The new Congressional Research Service report does more than summarize United States v. Hemani. It gives Congress options for rewriting the federal marijuana gun ban and, more importantly, flags the possibility that lawmakers may need to reconsider other categorical prohibitions contained in 18 U.S.C. §922(g).
That makes this much bigger than a marijuana case. At its core, Hemani is about whether the government can erase a constitutional right by attaching a disfavored label to someone without proving that person is dangerous or providing any process before disarmament.
Supreme Court Rejects Automatic Disarmament
Federal law prohibits anyone considered an “unlawful user of or addicted to” a controlled substance from possessing firearms or ammunition. Violating §922(g)(3) can bring up to 15 years in federal prison. A conviction can also turn the defendant into a prohibited person for life.
Ali Danial Hemani admitted using marijuana about every other day and possessed a firearm in his home. The government did not allege that he was intoxicated while handling the gun, had threatened anyone, had misused the firearm, or that his marijuana use made him dangerous. It nevertheless argued that his regular marijuana use automatically placed him outside the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court rejected that theory. Although all nine justices agreed with the judgment, seven joined Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan concurred only in the judgment.
The government’s historical case rested largely on laws involving so-called habitual drunkards. But those laws generally targeted people whose drinking had left them incapacitated and unable to manage their affairs. They also served different purposes and ordinarily involved some legal proceeding before a person’s liberty was taken away.
Section 922(g)(3), by contrast, automatically disarmed Hemani without any individualized finding of incapacity or dangerousness and without any pre-deprivation process. The government’s historical analogy failed on whom the laws targeted, why they existed, and how they operated.
The Congressional Research Service report notes that the Court “explicitly recognized room for legislative action.”
Congress Can Respect the Ruling or Try to Rebuild the Ban
The Supreme Court did not facially invalidate the entirety of §922(g)(3). It decided that the statute could not constitutionally be applied to Hemani based solely on his regular marijuana use and without evidence connecting that use to dangerousness.
CRS says Congress could amend the law to “more narrowly capture only those individuals” whose substance use or choice of drug presents a danger to themselves or others.
That would be a substantial retreat from the government’s position in Hemani. Under Washington’s theory, the drug, dosage, effects, reason for possessing the gun, and the person’s actual behavior did not matter. Regular use of any controlled substance was enough to expose someone to a 15-year felony.
Nobody needs to be told that handling firearms while impaired is irresponsible. Laws addressing actual intoxication, threats, or dangerous conduct are fundamentally different from stripping a sober person of the right to keep a firearm at home because he used a politically disfavored substance days earlier.
The government does not permanently disarm everyone who drinks alcohol. Marijuana use should not become an excuse for treating millions of otherwise peaceable Americans as violent criminals without evidence.
The Bigger Threat to Washington’s Prohibited-Person Regime
The sleeper issue in the CRS report has little to do with marijuana. Congressional researchers say lawmakers may want to consider “modifying other categorical prohibitions in § 922(g).”
Section 922(g) contains nine prohibited-person categories covering everyone from fugitives and felons to people subject to certain restraining orders, those committed to mental institutions, unlawful drug users, and people convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses.
The Supreme Court did not declare those provisions unconstitutional in Hemani. The opinion does, however, reinforce several principles that will matter in future challenges. Once the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the burden belongs to the government. Modern restrictions must resemble the nation’s historical tradition in both purpose and operation. A broad assertion that an entire class of people is dangerous is not a substitute for historical evidence, individualized findings, or due process.
That contrasts sharply with United States v. Rahimi, where the Supreme Court upheld temporary disarmament after a court found that an individual posed a credible threat to another person. Hemani received no comparable hearing or finding. His marijuana use itself triggered the prohibition.
Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote separately to question whether §922(g)(3) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. The federal government claimed jurisdiction because the firearm had previously traveled in interstate commerce. Thomas argued that mere possession is not economic activity and that an item’s past movement across state lines should not give Congress unlimited power over its later possession.
A Narrow Ruling With a Broad Warning
Gun owners should not misread Hemani as completely erasing §922(g)(3) or automatically making every marijuana user’s firearm possession lawful nationwide. The Court expressly left several questions unanswered, including laws addressing current intoxication, the statute’s separate “addicted to” language, individualized proof of dangerousness, and evidence that a particular drug creates an exceptional risk of firearm misuse.
But describing the decision as narrow should not obscure what Washington lost. The federal government claimed it could take away a fundamental right, threaten a man with 15 years in prison, and leave him disarmed for life without proving he was dangerous, impaired, or irresponsible with a firearm. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that result.
Congress should not treat the ruling as an invitation to replace one unconstitutional status-based ban with another. The proper response is to punish actual dangerous conduct rather than criminalize the peaceful exercise of a constitutional right.
Hemani did not establish a right to misuse firearms while intoxicated. It established that the government must show more than marijuana use before it can turn gun ownership into a federal felony. CRS clearly understands the distinction. The question now is whether Congress will respect it—or go searching for another way around the Second Amendment.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
from https://ift.tt/tHlufND
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment