The recent filing by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in the United States v. Erik Matthew Harris case has sparked intense debate over the prohibition of firearm ownership among marijuana users. This contentious issue, challenging federal restrictions, hinges on the intersection of drug use, firearm possession, and constitutional rights.

DOJ’s Argument: A Closer Look

Federal Prohibition and Its Claims

The DOJ’s briefing has stirred controversy, drawing parallels to the infamous 1936 film “Reefer Madness.” Within this document, the government contends that marijuana users, despite its legality in numerous states, remain ensnared by federal prohibition. The crux of their argument revolves around claims lacking substantiated evidence.

Unsubstantiated Assertions

One of the DOJ’s contentious claims asserts that marijuana users exhibit unsafe firearm storage practices and are prone to retaining possession while under the influence. However, these assertions lack empirical validation, raising concerns about the foundation of the federal prohibition’s constitutionality.

Linking Marijuana Use to Criminal Activity

Furthermore, the DOJ attempts to link marijuana use to criminal behavior, suggesting that users may resort to using firearms to fund their drug habits or protect their supply. Despite these claims lacking citation, the government argues for the temporary disarmament of habitual drug users to address these perceived risks.

Challenging Second AMendment Rights

The DOJ contends that the Second Amendment protection applies only to law-abiding citizens, thereby excluding marijuana users who violate federal law. However, this overlooks the potential unconstitutionality of the ban itself, a point not addressed in this specific case.

Scientific Contestations and Mental Health Claims

Although the DOJ asserts correlations between marijuana use and certain mental illnesses, acknowledging scientific contentions, it draws historical parallels to justify disarming those deemed mentally ill, further fortifying its argument.

Relevance to Police Safety

In emphasizing police safety, the DOJ attempts to establish a link between individuals under the influence and potential assaults on law enforcement, despite legal precedents discouraging such a two-step legal test.

Broader Legal Challenges

Apart from the United States v. Erik Matthew Harris case, similar challenges regarding the prohibition of firearm possession for marijuana users exist in other circuit courts. The Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals are grappling with similar legal dilemmas.

Final Thoughts

The intersection of marijuana use, firearm possession, and constitutional rights remains a contentious and evolving legal landscape. While the DOJ’s brief outlines concerns, its claims lacking empirical support raise significant questions regarding the constitutionality of the federal ban on firearm ownership for marijuana users.

Free Speech and Alternative Media are under attack by the Deep State. Real News Cast needs reader support to survive. 

Every dollar helps. Contributions help keep the site active and help support the author (and his medical bills)

Please Contribute via  GoGetFunding