Buckeye Reporter

A federal appeals court has overturned the firearm conviction of Aldo Ali Cordova Perez, an Iowa resident and daily marijuana user, who was previously found guilty under a federal law that bars “unlawful users of controlled substances” from possessing firearms.

The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals questioned the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership for those using drugs illegal at the federal level, even if those substances are legal in some states. The court determined that the trial judge did not make sufficient factual findings to show Cordova Perez posed a credible threat to others due to his marijuana use.

Cordova Perez’s case began with a 2023 drug operation in Des Moines, Iowa, where he fled police during a high-speed chase connected to a DEA investigation into methamphetamine sales. After being apprehended, officers found marijuana on him but no firearm at the scene. Cordova Perez later admitted owning an old .22 rifle stored at home for safety purposes, which had not been used in years.

He was acquitted of all charges except for illegal gun possession as a marijuana user under § 922(g)(3), resulting in a 36-month prison sentence.

In its July 22 decision, the appellate panel stated that simply being a marijuana user does not automatically mean someone is dangerous or should lose their Second Amendment rights. The ruling said that unless there is evidence showing that drug use made Cordova Perez act like someone “mentally ill and dangerous,” or posed a “credible threat to the physical safety of others,” the conviction could not stand.

The court noted that reckless driving during the police chase was emphasized by prosecutors but was never clearly linked to his marijuana use. The panel also indicated it may be up to a jury—not just a judge—to decide whether Cordova Perez’s cannabis use made him dangerous enough to justify stripping his gun rights.

This case adds to growing legal challenges against § 922(g)(3) as more states legalize medical and recreational cannabis while federal law remains unchanged. Recent cases such as U.S. v. Daniels, U.S. v. Baxter, and U.S. v. Cooper have also raised questions about applying this statute to nonviolent marijuana users.

Meanwhile, the Department of Justice seeks Supreme Court review in U.S. v. Hemani—a case involving both marijuana and cocaine—to defend current law amid concerns it could be struck down if applied to defendants like Cordova Perez.

Legal analysts suggest these decisions may prompt Congress to revise or clarify existing laws regarding gun ownership and drug use, with some lawmakers proposing exemptions for medical marijuana patients or calling for repeal of § 922(g)(3). If higher courts ultimately overturn or limit this statute, millions who comply with state cannabis laws could regain their Second Amendment rights.

The case will return to district court for further proceedings focused on whether Cordova Perez’s drug use presented an actual danger.