Supreme Court wrestles with gun rights, marijuana, and the right to own a gun : NPR

The United States Supreme Court

Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images

Guns, drugs and the Second Amendment right to bear arms all coalesced Monday at the Supreme Court in a case that could significantly undermine the 1968 gun control law.

First, some basics: Marijuana use is legalto one degree or another, in 40 states, but at the same time it is illegal below federal law and is classified as a Schedule 1 drug, among the most dangerous. To make matters even more confusing, President Trump is attempting to reclassify the drug as less dangerous. But on Monday, his Justice Department went to the Supreme Court to try to uphold a law that makes it a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison for a marijuana user to possess a gun.

All of this is happening in light of the court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, who reasoned that for a gun law to be constitutional, it had to be analogous to a similar law at the nation’s founding in the late 1700s.

In the Supreme Court chambers Monday, Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the justices that federal law “East analogous” to the laws of the nation’s founding, laws that prohibited weapons to “habitual drunkards.”

This statement prompted Justice Neil Gorsuch to say this: “John Adams had a mug of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson said he was not a big drinker. He only drank three or four glasses of wine a night,” he said. “Are they all habitual drunks who would be properly disarmed for life according to your theory?”

Gorsuch added that in this case, the defendant was prosecuted after admitting to FBI agents that he used marijuana every other day.

“What if he took a gummy bear…to help him sleep every other day?” » asked the judge. “Should we “disarm him for life?”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson repeatedly highlighted Monday’s case as an illustration of the difficulty in implementing the 2022 Bruen decision.

“I thought the point of the Bruen test was to say that the only thing the modern legislature can do is follow the judgments of the Founding-era legislature” when it comes to “who is dangerous and who should be disarmed,” she said.

Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the drugs most commonly used today were not invented at the time of the founding. Heroin, methamphetamines, fentanyl were all invented in the late 1800s, and marijuana wasn’t used significantly until the early 1900s, Alito said.

Consequently, he said, “We don’t know what those who passed the Second Amendment thought about illegal drug use per se? »

Judge Amy Coney Barrett admitted to being “stuck” as she said there was no evidence that the defendant’s use of marijuana every other day was dangerous or that he should be convicted of a crime and deprived of his legally purchased and properly stored gun. She then discussed a series of other potentially dangerous drugs that are regulated under federal law.

“Robitussin, Ambien, Tylenol with codeine, testosterone, Adderall.” As she said: “I’m not a pharmacologist, but none of these drugs seem to me to be drugs where it’s obvious that there would be a risk of violence.”

But when the defendant’s lawyer, Erin Murphy, stood up to make her argument, Chief Justice John Roberts asked her a series of skeptical questions. If Congress and the Executive Branch continue to view marijuana as a dangerous drug, but the accused cannot be prosecuted or disarmed, why wouldn’t the same treatment apply to other banned drugs, like PCP and amphetamines.

Noting that guns are banned in courthouses across the country, Roberts said that, under Murphy’s argument, these policies should also be considered on a case-by-case basis, in court.

“It seems to me that this takes a pretty cavalier approach to needing to take into account the expertise and judgments that we leave to Congress and the executive branch,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan then asked a question about a drug she called ayahuasca, about which she said she knew little. But, she said, “just assume what I tell you is true.”

It’s a very intense hallucinogen, she says, that lasts a long time, and “when you’re under its influence, reality dissolves.”

“I guess,” she added, that Congress has good reason to say, “When reality dissolves, you don’t want guns anymore.”

Justice Barrett intervened at this point, looking at Kagan from across the bench.

“I’ve never heard of this drug,” she said. “Is it real?”

Kagan nodded, “yes,” as laughter erupted in the Supreme Court courtroom.

Monday’s case was brought by the Justice Department against Ali Danial Hemani.

Although the government characterizes him as a drug trafficker with ties to terrorism, he has not been charged with such activities. Rather, when the home he shared with his parents was searched, FBI agents found a gun that Hemani had purchased legally, and he told FBI agents that he used marijuana every other day. He was later charged with violating the federal Firearms Act of 1968, which prohibits drug addicts and addicts from owning firearms.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later dismissed the charges, ruling that the federal law violated the Second Amendment right to own a firearm, and the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court.

A decision in the case is expected by summer.