Federal Judge Rules Man in Possession of Marijuana Can’t Be Denied Gun Rights if Not Under the Influence

The Fifth Circuit, which encompasses Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, is one of the most gun-friendly jurisdictions in the country. And while none of the three states in the Circuit have legalized recreational marijuana use, the courts have been very deferential to those who’ve been prosecuted under federal law that strips gun rights from those who use or possess cannabis.

Last week, Federal District Judge David Briones ruled that while Adrian Gil was in possession of  marijuana and guns when they were called to his home, they couldn’t prove that he was high at the time. There wasn’t much doubt about the facts of the case.

In a recorded custodial interview, Gil was Mirandized but agreed to talk with an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Gil admitted that all the firearms found in the house were his and explained how he had obtained some of them. Gil told the agent that he began using marihuana at age fourteen and transitioned to daily use after high school. Gil said that marihuana helped him eat more and he “like[d] good weed.” When the agent asked if Gil knew it was a federal offense to be a drug user in possession of a firearm, Gil responded, “Trap. Trap. You got me.” Gil also stated that he knew it was illegal to have marihuana, a medical card from New Mexico, and firearms. Gil admitted that he was concerned about people breaking into his house because he had drugs on the premises.

We’ll pause for a moment to remind you once again that you should never ever talk to police — including the FBI, ATF, whomever — without a lawyer present. Anyway . . .

Gil pleaded guilty to the charge of gun possession while being a user of a controlled substance. But before he could be sentenced, the Supreme Court handed down its Rahimi decision. Gil then asked the court to withdraw his guilty plea and dismiss the charge based on Bruen and Rahimi.

In light of previous Fifth Circuit rulings that marijuana users aren’t dangerous and could be in possession of firearms while not under the influence, Judge Briones granted the motion to withdraw the guilty plea and dismissed the charges against Gil. He wrote . . .

The Fifth Circuit made clear that history and tradition do not support disarming someone solely based on past drug use. 

The judge ruled that the government failed to show that Gil was under the influence at the time of his arrest, which would be necessary to justify voiding his gun rights. Quoting from an earlier Fifth Circuit opinion, Judge Briones noted . . .

“There is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence. Repeat marijuana users, like repeat alcohol users, are of sound mind upon regaining sobriety….”

This, of course, won’t be the end of the matter. This is an “as applied” ruling, meaning it only applies to Mr. Gil. And the government is almost sure to appeal. Or is it? It’s hard to know what a Trump DOJ will do in a case like this. And whatever their stance on the matter of guns and weed may be, it’s possible the DOJ could decide this isn’t a case they want to pursue so as not to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to rule on the matter of gun ownership and marijuana possession.

And so it goes.