On Tuesday, September 9, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the federal ban on firearms for drug users is facially constitutional, finding, “the restriction that it imposes is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.'”
The 25-page decision in United States v. Stennerson, was issued by a three-judge panel including Circuit Judges Rawkinson, Forrest, and Sung, addressing an appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana.
The case addresses plaintiff Jaren Michael Stennerson, who was charged with being an unlawful drug user in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and illegally receiving a firearm while under felony indictment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). Stennerson brought a facial challenge against both statutes, in addition to a vagueness challenge as applied to him.
Not only did the panel uphold that the statutes are facially constitutional (citing Bruen), but that the vagueness challenge did not apply to the plaintiff because he’s a daily methamphetamine user. The court did not address an as-applied challenge.
Federal law bans users of controlled substances from owning firearms. There is a strong push challenging the ban on marijuana for gun owners, which is a widely used recreational drug.
In its decision, the court states,
Taken together, our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation at least supports restricting possession of firearms by those who are presently intoxicated and, therefore, hindered in their ability to exercise sound judgment and self-control.
Of course, using the standard of being “presently intoxicated” begs many questions as to whether this analogue fits the Bruen test, especially in light of uncontrolled substances, like alcohol. The short answer is, it does not.
The court found defense for the second statute being challenged, 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), (receiving a firearm while under felony indictment in violation), by supporting an argument related to the Bail Reform Act and the restrictions it imposed: detaining and disarming defendants indicted of serious crimes eligible for capital charges.
Bizarrely, it justifies this law by pointing to a history and tradition of “…colonial era statutes disarming Catholics and other groups perceived to be disloyal.”
