The Second Amendment wins again when a U.
S. judge rules it is unconstitutional to ban someone from owning guns who takes a hit or two from a joint. As reported by Reuters, U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick in Oklahoma dismissed an indictment against a man who had been charged with violating the ban because, according to the judge, the mans right to bear arms had been violated under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Wyrick was clear about his decision to dismiss the indictment against Jared Harrison, saying it could not be argued that Harrisons mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm.
Wyrick wrote, The mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the nations history and tradition of firearms regulation supports. The judge added that using marijuana was not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act. He also noted that Oklahoma, along with some other states, still has marijuana as illegal under federal law but allows the purchase of the drug for medical use.
Harrisons public defender, Laura Deskin, said the ruling was a step in the right direction for a large number of Americans who deserve the right to bear arms and protect their homes just like any other American. Deskin described marijuana as the most common illegal drug used at the federal level.
Wyrick agreed with Harrisons lawyers in a ruling that the arguments the federal prosecutors put forth that Harrisons status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm...is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison.
The decision is the latest in a gun regulation being deemed unconstitutional in court following the 6-3 conservative majority ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. In June, the court ruled that a person has the right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense under the Second Amendment.
Fox News reports that on Thursday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that people with domestic violence restraining orders have a constitutional right to own firearms.
Federal prosecutors have a different view and argue a portion of the law focused on drug users is consistent with a longstanding historical tradition in America of disarming presumptively risky persons, namely, felons, the mentally ill, and the intoxicated.
Login