The US Department of Justice has argued that allowing a Pennsylvania prosecutor who uses medical marijuana to possess a gun would be “dangerous” and unconstitutional. The prosecutor, Robert Greene, is a registered medical marijuana patient and has filed a lawsuit against the government, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, to challenge the federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana users.
In a recent court filing, the DOJ argued that marijuana’s physical and mental effects make it dangerous for a person to handle firearms, and that it impairs a person’s judgment, including their judgment about whether to use firearms. The government also cited a recent US Supreme Court decision, US v. Rahimi, which upheld the government’s ability to limit the Second Amendment rights of people with domestic violence restraining orders.
The DOJ’s motion asks the court to dismiss Greene’s case, arguing that the prohibition on gun ownership by marijuana users is constitutional and aligns with other restrictions on gun ownership by dangerous, mentally ill, or intoxicated people. The government also argued that Greene’s possession of medical marijuana is a federal crime, and that he is not entitled to possess firearms while committing that crime.
Greene’s attorney, Joshua Prince, has responded to the DOJ’s motion, saying that the government’s arguments are “bordering on the frivolous” and fail to show a historical analogue as required by the US Supreme Court’s precedent. Prince expects the motion to be denied and is confident that they will be victorious in their forthcoming summary judgment motion.
The case is one of several federal court cases that center on the federal government’s prohibition on gun ownership by users of illegal drugs. A federal appeals court in the Fifth Circuit recently ruled that the policy is unconstitutional, but that ruling does not cover Pennsylvania, which is part of the Third Circuit US Court of Appeals.
The Biden administration has argued that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide,” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.” The administration has also claimed that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it is consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.
The case highlights the ongoing debate over the intersection of marijuana use and gun ownership, with some arguing that marijuana users should be allowed to possess firearms while others believe that it poses a risk to public safety.
