U.S. District Court Judge Patrick R. Wyrick on Friday dismissed Jared Michael Harrison’s indictment, finding that the statute to ban marijuana users gun ownership is invalid. “unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the Due Process Clause, and unconstitutionally infringes upon his fundamental right to possess a firearm, in violation of the Second Amendment.”
On August 17, 2022, a federal grand jury identified Harrison for carrying a gun while being an informant. “unlawful user of marijuana,” with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) being relied upon in the indictment.
Statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) bans firearm possession for anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act).”
Wyrick evaluated the indictment against the Supreme Court BruenHarrison claimed that he had the right to own a firearm, and that this was supported by (2022). 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) “infringed on that right.”
Wyrick observed:
Section 922(g)(3) does not have deep roots; it wasn’t enacted by Congress until the Gun Control Act of 1968. The statute initially prohibited any individual who was “an unlawful user of or addicted to marihuana or any depressant or stimulant drug . . . or narcotic drug”From the moment you receive a gun, However, it was modified in 1986 to make the ban more general. Receipt Or possession Anyone who is able to carry a gun without authorization. “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).” In its modern form, § 922(g)(3) thus strips a person of their fundamental Right to own a gun from the moment the individual becomes an “unlawful user”The use of cannabis. And in the United States’ view, all Marijuana users are “unlawful users.”
When applying BruenWyrick highlighted: “The question here is thus whether stripping someone of their right to possess a firearm solely because they use marijuana is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. If it is not, then § 922(g)(3) cannot be constitutionally applied to Harrison—no matter the reasonableness of the policy it embodies.”
Wyrick stated that “18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates Harrison’s Second Amendment right to possess a firearm,” and the motion to dismiss Harrison’s indictment was granted.
It is a case of United States v. Harrison, No. CR-22-00328–PRW in U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. AWR Hawkins is a PhD candidate in Military History with a special focus on Vietnam War (brownwater navy), U.S. Navy Since Inception, Civil War and Early Modern Europe. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly at [email protected]
Check out the complete article here
