Marijuana user cannot be banned from gun ownership, US court rules
By Nate Raymond
Aug 28 (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ruled that a pot-smoking gun owner in Texas cannot be prosecuted for violating a federal ban on users of illegal drugs owning firearms, saying it is unconstitutional to disarm her based on her past drug habits.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the prosecution had violated Paola Connelly's right to keep and bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment citing a landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expanded gun rights.
"Marijuana user or not, Paola is a member of our political community and thus has a presumptive right to bear arms," U.S. Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, wrote for a three-judge panel.
Engelhardt said that while the government may be allowed to bar someone currently under the influence of drugs from having weapons, "there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence."
The ruling partly upheld a judge's decision to toss on Second Amendment grounds all of the charges Connelly faced. The panel revived a separate charge that she violated a ban on transferring firearms to someone using illegal drugs.
The U.S. Department of Justice and Connelly's attorney did not respond to requests for comment.
She was indicted after El Paso police officers responded in December 2021 to a report of shots fired at her home after a conflict arose between her husband and their neighbor.
Upon arrival, officers found Connelly's husband standing at the neighbor's door firing a shotgun.
Following his arrest, officers spoke with Connelly, who indicated she sometimes smoked marijuana. A search of the Connellys' home found drug paraphernalia and several guns, including some she owned.
In upholding the dismissal of the gun possession charge against Connelly, Engelhardt cited a 2022 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority that established a new test for assessing whether modern firearm restrictions comply with the Second Amendment.
The court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen requires gun regulations to be "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Many laws have been declared invalid following that decision.
Engelhardt said until the 19th Century, little regulation of drugs existed. While some laws dating to the country's founding barred carrying weapons while under the influence of alcohol, "none barred gun possession by regular drinkers," he wrote.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Bill Berkrot
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
