The Supreme Court will hear arguments this Monday in an important gun case that has united a series of unlikely allies, from conservative groups defending gun rights to liberal civil rights groups. At issue is a federal law that criminalizes the possession of firearms by drug users. It is the same law that was used to prosecute then-President Joe Biden’s son for illegal gun possession — except this case involves marijuana use and gun possession.
Court documents in the case present diametrically opposed versions of the facts. On one side, the Trump administration portrays Ali Danial Hemani as a drug trafficker, someone with terrorist ties and a marijuana addict. It is important to note that he is not being prosecuted for any of these crimes. Instead, the government charged Hemani with violating a federal gun law that prohibits drug addicts from possessing firearms, a crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected the charge, deciding that the federal law violates Hemani’s Second Amendment right to possess a gun.
The Department of Justice appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that since Hemani admitted to FBI agents that he used marijuana several times a week, he is a “persistent” drug user, making it illegal for him to possess the gun he legally purchased and keeps securely at home.
Hemani’s lawyer, City University of New York law professor Naz Ahmad, presents a very different version of her client. She notes that Hemani was born and raised in Texas, “did high school there, played on the school football team, studied at the University of Texas at Arlington, where he was an exemplary student” and is “a highly valued member of his local religious community”.
“The Second Amendment does not support disarming and punishing someone just for possessing a firearm if that person occasionally used marijuana,” she says.
“This is a mismatch,” she adds, especially at a time when 40 states, to varying degrees, have legalized marijuana use.
If the court rules against Hemani, she says, “the law could apply to anyone. It could apply to someone who, for example, uses a marijuana gummy to sleep”.
Trump administration lawyer D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General, acknowledges that, according to the Supreme Court’s historic gun rights decision four years ago, the government has the burden of showing that current gun laws are analogous to those in effect at the time of the nation’s founding. But he argues that the law used to prosecute Hemani is justified and analogous to founding-era laws and practices.
Specifically, in his petition to the Supreme Court, Sauer points to the severe punishments imposed in the founding era on “habitual drunkards.” And he argues that both Congress and the states have restricted firearm possession by users of illegal drugs “while this social plague devastates America”.
That said, for the most part, the case seems to have united groups from left to right, from civil rights organizations to gun rights advocates.
“It is outrageous that they tried to criminalize him for gun and marijuana possession,” says Aidan Johnston, federal affairs director of Gun Owners of America. He argues that the government is trying to criminalize conduct that was widely tolerated at the time of the founding.
“It was universal custom among founding-era militias to consume alcohol,” he notes, adding that Thomas Jefferson and other famous Americans “possessed firearms while using drugs ranging from opium to cocaine”.
At the opposite extreme of the ideological spectrum are several gun safety groups that fear that if Hemani wins the case, it could open a loophole in the current national background check system.
In the current system, sellers must first approve the sale by sending the buyer’s name to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The problem is that there is a very short deadline to complete the check — just three days. And gun safety advocacy groups say that anything that makes the rules more complicated and confusing could actually harm the system.
“We are saying” to the court: “Whatever you do, it is essential to keep the rules clear so that, in that short period, federal agencies can give a quick response to sellers,” says Douglas Letter of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
An unfavorable decision, he says, would harm the background check process. That, in turn, would result in “many deaths, mainly of women and children, if this kind of system is not in place”.
A decision in the case is expected by summer.
Source: npr.org