Tag: 2nd amendment

Federal Appeals Court Gives Medical Marijuana Patients Who Want To Own Guns A Win

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers a series of cases challenging the current ban on gun ownership by people who use marijuana, another federal appeals court has ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District, in a opinion authored by Judge Elizabeth Branch, departed from the ruling of a district could that upheld the federal statute, Section 922(g)(3), that precludes any “unlawful users” of controlled substances from owning or purchasing firearms.

While the Justice Department has repeatedly argued that people who use cannabis, in compliance with state law, are uniquely dangerous—and that there are historical analogues in U.S. gun laws that justify the ban—the appeals court disagreed, vacated the prior ruling and remanded the case back to a lower court.

The federal government’s “allegations in the operative complaint do not lead to the inference that the plaintiffs are comparatively similar to either felons or dangerous individuals.”

The plaintiffs in the years-long case are Vera Cooper and Nicole Hansell, who are registered medical cannabis patients denied gun purchases over their admission to participating in the program, and Neill Franklin, a former police officer who wants to access medical marijuana without jeopardizing his right to own a firearm.

Former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (D) initially led the suit against the federal government, but she was removed from the case after leaving her state office. The Republican commissioner who replaced her declined to become involved in the legal proceedings.

One of the most controversial aspects of the many active firearms and marijuana cases deals with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2022 where justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights. The ruling states that any such restrictions must be consistent with the historical context of the Second Amendment’s original 1791 ratification.

To that end, the Justice Department has argued that the two medical cannabis patients in the Florida case should be deprived of their gun rights due to their alleged felonious activity and dangerousness.

After reviewing the district court ruling on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit said “nothing in the [complaint] indicates that [plaintiffs] have committed any felony or been convicted of any crime (felony or misdemeanor), let alone that their medical marijuana use makes them dangerous.”

“Thus, the government failed to meet its burden—at the motion to dismiss stage—to establish that disarming medical marijuana users is consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation,” the opinion says.

Keep reading

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Revives Case Challenging Gun Ban for Florida Medical Marijuana Patients

In a decision issued Wednesday, a three-judge panel said the government had not met its burden of showing that disarming state-legal medical marijuana patients aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The case was brought by several Florida medical marijuana patients, joined initially by former Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who argued the restriction is unconstitutional given their lawful conduct under state law.

The court’s ruling nullifies a district court decision from November 2022 that threw out the challenge

The court noted that the individuals involved had not been convicted of crimes or shown to pose a danger that would warrant taking away their gun rights. Under federal law, marijuana use remains a misdemeanor offense, but Florida voters legalized medical marijuana in 2016. The panel ruled that this conflict was enough to allow the case to move forward.

U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch, writing on behalf of the panel, noted that at most the plaintiffs were guilty of a federal misdemeanor for marijuana use. She emphasized that they had not been convicted of a crime and there was no showing at this stage that their drug use made them dangerous enough to justify stripping them of gun rights.

“Accordingly, the Federal Government has failed, at the motion to dismiss stage, to establish that disarming Appellants is consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation,” she wrote.

Keep reading

Ninth Circuit Overturns California’s ‘One-Gun-Per-Month’ Restriction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate Thursday overturning California’s “one-gun-a-month” restriction.

The case is Nguyen v. Bonta and the plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two FFL gun dealers, and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen.

The Second Amendment Foundation noted the “one-gun-a-month” restriction allows law-abiding citizens to purchase only one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or combination thereof), from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period.

The August 14th mandate overturning the restriction follows a June 20, 2025, Ninth Circuit three-judge panel decision which affirmed a lower court ruling against the “one-gun-a-month” restriction.

Keep reading

Trump DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Uphold Ban On Marijuana Users Owning Guns

Amid a series of legal challenges, the Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case on the federal government’s ban on users of marijuana and other illegal drugs from owning firearms and uphold the prohibition, saying it is consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

To that end, the DOJ solicitor general is urging SCOTUS to hear one of five relevant cases to resolve conflicting lower court decisions on gun rights for cannabis consumers.

With the multiple competing legal cases resulting in differing rulings in federal appeals courts across the country, DOJ last week requested that SCOTUS review one in particular that it described as “archetypal” of the issue related to federal code 922(g)(3), which precludes users of unlawful drugs from having guns or ammo.

The case “presents an important Second Amendment issue that affects hundreds of prosecutions every year: whether the government may disarm individuals who habitually use unlawful drugs but are not necessarily under the influence while possessing a firearm,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, an appointee of President Donald Trump, said.

The solicitor general reiterated his position that, despite recent appeals court decisions calling into question the constitutionality of the firearms ban for people who use cannabis—even in compliance with state law—the restriction is nevertheless lawful.

Some lower courts have said the government’s blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.

But over recent years, various federal district and appeals courts have take differing approaches to the issue. As DOJ argued in its latest filing in the case, “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.”

“The petition for a writ of certiorari [filed by Sauer in June] identified three sides of that conflict: The Seventh Circuit has upheld Section 922(g)(3); the Eighth Circuit has held it violates the Second Amendment unless the government can make a case-by-case showing justifying the drug user’s disarmament; and the Fifth Circuit has held that it generally violates the Second Amendment unless the drug user was intoxicated while possessing the firearm.”

“Since then, the conflict has deepened,” it said, referring to several other cases on the issue that are pending before the high court. And DOJ wants SCOTUS to focus on one case in particular to resolve what it called a “four-way circuit conflict”: U.S. v. Hemani.

One reason DOJ could be focused on the justices taking up Hemani in particular is that the defendant in that case is not only a cannabis user but also a user of cocaine who’s sold drugs in the past, according to court findings, which could make him less sympathetic in the eyes of the court. Defendants in the other cases were merely found in possession of both a firearm and marijuana.

Lawyers for the defendant in Hemani argued in a brief last month that the high court should decline the case.

But in its reply brief submitted to SCOTUS this week, the Justice Department said that “this case is the best vehicle available.”

Keep reading

Making the World Freer with Homemade Guns

Recently, while touting gun seizures in a city that has some of the most authoritarian gun laws in the United States, Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch lamented, “the number of illegal guns that we’ve seen used in New York City has exploded since 3D technology has come about.” She’s not alone. Homemade guns are increasingly sophisticated and available almost everywhere. That’s a good thing.

Americans, Armed and Scary

American dedication to privately owned weapons alarms observers from more restrictive countries—much to the amusement of many Americans, it should be noted, whose ancestors fled those places in search of greater freedom and found it, in part, in the ability to arm themselves and to generally flip the bird to government. That means that from the foundation of the U.S., privately owned weapons and their protection by the Second Amendment have had a strong ideological component. Now, innovators around the world are embracing private arms as expressions of liberty and creating simple designs that can be built in home workshops with commonly available tools and parts.

Critics argue that 3D-printed DIY firearms and their enthusiasts are spreading libertarianism around the world. Let’s hope they’re right.

Summarizing events at June’s MoneroKon conference in Prague, an annual meeting devoted to “privacy-enhancing technologies and distributed systems,” security expert Zoltán Füredi described a presentation by the pseudonymous Zé Carioca, designer of the recently unveiled Urutau, a 9mm select-fire firearm designed to be constructed with a 3D printer and components purchased at any hardware store. Rather than focus on his creation, Zé Carioca instead championed 3D-printed firearms as companions to cryptocurrency in challenging the power and reach of governments.

“His speech blurred the lines between technology, ideology, and extreme libertarian politics,” commented Füredi. He added of the speakers’ message, “Just as the freedom to transact (via cryptocurrency) is now seen as a fundamental human right, so too should be the right to bear arms—worldwide.”

Keep reading

Lawsuit: The Regulation Of Untaxed Firearms Under Federal Law Is Unconstitutional

Several Second Amendment advocacy groups, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), have filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

President Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill erased the NFA’s $200 stamp tax on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, any firearm classified by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) as “other,” and suppressors starting Jan. 1, 2026. However, “the firearms are still required to be registered and are subject to” regulations designed to enforce the “now-extinct” tax, the lawsuit says. This “regulatory regime” no longer comports with Congress’ constitutional authority, plaintiffs claim. The lawsuit also argues that “the NFA’s regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment.”

“The National Firearms Act’s registration scheme only exists to ensure that the tax on NFA firearms was paid,” Adam Kraut, the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) executive director, said in a press release. “With Congress removing the tax on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and ‘any other weapons,’ the continued inclusion of these items in the NFA serves no purpose, except continuing to retain an impermissible hurdle to the exercise of one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

The lawsuit, Brown v. ATF, was filed on August 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs are the NRA, the American Suppressor Association (ASA), SAF, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two individual members of these organizations. They are suing both the ATF and the DOJ. The lawsuit asks the court to declare NFA regulations “relating to making, transferring, receiving, possessing, or otherwise using” the untaxed firearms and suppressors unlawful and to block anyone from enforcing the challenged portions of the law.

Keep reading

Why ‘You Don’t Need That for Hunting’ Should Never Fly

Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about so-called assault weapons. The shooting earlier this week in a Manhattan office building by a gunman wielding one was always going to spark such a debate.

Undoubtedly, you’ve heard someone, either now or in the past, use the phrase, “You don’t need that to hunt deer.” They might be referring to the type of weapon, the magazine capacity, or anything of the sort.

For Fudds, that’s ample reason to support some gun control measure or another. After all, their old, trusty bolt-action or lever gun isn’t up for banning. They’ll keep all of their guns, so it doesn’t matter.

Doing so, however, is a terrible mistake.

First, there’s the age-old argument that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. It’s not. I’ve talked about how it’s not countless times, and I’m just one of a legion of voices saying so.

Yet there’s another reason why this argument should be rejected outright beyond the text of the Second Amendment.

See, if we use the idea that what we need for hunting deer or other game animals is the criteria to be considered for what should be legal or not, then absolutely no firearm will survive.

Those trusty bolt-actions and lever-action guns? You don’t actually need those to hunt deer, elk, bear, or anything else. Archery exists, and really, how many mass killings do we see with those? I mean, I can only think of one, and that wasn’t even here, so sure, archery is a much safer option for hunting, and then those sniper rifles and cowboy guns can be taken off the streets where they won’t harm anyone.

After all, didn’t you guys already agree that if you don’t need it for hunting, it’s OK to ban it?

The problem with “don’t need it for hunting” is that someone will decide to ramp that up to the next degree. And, since archery equipment can be considered “arms,” they could even use that to argue that they’re not violating the Second Amendment at all with a total gun ban since you still have access to arms that can be used for hunting.

Hell, back in the day, spears were hunting weapons. Would we like to see a world where archery equipment was too cutting-edge and capable of being used for a massacre?

We can make the Second Amendment argument until we’re blue in the face. It’s absolutely true, but it doesn’t convince a lot of people predisposed to accept limits on constitutionally protected rights. What we have to do is address the problems with arguments as they’re presented, including the slippery slope on something like this.

Keep reading

California Law Requiring Background Checks For Ammo Declared Unconstitutional

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that a California law requiring background checks for individuals purchasing ammunition is unconstitutional, upholding a previous judge’s ruling striking down the law.

The background check for ammo purchases law had been struck down twice by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez before a lawsuit was brought by a coalition of gun owners and gun rights groups who sued the state, saying that the law infringed on the Second Amendment rights of Californians.

In Thursday’s ruling upholding Benitez’s permanent injunction blocking the law, Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote in the majority opinion that the law was not consistent with how the country has historically regulated firearms, saying, “By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

In the dissent, Judge Jay S. Bybee said that the background check law did not constrain the right to keep and bear arms as a blanket ban might do and that the inconvenience to ammo purchasers was minor.

Bybee wrote, “The vast majority of (California’s) checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay.”

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the background check requirement is Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, who posted on social media, “This is a huge win. The state will likely appeal en banc, so we have to keep fighting, but this law will fall!”

California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed his frustration with the ruling, saying, “Strong gun laws save lives — and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence. Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.”

Keep reading

Four Injured in Another Shooting in Gun-Free Denver

The City of Denver has among the most restrictive gun laws in the state of Colorado. Colorado ranks 13th in the nation for most restrictive gun laws, and for liberty advocates, anti-gun policy is often incoherent. What are they even trying to do?

To answer that question, we found a helpful chart from Rand explaining the intention and expected outcomes of various types of gun legislation.

It’s helpful in that it explains their “logic” and pinpoints the disarmament lobby’s intentions. That being said, if we measured the impact of these policies in the states that already have them, I doubt the objectives have been achieved. Consider these stats for Colorado…

Keep reading

Hochul Calls for Nationwide Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ in Wake of NYC Shooting

Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY) said Tuesday on CNN’s “Inside Politics” that a new federal assault weapons ban is needed in the wake of a mass shooting in Manhattan.

Hochul said, “I’m sitting in Midtown right now. My office is just a few blocks away and walking in this morning, and you see the security guards down there and everyone is just wondering, you know, is this is this a one-off? Could this happen again? I mean, that sense of security is shattered when someone comes from another state carrying an assault weapon designed only for battlefields, but using it, intending to use that to commit mayhem and mass murder in our cities.”

She continued, “This is happening because there are still assault weapons in our country.”

Hochul added, “If every state had the same laws uniformly, you could not have a situation where we fight really hard in the state of New York to make sure that we have the toughest gun laws in the nation. We have the lowest of all the large states homicide rate by guns. New York City, New York State, has the lowest homicide rate by guns in the nation for large states, and that’s because of laws that are working. We want that same sense of urgency to go out across the nation.”

Keep reading