Pot smokers may still not exercise their 2A rights without violating federal law, and that includes those who use cannabis for medicinal purposes.
U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor made this clear when he dismissed a lawsuit this week challenging the longstanding federal prohibition that prevents marijuana users from keeping and bearing arms.
“In 2016, Florida stopped criminalizing the medical use of marijuana. Many people refer to this change as Florida’s ‘legalizing’ medical marijuana, but Florida did no such thing. It couldn’t,” wrote Winsor in his 22-page decision.
“‘Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits,’ and federal law still prohibits possession of marijuana – for medical purposes or otherwise,” Winsor continued, referencing an established legal precedent.
Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried filed the lawsuit back in April in the hopes that the Biden Administration would relent, specifically as it relates to those who use weed as medical treatment.
“I’m suing the Biden administration because people’s rights are being limited,” the commissioner said. “Medical marijuana is legal. Guns are legal. This is about people’s rights and their freedoms to responsibly have both.”
SEE ALSO: CCRKBA to Seattle: ‘Don’t Scapegoat Guns For Failed Leadership, Policies’
However, Biden’s DOJ urged the court to uphold the law, as GunsAmerica previously reported.
“Analogous statutes which purport to disarm persons considered a risk to society—whether felons or alcoholics—were known to the American legal tradition,” the DOJ stated in an August memo.
Denying 2A rights to pot smokers “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” DOJ added. “Two related historical traditions are analogous: the tradition of excluding those who engage in criminal activity from the right to bear arms, and the tradition of disarming those whose status or behavior would make it dangerous for them to possess firearms.”
Judge Winsor agreed with the DOJ’s historical examples and expounded further in his ruling.
“Plaintiffs recoil at being compared to the mentally ill, but one does not have to label marijuana users mentally ill to recognize that both categories of people can be dangerous when armed,” Winsor wrote.
“Although the prohibition reaches those habitually using marijuana (even if not currently under the influence), habitual drug users are analogous to other groups the government has historically found too dangerous to have guns. At bottom, the historical tradition of keeping guns from those the government fairly views as dangerous – like alcoholics and the mentally ill – is sufficiently analogous to modern laws keeping guns from habitual users of controlled substances,” he went on to say. “This provides another justification for upholding the challenged laws.”
It wasn’t immediately clear if Fried planned to appeal Judge Winsor’s ruling. As always, stay tuned for updates.
Good thing “sanctuary states” willing give up all federal funding as a matter of principle.
Regardless of where one stands on the weed issue, Judge Winsor is an incompetent idiot, if for no other reason than he clearly doesn’t know the law. The dumbass judge wrote in his opinion: “…the historic tradition of keeping guns from those the government fairly considers dangerous — like alcoholics and the mentally ill…”.
Huh?
What the moron doesn’t seem to comprehend is that users of alcohol, even those addicted to alcohol, are not prohibited from possessing firearms in any way under federal law. Title 18 USC Sect. 922(g)(1) through (9) lists all the prohibited categories, with 922(g)(3) the one that applies to “someone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” as defined in Title 21 USC Sect. 802. This section lists all the definitions for Title 21 USC Sect. 802 and it SPECIFICALLY excludes “distilled spirits, wines, malt beverages or tobacco” from being defined as a Controlled Substance. This is a HUGE embarrassment for that idiot Judge Winsor. Where did this dumbass go to law school? Who appointed this clown to the federal bench?
Speaking for myself, I have a CCW and carry concealed. I like a drink now and then and if I even have a glass of beer my firearm is put in the safe and any person who has a firearm should do the same. Using pot affects one judgement an reaction. So any person who uses that stuff should have enough sense to leave it alone when handling a firearm of any kind.
Not sure exactly what basis this suit was using. I’m no fan of weed, no use for it and not fond of recreational users for the most part. However, if approached as a purely 2nd Amendment issue, based on Bruen, it is a very good possibility that (despite what the winning side argues here) no historical or traditional foundation can be shown from 1791 to restrict firearms ownership on any similar basis. That argument should be viable for at least medical users, if with legitimate doctor prescription.
That said, the other ending for this- and I am not advocating for this outcome- is to have Congress take weed off the ban list. Schedule 1 drugs, or whatever that is. The Supremacy Claus is, to me, a weak argument. It’s only the Commerce Claus that is used to regulate this in the first place, and that is a power that has long been exaggerated beyond any Constitutional meaning. Unconstitutional regulation is not really protected by some other Constitutional provision. Rather counterintuitive, I think.
You need to do some research on why weed is illegal. It is because of the Duponts and the deep state elites. Nylon had to compete with hemp . so hemp had to be made evil.
Like I said, if we are going to make pot legal like alcohol and restrict gun ownership then we need to have the same restriction on alcohol users. Lord knows it is a bigger problem due to the aggressiveness generated by that drug.
Didn’t you read the article? It quotes the idiot judge at least two or three times comparing weed smokers to criminals and alcoholics, though I don’t know why. Nowhere in Title 18 USC 922 does it say alcoholics are prohibited from possessing firearms. How does the law define an alcoholic? And for how long is someone who is addicted to alcohol an alcoholic, and therefore prohibited? Answer: Alcoholic beverages are specifically exempted from being defined as Controlled Substances.
Personally, I don’t smoke pot, but I don’t think it’s fair to those who do to take away their 2nd amendment rights. They should be able to purchase a firearm. As long as they are not under the influence when carrying it should be treated the same as alcohol. You can get drunk as you want and still purchase a firearm, but can’t carry that firearm while under the influence. If you want to smoke pot the same should apply. But as pointed out, it is illegal. I’m just saying the law should be changed.
Now how the hell are you going to enforce this.
Hey you got your weed and all is good so what do you need a gun for? Whether it’s legal or not drugs, alcohol, and what not don’t go with guns period!
Why is it that the people who have the least confidence in the police and the military are the most willing to allow only the police and the military to have guns?
How about Hunter Biden going to jail for smoking crack and getting the gun permit and lying on the Gun Permit Application
Equal justice under the law let’s get Biden in locked up
Beer drinkers are next…
THAT is why they want to legaIize the weedy! So they can sIap your wrist on owning guns.
“Why is it that the same people who have the least confidence in the police and the military are the most willing to allow only the police and the military to have guns?” -Ann Coulter
Sorry, But NO HUMAN GETS to REGULATE or TAKE ANOTHER HUMANS GOD GIVEN NATURAL BORN RIGHTS FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THEM BEING INCARCERATED. And ONLY FOR THE TIME they are INCARCERATED, PERIOD.
Then we need the same prohibition for those that drink alcohol. There is definitely a lot more influence on the incorrect use of a gun with this group.
Dumb. Weed does not cause mass shootings. What’s next, video games, action movies, rap music, and airsoft? The only thing weed is going to do to a gun owner, is make him broke and not be able to afford a gun. It would sure be nice if the government, regardless of party would actually focus on real criminals, and the real important issues that impact everyone in our country. This is a waste of time. Someday in the next probably ten years it’s going to be federally legal anyway. Then what are these pricks gonna do?
My belief is the issue ( state law vs. Fed. law ) was settled
in 1865 . The Feds. won , end of discussion .
If some pot smoker wants to disobey Fed. law , and the
law says “ no firearms “ , then there it is .
I gave up that “ commodity “ in the late 80’s for just that
reason , and I have no regrets .
The only solution , as I see it , is to change Fed. law .
Now , if that can be done or not , remains to be seen .
Pressure Congress if it bothers one so much , but the
Law remains the Law .
Soooooo….where is the use of this ‘supremacy clause’ in regards to following the 1A, 2A, 4A etc.etc.? As states pass any and ALL laws which INFRINGE the rights of law abiding citizens as they please.
The court followed the law. Get over it.
Let us not get into the alcohol vs. pot distraction. Although I do not believe OUR state should have legalized “recreational” use, which just put a pot shop on every corner, that is also neither here nor there. Like all this abortion BS lately, we must return to the founding documents, specifically the 10th Amendment. Any Federal laws passed, using the “Supremacy Clause” as a basis, are unconstitutional. The Supremacy Clause applies to treaties and forcing states to enact, or refuse to enforce Federal laws that infringe on the basic 10th Amendment and Constitutional guarantees. Please look it up and get familiar with our Constitution…we are going to need it.
There are so very many Americans who smoke pot and own guns, just like there are many Americans who drink beer and own guns. To make a distinction between the groups is pretty silly. Each silly ruling or law diminishes society’s respect for all laws.
Definitely a lot of hysterical pablum in the comments about reefer madness though. Nothing like an opinion based on no actual information.
My understanding is most of the mass shooters in the US were pot smokers. Pot has become much stronger than before, and kids especially are having psychotic episodes after smoking this more potent weed of today. Pot can stay in your system for up to 6 months and causes memory problems. Alcohol is digested by the body and will be gone within a day or two depending on how much you drink.
Agreed.
Many of the mass shooters are heavy pot users.
Another point is that alcohol use does not necessarily impair the user in most cases, especially with moderate use. Alcohol’s purpose is not impairment. Pot’s, on the other hand, is specifically to cause mental impairment of varying degree. There is no amount of pot that does not alter the user’s mental state and ability to think. Pot users are always impaired, just to a varying degree.
Last point: why do pot users (and liberals in general) always think that any laws that they don’t like are somehow optional? Pot is against Federal law. Period. States can’t “legalize” pot any more than they can declare that gun laws are not applicable, say by deregulating suppressors or machineguns.
To say that alcohol doesn t impair you is just plain wrong. Alcohol is a depressant witch is responsible for more domestic violence, auto accidents, general violence and death Than any other drugs or stimulates known. The federal government has held hemp and cannabis hostage for years. Only because the right people where not making money from it. And after all its all about the money.
Dang! I hope this does not apply to the military. I would hate to see half of our armed forces disarmed!
Its all about control with democrats.
So you can drink as much alcohol you want and eat as many pills and you want and still buy firearms. But you can’t smoke a joint and buy firearms. What a joke.
The government can always find a reason, legitimate or not to disarm citizens. I guess next will be if you get a DUI that’s grounds to take away your gun rights. The Dems are never going to stop until only real criminals are armed.
So that would leave Hunter Biden where in the justice system? I mean he was only a self described ,”Crack head”,when he illegally purchased a handgun.