Similar to alcohol restrictions, the issue arises with intoxication and not only use.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Wednesday that the law is unconstitutional. It bans anyone who is deemed an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” including marijuana, from having a firearm. The penalty could be as high as 10 years in prison.
The outcome was good news for Patrick Daniels.
An admitted regular marijuana user, he was arrested in April 2022 when law enforcement found marijuana and two loaded firearms in his vehicle. The ensuing charges resulted in Daniels being sentenced to almost four years in prison and three years on probation.
U.S. v. Daniels, as the Fifth Circuit case was called, was ruled upon by Judges Jerry Smith, Stephen Higginson and Don Willett. They unanimously decided that the statute’s restriction was overly broad as applied to Daniels.
They found that it is not supported by the “historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which is now required after last year’s Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Smith wrote for the majority. “Just as there was no historical justification for disarming a citizen of sound mind, there is no tradition that supports disarming a sober citizen who is not currently under an impairing influence. Indeed, it is helpful to compare the tradition surrounding the insane and the tradition surrounding the intoxicated side-by-side.”
The now-overturned law did not draw a distinction between a suspect who is under the influence when arrested as opposed to one who is sober but possesses drugs when they are taken into custody.
The three-judge panel noted that laws at the nation’s founding put the insane in institutions and removed their guns from them. However, alcoholics were allowed to retain their weapons while sober.
Smith wrote that the U.S. has no tradition of stripping Second Amendment rights away from persons who are non-violent, even if they are drug users. He observed that prosecutors wanted the court to ignore historical tradition and instead rule on the basis that Daniels was believed to be dangerous.
That belief was based on the admitted practice of smoking marijuana several times per month.
The Fifth Circuit decision threw his conviction out and may affect a controversial gun case involving President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden.
The younger Biden was expected to acknowledge that he possessed a firearm while he was addicted to drugs. He would avoid prosecution on gun-related charges if he kept out of trouble during a certain period. New developments made that plea deal uncertain, but experts believe last week’s decision by the appeals court may influence its outcome.
According to former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy, the Department of Justice could apply the Fifth Circuit decision to the Biden case.
He told Fox News that “even though Hunter Biden’s situation is readily distinguishable from that of Patrick Daniels, it’s possible the Justice Department could rationalize that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling supports its exercise of discretion to give Biden deferred-prosecution treatment in a plea agreement.”
Gun rights advocates have followed the case of the president’s son for its potentially wider implications. The federal appeals court decision is limited to Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, but its reach may stretch far beyond the southern circuit.
