Gun Laws And 2a
SAF Appeals Federal Ban on Gun Ownership by Medical Marijuana Users
Second Amendment Foundation files opening brief in Third Circuit in Greene v. Bondi
📅
✍️By ZRIntel Editorial Team📍Warren County, PA
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed its opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, challenging the federal prohibition on firearm ownership by individuals who use medical marijuana. The case, Greene v. Bondi, arrives at the appellate court after a district court dismissed the suit. SAF is joined by two private citizens: Warren County (Pennsylvania) District Attorney Robert Greene, who holds a state-issued medical marijuana ID card (MMID) and wishes to possess firearms and ammunition, and James Irey, a disabled veteran who wants to obtain an MMID to treat service-related injuries without forfeiting his Second Amendment rights. SAFs filing centers on the clash between evolving state medical marijuana laws and the federal classification of marijuana. As SAF notes, marijuana remains a Schedule I narcotic under federal laweven when states legalize it for medical purposescreating a conflict for patients who are otherwise lawful gun owners. SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut characterizes the dilemma bluntly: medical marijuana users face a choice to either give up your Second Amendment rights or receive relief from your symptoms, a choice he labels absurd, particularly given that people taking prescription painkillers like oxycodone are not categorically barred from purchasing firearms. The brief argues that denying firearms to state-authorized medical marijuana users lacks support in the nations historical tradition of firearm regulation. In SAFs words, prohibiting Greene, Irey, and SAFs similarly situated members from purchasing, possessing, or utilizing firearms and state-authorized medical marijuana is a clear violation of their Second Amendment rights, because there is no analogous historical tradition for such a ban. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb adds that as more states legalize medical marijuana, the burden on citizens who must choose between lawful treatment and the exercise of their rights continues to grow. Greenes situation is straightforward: he currently possesses an MMID under Pennsylvania law and seeks to maintain his ability to possess firearms and ammunition. Irey, for his part, wants to pursue medical marijuana treatment for service-related conditions without automatically losing access to firearms. SAF contends that the blanket federal restriction treats these individualswho are otherwise eligible under state lawas if they were categorically dangerous, without the individualized evidence that would justify disarming them. The appellants maintain that the current federal approach is out of step with modern state policy and creates inconsistent, punitive outcomes for lawful medical patients. By drawing a sharp distinction between Schedule I marijuana use and the use of federally sanctioned prescription pain medications, SAF argues that federal rules impose an unjustified and historically unsupported infringement on a broad class of law-abiding citizens. The immediate question before the Third Circuit is whether the district court erred in dismissing the case and whether the federal restriction can withstand scrutiny under the Second Amendment. SAFs position is that the government cannot show a historical analogue for disarming individuals based solely on state-authorized medical marijuana use. If the appellate court agrees, the ruling could reshape how federal firearms prohibitions interact with state medical cannabis regimes across the Third Circuit and beyond.