The US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has reaffirmed its earlier decision that the federal government’s prosecution of a Mississippi man for illegal gun possession due to his marijuana use was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the conviction, which led to a nearly four-year prison sentence and the loss of the defendant’s Second Amendment rights, was inconsistent with the country’s history and tradition of gun regulation.
Patrick Darnell Daniels Jr. was arrested in 2022 after a routine traffic stop revealed him to be in possession of guns and the remains of marijuana joints. He was convicted of illegal gun possession under 18 USC 922(g)(3), which prohibits individuals who are “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing firearms. The conviction was overturned by the 5th Circuit in 2023, but the Supreme Court vacated that decision and instructed the court to reconsider the case in light of a subsequent decision.
The 5th Circuit’s latest decision was influenced by its earlier ruling in United States v. Connelly, which also involved a cannabis consumer who was prosecuted for illegal gun possession. The court held that it was unconstitutional to prosecute Connelly “based solely on her ‘habitual or occasional drug use’.” In the Daniels case, the court found that the jury did not necessarily find that Daniels was presently or recently engaged in unlawful drug use, and therefore, his conviction was also unconstitutional.
The court’s decision is based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun regulations must be consistent with the country’s history and tradition of gun regulation. The 5th Circuit held that the prosecution of Daniels under 18 USC 922(g)(3) failed to meet this test, as it was not supported by historical precedent and was overly broad.
The decision does not preclude all uses of 18 USC 922(g)(3), but it does require that applications of the statute be consistent with the country’s history and tradition of firearm regulations. The court’s ruling is a setback for the Biden administration, which has defended the statute as a necessary measure to ensure public safety. The administration’s position is that even state-approved patients who use cannabis for medical purposes are ipso facto so dangerous and untrustworthy that they have no Second Amendment rights.
