Buckeye Reporter

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has narrowed the federal government's blanket prohibition on firearm possession by illegal drug users, including those who use marijuana legally under state law. This decision follows the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphasized that firearm regulations must align with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in Bruen clarified that if an individual's conduct is covered by the Second Amendment's plain text, it is presumptively protected. The government must demonstrate that its regulation aligns with historical traditions to justify restrictions.

This legal precedent has led to reevaluations of categories under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), which lists individuals prohibited from possessing firearms. Historically, only those deemed dangerous could be barred from gun ownership. However, current federal laws extend beyond this scope.

The case in question, U.S. v. Cooper, involved a man restricted under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) for regularly using marijuana. While states have relaxed marijuana laws, federal law still bans possession, affecting those complying with state legislation.

The Eighth Circuit panel acknowledged that some drug users might be disarmed consistently with the Second Amendment when their actions resemble those historically considered grounds for disarmament—such as severe mental illness or "taking up arms to terrify people."

Regarding mental illness analogies, the court noted:

"The 'behavioral effects' of mental illness and drug use can 'overlap'... but only the subset of the mentally ill who were dangerous faced confinement and loss of arms... It follows that, for disarmament of drug users and addicts to be comparably 'justifi[ed],' it must be limited to those 'who pose a danger to others.'… The analogy is complete, in other words, for someone whose 'regular use[] of... PCP... induce[s] violence,' but not for a 'frail and elderly grandmother' who 'uses marijuana for a chronic medical condition.'"

Explaining historical restrictions on menacing behavior with firearms:

"Sometimes disarming drug users and addicts will line up with the case-by-case historical tradition, but other times it will not … The district court’s task on remand is to figure out which side of the Second Amendment line Cooper’s case falls on."

The ruling was as-applied; thus individual case facts determine whether blanket prohibitions apply. This nuanced approach suggests lower courts are respecting Second Amendment rights post-Bruen.

###