DOJ Move Could Let Cannabis Users Own Guns

According to Washington Gun Law President William Kirk, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is at a major crossroads. In a recent video, Kirk discussed how the DOJ might abandon yet another longstanding firearms prohibition. After already stepping back from appealing the Range v. AGUSA decision, the DOJ is now considering whether to walk away from its appeal in United States v. Baxter. This choice could have a huge impact on thousands of cannabis users across the country who have long been barred from owning firearms under federal law.

The Core Legal Battle: United States v. Baxter

The heart of the matter lies in a case known as United States v. Baxter. As William Kirk explained, Mr. Baxter was pulled over in Iowa, where police discovered marijuana and a firearm in his car. Federal prosecutors charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. Baxter challenged the indictment, arguing that this law was unconstitutional. Although he lost at the trial court level, he appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals – and that’s where things got interesting.

A Shift in Judicial Thinking

William Kirk noted that the Eighth Circuit found Baxter’s “facial challenge” against the law was weak, but his “as-applied challenge” had merit. The court decided that there were not enough historical analogues, that is, similar laws from early American history, to justify applying the firearm ban to Baxter. Because of this, the court ruled that the federal gun law, as applied to Baxter, was unconstitutional. This new interpretation hints at a broader shift in how courts are viewing Second Amendment rights for cannabis users.

What’s at Stake by May 4

Kirk reported that the DOJ, under Solicitor General John Sauer, asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an extension of time to decide whether to seek further review. Their final decision is now due May 4. If the DOJ chooses not to appeal, the lower court’s ruling stands, and it could be used as persuasive precedent nationwide. William Kirk made it clear: May 5 could be a historic moment when federal restrictions on cannabis users’ gun rights begin to crumble.

Previous Abandonments Signal a Pattern

Interestingly, Kirk connected this potential move to other recent actions by the DOJ. Just last week, they decided not to seek an appeal in Range v. AGUSA, effectively letting a ruling stand that benefits non-violent felons hoping to regain firearm rights. Kirk suggested that abandoning the Baxter case would continue a pattern of quiet retreats from aggressive federal gun control enforcement. This isn’t just an isolated case – it might be part of a broader legal recalibration.

The Importance of Historical Analogues

One of the most fascinating points William Kirk raised was about historical analogues. He emphasized that the only long-standing tradition in American law was disarming people considered truly dangerous. Simply using cannabis recreationally, Kirk argued, does not make someone inherently dangerous. Without a solid historical basis, these federal gun prohibitions are becoming harder for courts to justify.

The Broader Legal Landscape

Kirk reminded viewers that the Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuit Courts have all issued similar rulings. In each case, courts have found that laws barring marijuana users from owning guns fail constitutional muster. If the DOJ steps back here, it will join a growing consensus that recognizes a simple truth: using cannabis does not automatically mean someone is a threat to public safety.

How This Affects Everyday Americans

For thousands of lawful Americans who use cannabis, especially in states where it’s legal, this development could be life-changing. Right now, millions of people technically break federal law if they possess a gun while using marijuana, even if their state fully legalized it. Kirk stressed that this situation puts ordinary citizens in a legal catch-22. If DOJ policy shifts, it could finally remove that trap.

A Long Time Coming

Personally, I find this moment fascinating. It highlights how laws written during different eras can grow painfully outdated. When cannabis was demonized during the 20th century, blanket bans seemed politically easy. Today, with legalized marijuana in dozens of states, clinging to these old rules feels more like stubbornness than public safety policy. William Kirk’s analysis drives home how powerful small legal shifts can be when they line up with changing societal norms.

A Realignment of Gun Rights Philosophy

Another reason this is so intriguing is because it reflects a broader realignment in how Americans think about gun rights. The idea that rights should only be stripped based on dangerousness, not lifestyle choices, restores a more traditional view of the Second Amendment. Courts are starting to say: unless you’re proven to be a threat, your right to self-defense shouldn’t vanish. And honestly, that feels like a needed course correction in an era where rights often get treated as privileges.

Remaining Cautious but Hopeful

William Kirk did urge viewers to stay cautious. Just because the DOJ might not appeal doesn’t mean the fight is over. Other courts could still rule differently, and Congress could always step in with new legislation. But for now, the momentum is clearly shifting. If May 4 brings the outcome Kirk anticipates, it will be a major win not just for cannabis users, but for constitutional rights more broadly.

Watch May 4 Carefully

In closing, William Kirk’s report on Washington Gun Law TV shows just how much hangs in the balance. The DOJ’s decision in United States v. Baxter could reshape gun rights for cannabis users across the country. It would mark another step back from aggressive, overreaching interpretations of federal law. Whether you use cannabis or not, this legal moment is about something bigger – reaffirming that rights should be based on facts and danger, not outdated stereotypes. We’ll know for sure on May 4, and until then, staying informed is the best way to protect your freedom.