Texas judge dismisses case against man accused of owning firearms while using marijuana
A judge in Texas has dismissed with prejudice a case against a man arrested with marijuana and firearms, citing Second Amendment concerns.
On July 15, 2021, the El Paso Police Department responded to a call about a fight at a private residence. When the police officers entered the home, they noticed a large, vacuum-sealed bag full of marijuana. After a sweep of the house, they located a second bag of drugs. The police applied for and received a search warrant for the home because of the marijuana. During the search, police found several firearms.
The police contacted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which responded to the site and arrested Adrian Gil, II for owning firearms while being a user of marijuana. Even though the man has a medical marijuana card from New Mexico, he admitted to knowing that it is illegal to own a gun while using marijuana. He said he “just like[s] good weed.”
Year in review: 7 major Buckeye Firearms Association wins of 2024
After Gil’s arrest, he was charged only with owning a firearm while using marijuana. He pleaded guilty in a criminal court. The judge sentenced the man to 36 months in prison and three years of supervised release. Mr. Gil would immediately appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, considering the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which was decided after his arrest.
In the Bruen decision, SCOTUS said that for a firearm law to be constitutional, it had to be consistent with the text, tradition, and history of firearms regulations from the founding era. Mr. Gil is a member of the political class and, therefore, part of “the people.” Firearms are bearable arms covered by the original text of the Second Amendment. Because of those facts, Mr. Gil’s conduct is presumably constitutional. The burden then shifts to the government to prove that a law is consistent with the text and tradition of firearms regulations.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government failed its burden of proof. They vacated the guilty verdict and remanded the case back to the criminal court. Essentially, it was like the original trial never happened, and the conviction was thrown out. Mr. Gill’s attorney immediately filed to withdraw the guilty plea and dismiss the case. The government objected to the motion.
The government asked the court not to let the defendant withdraw his guilty plea. A court does not have to let a defendant withdraw a plea unless one of a few situations happens. If a law changes to make conduct that was once illegal legal, then a defendant could withdraw a guilty plea. In this case, the jurisprudence around the Second Amendment changed because of the Bruen decision. The court felt that the defense met the burden and granted the motion to withdraw the plea.
The court then turned to the motion to dismiss the case using the Bruen test, which only looked at text, tradition, and history. Previously, it would have used intermediate scrutiny, but the courts can no longer use such interest balancing because of the Bruen opinion. The judge found that the law banning marijuana users from owning guns was most likely unconstitutional. The judge granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, meaning the government cannot refile the case.
The order reads:
“The court finds that defendant has provided a fair and just reason to allow him to withdraw his plea of guilty, and the government has not met its burden to demonstrate that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) has a historical analogue similar enough to justify disarming defendant. The court will therefore allow defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty and dismiss the indictment against Defendant with prejudice, because the statute under which he is charged is unconstitutional as applied to him.”
Mr. Gil was released and is free to resume his life.
- 446 reads
