Federal Judge Rules Prohibition on Marijuana Users Owning Firearms Unconstitutional

The Arrest

A federal judge in Oklahoma has ruled that a law prohibiting marijuana users from owning firearms is unconstitutional. The defendant, Jared Michael Harrison, was pulled over by police for failing to stop at a red light and was later found to be in possession of marijuana, a loaded revolver, prescription bottles, THC gummies, THC vape cartridges, and a pre-rolled marijuana cigarette. Harrison was charged with possessing a firearm while being an "unlawful user of marijuana" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

Motion to Dismiss

Harrison filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute is unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the Due Process Clause, and infringes upon his fundamental right to possess a firearm in violation of the Second Amendment. Prosecutors stated that the law is “consistent with a longstanding historical tradition in America of disarming presumptively risky persons, namely, felons, the mentally ill, and the intoxicated.”

The Ruling

US District Judge Patrick Wyrick of Oklahoma City granted Harrison's motion to dismiss, stating that the law "stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm … is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison." The judge also stated that "the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports."

https://youtu.be/tJILUD5UzL0

Implications

This ruling sets a new standard for interpreting the Second Amendment, particularly for individuals who are "unlawful users or addicts of controlled substances." The ruling may also have implications for Form 4473, a form required by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives for firearms transactions. On that form, there is a specific question dealing with marijuana use. The ATF may need to remove that from the 4473.

Conclusion

The recent ruling in Oklahoma is a significant step towards the recognition of the right to bear arms for all individuals, regardless of their use of controlled substances such as marijuana. This decision is in line with the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirmed the Second Amendment as a fundamental right for all citizens.

A link to the case decision can be found here.

FAQ: Marijuana Users Owning Firearms

What was the recent ruling in Oklahoma regarding marijuana users owning firearms?

A federal judge in Oklahoma recently ruled that a law prohibiting marijuana users from owning firearms is unconstitutional.

Who was the defendant in this case?
The defendant was Jared Michael Harrison, who was pulled over for failing to stop at a red light and was later found to be in possession of marijuana and firearms.

What was the basis for Harrison's motion to dismiss the indictment?
Harrison argued that the law prohibiting marijuana users from owning firearms is unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the Due Process Clause, and infringes upon his fundamental right to possess a firearm in violation of the Second Amendment.

What was the ruling of the judge in this case?
The judge granted Harrison's motion to dismiss, stating that the law "stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm … is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison."

What are the implications of this ruling for marijuana users owning firearms?
This ruling sets a new standard for interpreting the Second Amendment and may have implications for the rights of all individuals, regardless of their use of controlled substances such as marijuana, to own firearms.

Does this ruling apply to all states in the US?
This ruling only applies in the district where it was made, which is Oklahoma. However, it may be considered as persuasive precedent in other jurisdictions.

What does this ruling mean for Form 4473?
The ruling may have implications for Form 4473, which is a form required by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives for firearms transactions. The exact implications are not yet clear.