and are not engaging in illegal conduct. Furthermore, she pointed out that Congress has historically approved a spending rider preventing the Department of Justice from interfering with state medical marijuana programs, which implicitly acknowledges the legality of their actions.
The court emphasized that the plaintiffs’ use of medical marijuana could at most result in a federal misdemeanor, and there is no legal precedent excluding misdemeanants from Second Amendment protections. The judges further dismissed arguments that Cooper and Hansell were “irresponsible” and therefore undeserving of gun ownership rights, referencing the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Rahimi, which invalidated the notion that individuals could be disarmed based simply on perceived irresponsibility.
The 11th Circuit concluded that disarming medical marijuana users does not align with established historical practices of regulating firearms. The court found that the government failed to cite any historical basis for disarming individuals solely based on misdemeanor conduct. Judge Branch noted the distinction between the disarmament of felons and the challenged law impacting individuals who have never faced criminal charges.
The government had argued that allowing medical marijuana users to own guns posed risks to public safety, claiming potential mishandling of firearms and the possibility of violent crime. However, the court found no substantive evidence to support these claims, stating that the allegations did not indicate that Cooper and Hansell posed any credible threat to public safety based solely on their legal use of cannabis.
This ruling aligns with recent decisions from other federal appeals courts, which have similarly recognized the constitutional rights of individuals who do not pose a credible threat to public safety. The 11th Circuit’s decision suggests a growing legal recognition that medical marijuana users should not be automatically disarmed based on their lawful use of cannabis.
As this case progresses, it could have significant implications for the intersection of gun rights and medical marijuana use, highlighting ongoing debates about personal freedoms and public safety in the United States.
