## Facts

- El Paso police responded to a “shots fired” call at Paola Connelly’s home after a dispute involving her husband and a neighbor.
- Officers observed Connelly’s husband at the neighbor’s door firing a shotgun; he was arrested.
- Inside the home, Connelly told officers she sometimes used marijuana to help with sleep and anxiety.
- Police found drug paraphernalia and multiple firearms and ammunition, including firearms owned by Connelly.
- There was no indication Connelly was intoxicated when officers found the firearms.
- Based on her admissions and firearm possession, Connelly was charged with possessing firearms as an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance and transferring firearms to an “unlawful user” (her husband).

## Issues

1. Whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers Connelly and her conduct of possessing firearms in the home despite occasional marijuana use.
2. Whether § 922(g)(3)’s disarmament of “unlawful users” is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation when applied to a sober person with past or occasional marijuana use.
3. Whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) are facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
4. Whether § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to Connelly on this record.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit held that Connelly falls within “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, and her possession of firearms in the home is covered by the Amendment’s plain text.
- The court affirmed the dismissal of the § 922(g)(3) charge as unconstitutional as applied to Connelly.
- The court reversed the district court’s facial invalidation of §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3), holding Connelly did not show they are unconstitutional in all applications.
- The court reasoned that historical tradition may allow limits on firearm possession by persons who are presently intoxicated, leaving room for constitutional applications of the statutes.

## Legal Principles

- Under the *Bruen* framework (as clarified by *Rahimi*), once conduct is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the government must justify the regulation by showing consistency with the principles supporting the historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- Marijuana users are not categorically excluded from Second Amendment protection; ordinary possession of firearms for self-defense in the home is protected conduct.
- Historical analogues concerning mental illness and dangerousness do not justify disarming a sober, sound-minded person based solely on past or occasional drug use without evidence of present impairment.
- Historical intoxication-related regulations may support restrictions targeting persons who are presently intoxicated (or comparably impaired) while armed.
- A facial Second Amendment challenge fails where the statute has at least some constitutionally valid applications; an as-applied challenge can succeed where the government cannot show a historically supported analogue for the defendant’s specific circumstances.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that § 922(g)(3) could not be applied to disarm a sober, nonviolent, occasional marijuana user based only on past use, but it declined to strike down §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) on their face because historical tradition may support restrictions tied to present intoxication or comparable impairment.


United States v. Connelly, 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024)