ACLU Lawyer Confident SCOTUS will Restore Gun Rights to Pot Users

Anytime the ACLU makes a stand even somewhat related to gun rights, it’s news. For a long time, they ignored the Second Amendment, arguing that other groups handled that right just fine, so they focused on other rights. Then, they became downright anti-gun, and it pissed a lot of people off. I mean, I value all of my rights, and I recognize that my Second Amendment rights are the insurance policy that keeps the rest safe should the courtroom fail.

But, when there’s another right they like that seems to be tied in, they can take a seemingly pro-gun stance.

For example, gun rights for marijuana users. 

While I don’t condone it in any way, the truth is that if we’re going to have it legal at the state level to any degree, we should probably have some consistency with the laws.

Now, the Supreme Court will decide, and the ACLU’s attorney is optimistic.

With the U.S. Supreme Court set to hear a case next week on the constitutionality of a federal gun ban for marijuana users, attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are feeling “hopeful” that justices will take their side over the Trump administration’s Justice Department and ultimately declare the current policy unlawful.

Oral arguments in the case, U.S. vs. Hemani, are scheduled for Monday. And after years of litigation on the issue in courts across the country, advocates are eager to see the cannabis and firearms issue resolved in their favor with justices agreeing that the statute known as Section 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Brandon Buskey, director of ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project, is part of the legal team representing Ali Danial Hemani, who challenged his federal conviction under 922(g)(3) for unlawful possession of a gun as a person who regularly used cannabis.

Buskey discussed the case in an interview with Marijuana Moment on Tuesday, detailing how the organization plans to navigate the thorny legal issues that have divided lower courts, what questions it anticipates from the justices and how it is preparing to respond to DOJ’s likely claims.

In case after case and filing after filing, DOJ has been steadfast in its position that the federal gun ban is appropriately enforced, insisting that even under the rigorous standards for gun laws that must be applied under recent Supreme Court precedent, restricting firearm rights for cannabis consumers is a public safety imperative.

But on the other side of the debate, groups as politically diverse as ACLU and the National Rifle Association (NRA) have maintained that Section 922(g)(3) represents unconstitutional government overreach that ignores basic realities: That is, with cannabis now legal in some form in the vast majority of states—and even the federal government’s long-held prohibitionist policies gradually softening—it’s time to recognize that cannabis users aren’t part of some inherently dangerous caste whose Second Amendment rights must be categorically denied.

“We don’t think that there’s any valid basis in history or tradition to justify that prosecution,” Buskey said.

Obviously, I agree.

The question is whether or not enough of the justices will.

On one hand, this is a marijuana question, which the progressive justices tend to favor, and the conservatives oppose. On the other hand, this is a Second Amendment question, which flips the script.

This could be unanimous in either direction, based on that alone.

However, the Bruen decision set a standard, and while there are plenty of laws from the time of the founding about not handling a gun while drunk, I’ve yet to see a single case that shows someone who drank, even a lot, was completely barred from owning guns for the rest of their life. The precedent just isn’t there, and that’s critical to the entire case, especially after Bruen.

While the Court might have differences on the question of marijuana legalization, I fail to see how the same justices that supported Bruen would turn a blind eye to their own precedent in a case like this. Granted, they seemingly did so in Rahimi, but I kind of get where that was coming from, even if I disagree.

With this, though, I honestly can’t see it.

However, as with anything dealing with the Supreme Court, we won’t really have a clue until the justices start asking questions. Then, we might get an idea of where they’ll fall.

Until then, no matter how confident anyone can be, the reality is that it’s just a guess.

Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment. 

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.