5th Circuit Reaffirms That Prosecuting a Marijuana User for Illegal Gun Possession Was Unconstitutional
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit this week reaffirmed its conclusion that the federal government violated the Second Amendment when it prosecuted a Mississippi cannabis consumer for illegal gun possession. In a decision published on Monday, a three-judge panel unanimously ruled that Patrick Darnell Daniels Jr.’s conviction for violating 18 USC 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony for an “unlawful user” of a “controlled substance” to possess a firearm, “is inconsistent with our ‘history and tradition’ of gun regulation.” It therefore fails the test that the Supreme Court established in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Daniels was arrested in April 2022 after he was caught with guns and the remains of a few joints during a routine traffic stop in Hancock County, Mississippi. He was convicted of illegal gun possession and sentenced to nearly four years in prison plus three years of supervised release. The conviction also meant that Daniels permanently lost his Second Amendment rights.
The 5th Circuit overturned Daniels’ conviction in August 2023, deeming it inconsistent with the Bruen test. Last year, the Supreme Court vacated that decision and instructed the 5th Circuit to reconsider the case in light of United States v. Rahimi, a June 2024 decision that upheld a prosecution under 18 USC 922(g)(8), which bans gun possession by anyone subject to a domestic violence restraining order.
Two months after Rahimi, the 5th Circuit rejected a Section 922(g)(3) charge against Paola Connelly, a cannabis consumer who was arrested when El Paso police discovered that she owned firearms. The court said it was unconstitutional to prosecute Connelly “based solely on her ‘habitual or occasional drug use.'” That decision in United States v. Connelly, the 5th Circuit said on Monday, dictates the outcome in United States v. Daniels.
“Because the jury did not necessarily find that Daniels was presently or even recently engaged in unlawful drug use,” Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote in the majority opinion, “we reverse his conviction again and remand.” In a concurring opinion, Judge Stephen A. Higginson agreed with that result but emphasized that neither decision means prosecutions under Section 922(g)(3) are always unconstitutional.
In Connelly, the government “argued that Founding-era restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of mentally ill persons were ‘relevantly similar'” to Section 922(g)(3) “as applied to unlawful users of controlled substances,” Smith notes. “We rejected the government’s position because ‘institutionalizing those so mentally ill that they present a danger to themselves or others does not give clear guidance about which lesser impairments are serious enough to warrant constitutional deprivations.’ Fur
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
