NRA, NORML File Briefs in Supreme Court Case Challenging Federal Firearms Ban for Cannabis Consumers

The National Rifle Association (NRA), Independence Institute, and FPC
Action Foundation joined the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws (NORML) in the filing of amicus briefs in *United States v.
Hemani – *a case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges the
federal prohibition of the possession of firearms by anyone who “is an
unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The brief from the NRA, Independence Institute, and FPC, notes that
throughout history, restrictions on discharging firearms by intoxicated
persons, along with sales to intoxicated persons, were imposed by U.S.
states and territories, but those restrictions ended when the individual
was sober. The brief further notes that “Alcohol was ubiquitous in early
America” and that “hemp has been cultivated in America since Jamestown.”

The NRA-led brief also takes aim at the brief filed in support of the ban
by Smart Approaches to Marijuana that contends cannabis legalization has
led to an increase in bullying and that cannabis potency “is greater than
before.” The NRA amicus brief points to a study funded by the National
Institute of Justice that examined the effects of cannabis legalization on
crime in Colorado and Washington which found that cannabis “legalization
and sales have had minimal to no effect on major crimes” in those states,
finding “no statistically significant long-term effects of recreational
cannabis laws or the initiation of retail sales on violent or property
crime rates in these states.”

“This Court should hold [the federal statute] unconstitutional as applied
to Hemani because the government failed to demonstrate that disarming him
based on marijuana use is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition
of firearm regulation.” — Brief of the National Rifle Association of
America, FPC Action Foundation, and Independence Institute as *Amici
Curiae *In Support of the Respondent

NORML’s brief also notes the historical role of cannabis in the U.S.,
noting “For centuries, Americans cultivated, consumed, and prescribed
cannabis without any suggestion that doing so warranted loss of firearms
rights. And state-legal medical cannabis users readily continue to do so
today with the protection of Congress.”

“The historical analogs the government identifies concern temporary
restrictions on carrying or firing weapons while intoxicated or on persons
adjudged dangerous – not blanket bans on all users of a disfavored
substance,” the brief states.

The brief contends that cannabis consumers “are among ‘the
people’ whose right to keep and bear arms the Second Amendment protects.”

“For centuries, Americans cultivated, consumed, and prescribed cannabis
without any suggestion that doing so warranted the loss of firearms
rights,” the brief states. “State-authorized medical cannabis patients
continue to do so today, under regimes Congress has repeatedly chosen to
protect.”