SB 39 and Gun Rights: What Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Patients Should Know
Oklahoma’s Senate Bill 39 (SB 39) represents a significant step in addressing the complex legal intersection between firearm rights and medical marijuana use. While the bill clarifies key issues at the state level, it also highlights persistent challenges stemming from the conflict between state and federal laws. Understanding SB 39 and its implications is essential for medical marijuana patients and firearm owners navigating these contradictory regulations.
Understanding SB 39
SB 39 introduces two primary provisions for medical marijuana patients in Oklahoma. First, SB 39 explicitly prohibits carrying firearms while under the influence of medical marijuana. This aligns with existing laws barring individuals from handling firearms while impaired by alcohol or other substances. The bill’s language emphasizes safety by restricting firearm use when a person’s mental, emotional or physical state is compromised by cannabis consumption.
Second, SB 39 ensures that possessing a valid medical marijuana patient license does not, on its own, disqualify someone from obtaining a handgun license. This provision protects the rights of Oklahoma residents who comply with state cannabis laws and reassures them that they won’t face automatic exclusion from exercising their Second Amendment rights solely due to their medical marijuana patient status.
Federal Law’s Persistent Shadow
Despite the progress reflected in SB 39, medical marijuana patients remain entangled in a broader legal conflict. Under federal law—specifically the Gun Control Act of 1968—it is illegal for anyone who uses or is addicted to a controlled substance to possess firearms. Marijuana’s classification as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act means that even state-compliant medical marijuana users are considered “unlawful users” under federal law.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) enforces this prohibition. Its policies prohibit federally licensed firearm dealers from selling firearms to anyone known to use marijuana, regardless of state legality. This creates a precarious situation for medical marijuana patients who may fully comply with state laws yet violate federal regulations simply by possessing a firearm.
Recent Legal Developments
Federal courts have increasingly scrutinized the constitutionality of firearm restrictions for marijuana users. In February 2023, a federal judge here in Oklahoma ruled in United States v. Harrison that the federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana users was unconstitutional. The court found no historical precedent for disarming individuals solely based on cannabis use and held that the prohibition violated the Second Amendment. This decision, however, is not binding nationwide, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) has appealed the ruling.
Another significant case, United States v. Daniels (August 2023), addressed the broader question of whether past marijuana use can justify firearm restrictions. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that while restrictions on firearm use by intoxicated individuals may be constitutional, disarming sober individuals based on past cannabis use is not.
More recently, in August 2024, the Fifth Circuit ruled on United States v. Connelly. This case involved a Texas woman, Paola Connelly, who occasionally used marijuana. The court found the federal prohibition on firearm possession by marijuana users unconstitutional as applied to her, emphasizing again that disarming a sober individual based solely on past marijuana use lacks historical justification. This decision further underscores the evolving legal landscape concerning firearm rights for marijuana users, highlighting the persistent tension between state-level legalization and federal restrictions.
These rulings challenge the federal government’s stance but have yet to result in widespread policy changes. The DOJ continues to defend the federal prohibition vigorously.
In January of 2024, Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, who is also a registered medical marijuana patient in Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit challenging the federal prohibition on firearm possession for cannabis users. This case is ongoing, with the Department of Justice seeking its dismissal.
The DOJ argues that the ban on firearm possession by marijuana users is analogous to historical laws disarming individuals deemed dangerous, such as the intoxicated or mentally ill. The government’s position suggests that marijuana users pose risks to public safety, including impaired judgment and a greater likelihood of improper firearm storage.
These claims lack evidence and unfairly stigmatize marijuana users, especially those using cannabis for medical purposes. Disarming individuals based on cannabis use, even when they are not actively impaired, constitutes an overreach that undermines constitutional rights.
The Issue of THC Impairment and Legal Liability
One critical issue with verifying cannabis-related impairment is the difficulty in determining whether an individual is actively impaired by THC, as current testing methods cannot reliably differentiate between recent use and residual presence. Unlike alcohol, which can be measured through blood alcohol concentration (BAC), THC metabolites can linger in the bloodstream for days or even weeks after consumption, long after any psychoactive effects have subsided.
This creates legal vulnerability for regular medical marijuana users who consume cannabis legally under state law but would still test positive for THC metabolites if subjected to screening. Under SB 39’s provisions prohibiting firearm possession while under the influence, these individuals could face firearm-related charges despite not being impaired.
Although SB 39 protects a patient’s eligibility to apply for a handgun license, current testing protocols and conditioned enforcement biases pose an inherent risk of unintended criminalization. Resolving this issue will require more precise legislative or judicial guidance to ensure lawful medical marijuana users are not unfairly penalized.
Under Oklahoma Statute Title 21, Section 1289.15, the penalties for violations such as carrying a firearm while under the influence are as follows:
A fine ranging from $50 to $500.
Up to 6 months in county jail.
Or both a fine and imprisonment.
In addition to these potential penalties, handgun license holders found in violation would have their handgun permit suspended for a period of 6 months and receive an additional $50 administrative fine from the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation.
Practical Implications for Patients
Even with state-level protections, the conflict between state and federal laws places medical marijuana patients in a legal grey area. While Oklahoma’s SB 39 protects their rights at the state level, federal law continues to cast a long shadow. Patients who own firearms must navigate potential risks, including:
Federal Prosecution: While it would be incredibly rare, federal authorities could enforce firearm prohibitions against medical marijuana users, particularly if they purchase firearms through federally licensed dealers.
Background Checks: ATF Form 4473 requires firearm buyers to disclose “unlawful” drug use. Answering truthfully about medical marijuana use will result in denial of a firearm purchase, while false statements are a federal felony.
Uncertain Enforcement: Policies and priorities vary, leading to inconsistencies in how firearm restrictions for cannabis users are applied.
Addressing these issues requires action at multiple levels. Reclassifying marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act or creating exemptions for state-compliant users could resolve much of the legal tension. Privacy protections for state medical marijuana registries are also critical to prevent patient information from being used to enforce federal firearm restrictions.
All things considered, state-level legislation like SB 39 provides an important foundation for protecting patients’ rights. By affirming that medical marijuana use does not inherently disqualify individuals from obtaining handgun licenses, Oklahoma has taken a step toward reconciling cannabis legalization with Second Amendment protections.
Oklahoma’s SB 39 reflects the state’s recognition of the evolving relationship between medical marijuana laws and firearm rights. While it provides important protections for patients, the ongoing conflict with federal law underscores the need for broader reform. Until these issues are resolved, medical marijuana patients must remain vigilant and informed about the risks and responsibilities of navigating these overlapping legal frameworks. If you have questions about your rights as an Oklahoma medical marijuana patient and gun owner, contact us today.
If SB 39 passes, the act will become law November 1, 2025.
