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 the son of then-President Joe Biden for illegal gun possession — except this case involves marijuana use and gun possession.
The documents filed in the case show diametrically opposed versions of the facts. On one side, the Trump administration portrays Ali Danial Hemani as a drug trafficker, someone with terrorist links and a marijuana addiction. It is important to note that he is not being prosecuted for any of those 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, declaring 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 to possess the gun he bought legally and keeps securely in his home.
Hemani’s lawyer, CUNY law professor Naz Ahmad, presents a very different version of her client. She notes that Hemani was born and raised in Texas, “attended 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 for the mere possession of a firearm if that person happens to have used marijuana occasionally,” she states.
“This is a mismatch,” she adds, especially at a time when 40 states, to a greater or lesser degree, have legalized marijuana use.
If the court rules against Hemani, she says, “the law could apply to anyone. It could apply to someone who uses, for example, a marijuana gummy to sleep.”
The Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, acknowledges that, according to the Supreme Court’s historic gun ruling four years ago, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that current gun laws are analogous to those in effect at the founding of the country. 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 harsh punishments imposed during the founding era on “habitual drunkards.” And he argues that both Congress and the states have restricted firearm possession by illegal drug users “while this social ill plagues America.”
That said, for the most part, the case appears to have united groups from left to right, from civil rights organizations to gun rights advocates.
“It’s outrageous that they tried to criminalize him for gun possession and marijuana,” says Aidan Johnston, federal affairs director at Gun Owners of America. He argues that the government is trying to criminalize conduct that was widely tolerated at the founding of the country.
“It was universal custom among founding-era militias to consume alcohol,” he notes, adding that Thomas Jefferson and other famous Americans “owned firearms while using drugs ranging from opium to cocaine.”
At the opposite end of the ideological spectrum are various gun safety groups that fear that if Hemani wins the case, it could open a loophole in the current national criminal background check system.
In the current system, sellers are required to 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 claim that anything that makes the rules more complicated and confusing could actually harm the system.
“We’re telling” the court: “Whatever you do, it’s 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.
Fonte: npr.org