Federal restrictions that bar Florida medical marijuana patients from buying and using guns violate the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday, handing a major victory to former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried and a group of state-legal cannabis patients.
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the federal government failed to show that disarming state-authorized medical marijuana users is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation — the test set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). MORE HERE: Reuters
The ruling revives a 2022 lawsuit led by Fried and several Florida patients and sends the case back to a lower court for further proceedings. MORE HERE: MJBizDaily
Background: How Medical Marijuana Patients Lost Their Gun Rights
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and § 922(d)(3), it is a federal crime for an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance — including marijuana — to possess or be sold a firearm. Because cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under federal law, even state-legal medical marijuana patients fall into that category in the eyes of federal authorities. MORE HERE: CannaMD Marijuana Doctors & Cards
Florida voters approved medical marijuana through a constitutional amendment in 2016, and hundreds of thousands of residents are now registered patients. But when those patients try to buy a gun, they encounter a federal roadblock: ATF Form 4473, which asks whether the buyer is an unlawful user of marijuana. Answering “yes” results in an automatic denial; answering “no” while using medical marijuana could expose a buyer to federal prosecution.
In 2022, Nikki Fried, then Florida’s agriculture commissioner (the office that oversees concealed weapons licenses), joined with medical marijuana patients to file a federal lawsuit. Their complaint argued that applying § 922(g)(3) to state-legal patients violates the Second Amendment because it disarms people who are neither convicted criminals nor demonstrably dangerous.
A federal district judge in the Northern District of Florida dismissed the case later that year, accepting the government’s argument that marijuana users are comparable to historically disarmed groups such as felons or “dangerous” individuals. MORE ABOUT: FindLaw Case Law
The 11th Circuit’s Ruling: Medical Patients Are Not “Dangerous” by Default
On appeal, the 11th Circuit took a very different view. Writing for the panel, Judge Elizabeth Branch concluded that, at least based on the plaintiffs’ allegations, the government had not met its burden under Bruen. MORE HERE: Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Key points from the court’s reasoning include:
- Medical patients are part of “the people.” The court rejected the idea that state-legal cannabis patients fall outside the class of “law-abiding, responsible citizens” protected by the Second Amendment simply because their conduct is a federal misdemeanor. There is no historical tradition of stripping misdemeanants of their gun rights wholesale.
- No evidence they are inherently dangerous. The panel emphasized that, when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, medical marijuana users “cannot be fairly labeled as dangerous” solely because of their cannabis use. That undercut the government’s analogy to historical laws disarming dangerous individuals such as the mentally ill or violent criminals. MORE HERE: MJBizDaily
- Lack of historical precedent. Applying Bruen’s history-and-tradition test, the court found the Justice Department had not pointed to any robust historical tradition of disarming people merely for engaging in nonviolent, state-sanctioned conduct like medical cannabis use.
Because of those gaps, the court held that, as applied to these Florida patients, the federal restrictions violate the Second Amendment at least at the pleading stage. It therefore vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Nikki Fried, the Plaintiffs, and What They Were Seeking
Though Fried is no longer a plaintiff after leaving office, the case — now styled Florida Commissioner of Agriculture v. Attorney General of the United States — continues on behalf of three individuals:
- Two Florida medical marijuana patients who want to buy firearms for self-defense;
- A retired law enforcement officer who already owns guns but wants to join the medical marijuana program without losing his Second Amendment rights.
Their core claim is straightforward: the federal government cannot disarm otherwise law-abiding, nonviolent medical patients simply because they follow state law and their doctor’s advice.
Fried and other Florida Democrats hailed the ruling as a landmark victory for both patient rights and the Second Amendment, framing it as a matter of equal treatment under the law for those who choose cannabis over more traditional pharmaceuticals. MORE HERE: Florida Phoenix
How This Fits Into the National Legal Landscape
The 11th Circuit’s decision is part of a broader national re-examination of firearms restrictions after Bruen:
- In 2023, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the application of § 922(g)(3) to a Texas man, holding that the statute as applied violated the Second Amendment. That case is now on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear a challenge to the federal ban on drug users possessing guns.
- The Justice Department has continued to defend the law, arguing that it targets “habitual drug users” who may pose a risk to themselves or others and that people can regain their rights by stopping unlawful drug use.
- Advocacy organizations like NORML have celebrated the 11th Circuit ruling, noting that patients who follow state medical cannabis laws should not be treated more harshly than alcohol users, who face no blanket firearm ban. SITE: NORML
The 11th Circuit’s opinion deepens the tension between federal gun laws and state marijuana reforms, particularly in states like Florida with large patient populations.
What the Ruling Means (and Doesn’t Mean) for Florida Patients
What it does mean:
- The appeals court has formally recognized that state-legal medical marijuana patients have a viable Second Amendment claim against blanket firearm prohibitions.
- The case returns to the district court, where the plaintiffs can now move forward, potentially to discovery, summary judgment, or trial.
- The decision is binding precedent in the 11th Circuit, which covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.
What it does not mean (yet):
- § 922(g)(3) has not been struck down nationwide, nor even facially within the 11th Circuit. The ruling is about how the law applies to these plaintiffs and similarly situated medical marijuana patients.
- Federal law has not been rewritten; marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, and the ATF has not rescinded its guidance warning that marijuana users are “unlawful users” for firearms purposes.
- Patients still face legal uncertainty until either the district court issues a final decision consistent with the 11th Circuit’s guidance and higher courts (or Congress) clarify the national rules.
In practical terms, the ruling gives Florida medical marijuana patients strong new legal leverage, but it does not yet guarantee that every patient can safely check “no” on Form 4473 or that all prosecutions under § 922(g)(3) will cease. Many lawyers are advising patients to proceed cautiously until further guidance emerges.
Looking Ahead
The 11th Circuit’s decision marks a significant moment at the intersection of cannabis reform and gun rights. By rejecting the idea that medical marijuana patients are inherently dangerous or outside “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, the court has opened the door to further challenges against federal policies that have not kept pace with state-level legalization.
With the U.S. Supreme Court now poised to review a related case on the federal drug-user gun ban, the question of whether cannabis patients can keep their firearms may soon be answered on a national stage. Until then, Florida’s medical marijuana community can reasonably claim a major appellate victory — and a clearer path toward being both legal patients and lawful gun owners under the Constitution.