Back in 2017, Honolulu’s police chief abandoned a controversial plan to confiscate the guns of residents who use marijuana for medical purposes, something the state had allowed since 2000. A license application is required for firearms because the potential owner has a state-issued medical marijuana card. Last year, it was by far the most common reason for gun license denials, accounting for two out of five denials, according to a recent report from the state attorney general’s office.
According to 18 USC 922(g)(3), any “unlawful user” of a “controlled substance” who receives or possesses a firearm is guilty of a felony. Since the federal government does not recognize any legal use of marijuana, this disqualification applies to all marijuana consumers, even in states that allow medical or recreational use. Under Hawaii law, possession of a firearm is a felony if federal law “prohibits the possession of a firearm.”
In addition to documenting the important role of medical marijuana approvals in gun license denials, the Attorney General’s report also revealed inconsistencies between Hawaii County (Big Island) and the state’s other three major counties. While the average rejection rate in Honolulu, Maui and Kauai counties is less than 1%, Hawaii County’s rejection rate is closer to 7%.
For Hawaii County Police Chief Benjamin Moshkovich, who takes office in January 2023, the Big Island’s unusual state of affairs is news. license applications, but other counties issued licenses to people with medical marijuana cards.
Moszkowicz told Hawaii Public Radio that “75 percent of people who were initially denied medical marijuana were approved after returning documentation from their doctor or counselor stating that they were no longer adversely affected.” In light of this pattern, he said, Hawaii County has moved to In keeping with policy in other counties, firearms licenses will now be issued to residents who were previously registered as medical marijuana patients but did not hold a valid card in the previous year.
Such is Hawaii’s enlightened policy that the combination of gun registration and patient registration highlights the absurdity of marijuana consumers’ assumptions. in fact So dangerous that they cannot be trusted to carry firearms. Survey data shows that approximately 20 million American gun owners are also marijuana users, making them guilty of federal felonies punishable by up to 15 years in prison. But these cases are rarely prosecuted, largely because the government often doesn’t know who owns a gun or uses marijuana. As Hawaii pursues both messages, its approach highlights the injustice of denying people their constitutional right to armed self-defense for arbitrary reasons that have nothing to do with public safety.
The Biden administration has steadfastly defended the policy despite the president’s public concerns about the federal government “raising unnecessary barriers.”The approach to dealing with cannabis failed.” Government lawyers likened cannabis consumers, including medical marijuana patients, to “crazy people” and violent criminals. They even argued that Biden’s use of marijuana explain It should not be considered a crime to exclude someone from “the people” whose “right to keep and bear arms” is protected by the Second Amendment.
In 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Hawaii, upheld a policy banning the sale of firearms to people known to have medical marijuana cards, even if they do not currently smoke marijuana. The appeals court held that possession of a medical marijuana card is a good, though imperfect, indicator of illegal drug use, which in turn is associated with violence, “impaired mental status” and “negative interactions with law enforcement officers.” The Ninth Circuit concluded that there was a “reasonable fit” between the challenged policy and the government’s substantive goals, meaning it passed “interlocutory scrutiny” and was consistent with the Second Amendment.
Six years later in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Brunn, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly rejected the kind of “balancing of interests” test applied by the Ninth Circuit in this case. “When the Second Amendment expressly covers personal conduct, the Constitution presumes to protect that conduct,” Justice Thomas wrote for the majority. “The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that its regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation. Only then can a court conclude that an individual’s conduct does not fall within the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified imperatives.'”
Hawaii Supreme Court takes pessimistic view the bridge and previous Second Amendment decisions. In a unanimous ruling last February, the judges said there was no personal right to bear arms, which they considered inconsistent with the “spirit of aloha.” This ethos may help explain why Hawaii is so keen on ensuring that anyone who uses marijuana to relieve symptoms is prohibited from owning a gun. But that doesn’t overturn precedent supporting a right that Hawaii’s top legal expert says doesn’t exist.
since the bridge, at least four federal courts have concluded that prosecuting marijuana users for possessing firearms does not meet the standards set forth in that decision. For example, last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned the conviction of a marijuana consumer under Section 922(g)(3), rejecting the Department of Justice’s argument that the conviction complied with Section 922(g)(3) . the bridge. The defendant was sentenced to nearly four years in prison after being caught during a traffic check with two guns and the remains of some joints.
Other courts have ruled that at least some applications of Section 922(g)(3) are constitutional. Last month, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected a facial challenge to the provision. A federal judge in Delaware relied heavily on that ruling this month when she declined to dismiss federal gun charges against Hunter Biden, the president’s son. ruling that the policies his father defended violated the Second Amendment.
Although the Eighth Circuit rejected the argument that Section 922(g)(3) was prima facie unconstitutional, the appeals court expressed skepticism about the key historical precedent cited by the Department of Justice. Government lawyers argued that explicitly banning illegal drug users from owning guns was “very similar” to earlier laws targeting people who openly carried or fired guns while drunk. Although the Eighth Circuit was unconvinced by the inappropriate analogy, it acknowledged that some drug users may resemble “mentally ill and dangerous persons” or “people who take drugs.”[e] Taking up arms to terrorize the people.
Still, the Eighth Circuit acknowledged that “not every drug user or addict will intimidate others, even with the use of a firearm.” For example, the court said, “An 80-year-old grandmother smoked marijuana due to a chronic illness and for her own Concealing the pistol safely” is “extremely unlikely” to “pose a danger to others or cause terror.”
In Hawaii, however, the grandmother would not be able to obtain the license needed to legally possess a gun “for her own safety.” The same is true for the other 32,000 or so patients whose medical use of marijuana is deemed legal by the state. Under state and federal law, one license excludes another.
In the 24 states that have legalized marijuana for recreational and medical use, grandma can more easily exercise her Second Amendment rights because she can legally purchase marijuana without creating a record that would prevent her from purchasing a gun. But if she evades the ban that Hawaii is eager to enforce, she will be guilty of up to four federal felonies.
In addition to Section 922(g)(3), if she purchased the firearm from a store, she would be violating two other provisions: 18 USC 922(a)(6) and 18 USC 924(a)(1)( A). ”. These felonies are punishable by up to 10 years and up to 5 years in prison respectively. The bipartisan Safer Communities Act signed into law by President Biden in 2022 adds another potential charge that carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison.
All told, the Eighth Circuit’s hypothetical grandmother could face a total maximum sentence of 45 years for trying to exercise her Second Amendment rights. Does this scenario make sense? Hunter Biden doesn’t think so, but his father disagrees.
