A pair of recent court rulings have evoked cheers from gun rights supporters over the upending of federal bans on marijuana users and people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling last summer on the Second Amendment.
“This is a good thing,” said Aidan Johnston, federal affairs director of Gun Owners of America. “There have been a number of prohibited person categories that Gun Owners of America does not support for far too long, and we are happy to see these things get struck down.”
• In Oklahoma, a federal judge on Friday invalided an indictment against a man charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which bans the possession of a firearm by anyone who unlawfully uses or is addicted to a controlled substance.
• In Texas, a federal appeals court on Thursday struck down 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which bans the possession of a firearm by anyone under a court order for domestic violence, such as stalking, harassing or threatening an intimate partner.
“Watching these cases and watching these judges strike down these unconstitutional categories is a great thing for America,” Mr. Johnston said.
However, gun control advocates see the latest rulings as evidence of confusion over the high court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, saying various lower court judges have interpreted the precedent differently and handed down conflicting judgments.
Shira Feldman, litigation counsel at Brady: United Against Gun Violence, said eventually the Supreme Court will have to step in and clarify its ruling.
“Bruen recognizes you can have modern and societal problems,” Ms. Feldman said. “A lot of courts are just failing to recognize or apply that nuanced approach.”
In the Oklahoma case, police found marijuana and a loaded revolver when they searched Jared Harrison’s car after he ran a red light. Mr. Harrison’s lawyer argued that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in June protected his client’s Second Amendment right to own a gun for self-defense. U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, a Trump appointee, agreed and vacated the indictment.
In its Bruen ruling, the Supreme Court said the government must show any gun control measure is consistent with America’s founding — or similar laws that existed at the time — in order to meet Second Amendment guarantees. The justices wiped away New York’s law and laws in five other states that placed conditions on concealed-weapons permits.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion served as a legal lecture, directing judges to start taking the high court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence seriously. He said courts must determine whether a firearm restriction would have seemed reasonable to the founding generation that crafted and ratified the Second Amendment. If not, then the law must give way to the Constitution, he wrote.
The ruling has sent shock waves across courts, giving gun rights activists new ways to attack state and federal measures restricting the use of firearms.
The Oklahoma decision was the second one last week to cite Bruen. It came just one day after the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit struck down a federal law that banned anyone subject to a domestic violence restraining order from processing a firearm.
The case was brought by Zackey Rahimi, who was subject to a domestic violence court order for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend. He was suspected of being involved in a number of shootings in December 2020 and January 2021 in Arlington, Texas.
A federal indictment was issued against him for violating a ban on domestic abuse suspects from owning a firearm.
The three-judge panel held that although the federal law may be a “laudable policy goal” there are no laws that existed at the time of the nation’s founding that are a parallel to restricting firearm possession.
“Historical support for the exclusion of domestic violence offenders from Second Amendment protection appears rather thin,” one footnote cited in the panel’s opinion read.
A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment about if it will appeal either ruling.
Mr. Johnston of Gun Owners of America said that persons suspected of misdemeanor domestic violence and those using marijuana, which most states have decriminalized, don’t deserve to lose their Second Amendment rights.
“If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, then they shouldn’t be allowed to roam society freely, and additional gun control laws certainly won’t stop them,” he said. “If society deems someone a danger to the public, they should compile the evidence necessary to prosecute them for a felony and lock them up until they no longer pose a threat. Otherwise, these prohibited persons categories are nothing more than [the] government chipping away at citizens’ rights.”
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.