Jared Michael Harrison was charged for being an unlawful user of marijuana in possession of a firearm. The Western District court in Oklahoma ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 922 is unconstitutional under Due Process grounds, and that it violates his right to own firearms under Bruen.
Here's the decision itself.
There are some interesting takeaways here. First off,
The GCA was passed almost two centuries after the founding, so it may not pass Bruen's basic test of historical tradition.
The court also addresses the due-process problems:
Then there's this, which could pave a pathway to non-violent felons to regain gun rights:
In summation,
It's going to be an interesting couple of years while we see how these things hash out.
Here's the decision itself.
There are some interesting takeaways here. First off,
As for the Second Amendment, Harrison argues he has the right to possess a firearm and that § 922(g)(3) infringes upon that right. Relying primarily on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Harrison argues that the Second Amendment’s plain text covers his conduct (possessing a handgun), and that the government cannot affirmatively prove that restrictions like § 922(g)(3) are part of the historical traditions that define the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.
The GCA was passed almost two centuries after the founding, so it may not pass Bruen's basic test of historical tradition.
The court also addresses the due-process problems:
But § 922(g)(3) is quite different from even modern felon-in-possession statutes. For starters, the laws significantly differ in the process by which one is deprived of the right to armed self-defense. Section 922(g)(1), the modern federal felon-in-possession provision, only prohibits possession of a firearm after an individual has been convicted of a felony offense
Then there's this, which could pave a pathway to non-violent felons to regain gun rights:
There is no historical tradition of disarming a person solely based on that person having engaged in felonious conduct.
(...)
It was not until 1961—just fifteen years before the adoption of the ordinances invalidated in Heller—that Congress dropped the crime-of-violence requirement from federal law. The 1961 Amendments to the FFA replaced the then-existing category of prohibited persons, those convicted of a “crime of violence,” with a prohibition on persons who had previously been convicted of a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Thus, it was not until 1961 that Congress, for the first time, prohibited persons from receiving a firearm solely on the basis of the person having been convicted of a felony, regardless of whether the felony conviction signified that the person exhibited a likelihood of future violence or force
In summation,
Total prohibitions on the right to possess a firearm merely on the basis of a person being a user of marijuana do not fall within the tradition of disarming persons who have demonstrated their dangerousness through past violent, forceful, or threatening conduct.
It's going to be an interesting couple of years while we see how these things hash out.