A federal judge in Texas has dismissed an indictment against a man who was charged with possessing firearms while using marijuana, ruling the federal law prohibiting such conduct unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge David Briones, presiding over the Western District of Texas, ruled against the prosecution of Adrian Gil, II, citing that the Government failed to prove that Gil was intoxicated at the time of his arrest. The case (United States of America v. Adrian Gil, II) was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled, marking another significant decision challenging federal restrictions on firearm ownership for marijuana users.
The case originated in July 2021, when El Paso police responded to a call about a disturbance at Gil’s residence. Upon entering, officers discovered two large vacuum-sealed bags of marijuana and several firearms. Gil, a daily marijuana user since age 14, acknowledged owning the firearms and possessing a medical marijuana card from New Mexico but admitted he was aware that federal law prohibited gun ownership for marijuana users. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), pled guilty, and was sentenced to 35 months in prison before appealing the case.
Judge Briones applied the Second Amendment framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This test requires firearm regulations to align with the text, history, and tradition of firearms laws as understood at the time of the nation’s founding. Briones found that the Second Amendment protects all members of the political community, including Gil, and that the historical record does not support disarming individuals based solely on past or habitual marijuana use.
“The Fifth Circuit made clear that history and tradition do not support disarming someone solely based on past drug use,” Briones wrote. He added that the Government failed to demonstrate that Gil was intoxicated at the time of his arrest, which the court deemed necessary to justify restrictions on his gun rights.
This decision aligns with prior Fifth Circuit rulings that have increasingly questioned the constitutionality of federal gun laws applied to marijuana users, particularly in states where marijuana remains illegal. The ruling underscores ongoing legal debates at the intersection of gun rights and drug policy, as courts evaluate the implications of evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence.
