We’ve been covering the case of Patrick Darnell Daniels ever since a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in 2023 that he should not havre been convicted for possessing a firearm as an “unlawful” user of drugs because the law, at least as it applied to him, was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
Advertisement
Daniels was pulled over in a car in 2022 for driving without a license plate, and during a search of the vehicle police (including a DEA agent) found several firearms and the remains of a couple of joints in the car ashtray.
At no point that night did the DEA administer a drug test or ask Daniels whether he was under the influence; nor did the officers note or testify that he appeared intoxicated. But after Daniels was read his Miranda rights at the station, he admitted that he had smoked marihuana since high schooland was still a regular user. When asked how often he smoked, he confirmed he used marihuana “approximately fourteen days out of a month.”
That was enough for the DOJ to charge Daniels with violating § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun possession by “unlawful” users of drugs. Daniels was convicted at trial and sentenced to thirty months in federal prison, but on appeal a three judge panel on the Fifth Circuit overturned his conviction.
The panel concluded that while laws barring gun possession while intoxicated might be constitutional, there’s nothing in the historical record to prohibit users of intoxicating substances like marijuana from possessing a firearm when they’re not actively under the influence. The Biden administration appealed that decision and the Supreme Court granted cert after the Rahimi decision, vacating the decision and remanding that case back to the appellate court for a do-over. Once again the Fifth Circuit concluded that “the government could not constitutionally apply § 922(g)(3) to a defendant based solely on her ‘habitual or occasional drug use.’”
Advertisement
First, § 922(g)(3) is not facially unconstitutional, because our history can support gun regulations disarming the presently intoxicated… Second,§ 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional where it seeks to disarm an individual solely “based on habitual or occasional drug use.”
In March of this year the Justice Department asked for an extension to file for a writ of certiorari, which was granted. A month later the Solicitor General’s office asked for another extension; this one until June 5. Once again Justice Samuel Alito granted that exemption, so the cert petition should have been filed with the Court on Thursday. A search of the docket, however, shows no petition has yet been filed.
So, has the Trump administration decided to drop its appeal, and to leave Mr. Daniels alone? While I’d love to be able to report that’s the case, it could simply be that the Supreme Court’s website has yet to be updated with the file. I’ve heard nothing from my sources within the administration about dropping the Daniels appeal, though if the DOJ did decide not to move forward with the case, it wouldn’t be the first time the Trump administration has put the brakes on a prohibited persons prosecution that was vigorously pursued under Joe Biden’s watch.
The DOJ decided not to appeal a Third Circuit decision that determined a Pennsylvania man should not have been deprived of his Second Amendment rights because he pled guilty to falsifying his income on a food stamp application three decades ago; a non-violent misdemeanor that was punishable at the time by more than a year in prison, which triggered the federal prohibition on keeping and bearing arms.
Advertisement
Bryan Range is now free to lawfully purchase and possess a firearm now that the Range case is no longer actively being prosecuted. We’ll soon see if that is case for Patrick Darnell Daniels too.
As the Fifth Circuit noted, there are still a lot of questions about when and how § 922(g)(3) might be constitutionally valid. In fact, had the jury been instructed to consider whether Daniels was presently or even regularly intoxicated at the time of arrest, the appellate court’s decision might have been different.
Daniels would be a pretty good vehicle for the Court to flesh out the contours of § 922(g)(3)’s constitutionality, but with marijuana legal for use either recreationally or medicinally in 38 states, SCOTUS will likely have another opportunity to consider the issue before long if the Trump administration chose not to petition the Court and allow the Fifth Circuit’s decision to stand.
