Wyrick cited last year’s monumental New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision by the Supreme Court that expanded gun rights nationwide. The case is another example of judges following the high court’s lead as it set new standards for reviewing gun control laws.
In his ruling he dismissed an indictment faced by a man who was charged in August with violating the federal ban.
He noted that the federal government may enforce statutes preventing dangerous persons from possessing weapons. However, Wyrick rejected the argument that defendant Jared Michael Harrison’s “mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm.”
Further, he declared that marijuana use is “not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act.
The case unfolded in Oklahoma where the drug may be legally purchased for medicinal purposes despite remaining illegal under federal law. Harrison faced charges after being arrested last May by police in Lawton, Oklahoma.
After a traffic stop, police searched his vehicle and found a loaded revolver along with marijuana. Harrison did not have a state-issued medical marijuana card but told officers he was on his way to work at a medical marijuana dispensary.
Harrison’s lawyers argued that his Second Amendment rights were violated by federal law barring “unlawful users or addicts of controlled substances” from possession of firearms. Also, the section of the law concerning drug users or addicts was inconsistent with the U.S. tradition of legal doctrine concerning weapons.
Federal prosecutors countered that the contested portion of the law was “consistent with a longstanding historical tradition in America of disarming presumptively risky persons, namely, felons, the mentally ill, and the intoxicated.”
In siding with Harrison’s attorneys, Wyrick rejected prosecutors’ arguments that his marijuana use “justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm.”
As for the nation’s historical tradition, Wyrick countered that “the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports.” The judge noted that there are over 2,000 businesses in Oklahoma where marijuana may be purchased legally.
Public defender Laura Deskin said the ruling in favor of her client represented a “step in the right direction for a large number of Americans who deserve the right to bear arms and protect their homes just like any other American.”
The Department of Justice is expected to appeal.
This latest decision falls in line with other recent rulings citing Bruen for expanding the scope of gun rights and narrowing ways that authorities may confiscate firearms.
The Oklahoma ruling followed by just one day the decision of a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The panel on Thursday ruled that the government may not prevent individuals who have a domestic violence restraining order from owning guns.
The judges also referred to the Bruen decision in justifying their decision.
And in September, a federal judge in Midland, Texas, found a firearms law that prohibited persons under indictment for a felony from purchasing a firearm to be unconstitutional. As in the Oklahoma case, U.S. District Judge David Counts followed the spirit of Bruen in deciding that there was “little evidence” the ban in question “aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition.”
Even as some politicians attempt to fire up their supporters by attacking Second Amendment rights, it is refreshing to see cases where judges fall back on the Constitution in issuing their rulings. Stripping away fundamental liberties should be a last resort, not the result of sweeping laws that are not based in sound reasoning.
