The court majority says history supports disarming drug users while a dissenting judge said the ruling sets a low bar and flouts common sense.
A federal appeals court has ruled that a law barring people who regularly use illegal drugs from owning guns is constitutional because of longstanding concerns about public safety, but ordered a lower court to take a closer look at whether disarming a Pennsylvania man who smokes marijuana violates his individual Second Amendment rights.
In a split opinion issued on July 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in a case involving Erik Harris, who was charged under federal statutes after buying three handguns while regularly using marijuana.
Harris, then 21, falsely stated on federal firearms purchase forms that he was not an unlawful user of marijuana, according to court filings. Days after buying one of the guns, he went out drinking and after getting high, lost the firearm while partying and later reported it stolen.
“When Harris’s missing gun turned up in a felon’s hands, officers called Harris in for questioning,” the opinion states. “There, he admitted that he smoked marijuana regularly, including earlier that same day.”
Harris pleaded guilty to possessing firearms as an unlawful drug user and making false statements on firearms forms but preserved his right to appeal. He argued that the gun ban for unlawful drug users violates the Second Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague.
Writing for the majority, Judge Stephanos Bibas held that history and tradition support laws disarming people whose drug use would likely cause them to pose a danger if armed. “Guns and drugs can be a lethal cocktail,” Bibas wrote, while citing foundation-era laws that allowed authorities to disarm people who were dangerously drunk or mentally ill, finding them relevant historical analogues for modern restrictions.
However, the court found there were not enough factual findings to decide whether Harris’s own marijuana use made him dangerous enough to justify stripping him of his Second Amendment rights. The court vacated his conviction in part and remanded the case for further proceedings.
“Today, we hold that history and tradition justify … restrictions on those who pose a special danger of misusing firearms because they frequently use drugs,” the opinion reads. “But we lack enough facts to tell whether the law’s restrictions are constitutional as applied to Harris.”
By Tom Ozimek
