The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Second Amendment protects marijuana users from being disarmed, unless there is a concrete showing that they pose a danger to others. The case, United States v. Cooper, involved a man who was found guilty of being a drug user in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 37 months in prison.
The court’s decision was based on the idea that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, but only if the limitation on that right is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court identified two Founding-era analogues that support the regulation of drug users who pose a danger to others: the confinement of the mentally ill and the criminal prohibition on taking up arms to terrify the people.
The court noted that during the Founding era, the mentally ill and dangerous were often confined to institutions, which included disarmament, in order to preserve the peace of the community. Similarly, laws prohibiting the use of firearms to terrify the people were enacted to protect the public from violence.
However, the court also recognized that not all drug users pose a danger to others. It noted that the behavioral effects of mental illness and drug use can overlap, but that only the subset of the mentally ill who were dangerous faced confinement and the loss of arms. Therefore, the court held that disarmament of drug users and addicts must be limited to those who pose a danger to others.
The court remanded the case to the district court to determine whether Cooper’s possession of a firearm was justified under the Second Amendment. The court also noted that the government’s argument that Cooper was too dangerous to have a gun because he possessed one for protection after a recent shooting at his residence was not supported by the evidence.
Overall, the court’s decision highlights the importance of considering the historical tradition of firearm regulation when evaluating the constitutionality of laws that regulate the possession of firearms. The court’s decision also underscores the need to balance the right to keep and bear arms with the need to protect public safety.
