WASHINGTON (AP) — Three gun shops that sold nearly three dozen firearms to a man who trafficked the weapons in and around Washington, D.C., are facing a new lawsuit jointly filed Tuesday by attorneys general for Maryland and the nation’s capital.

At least nine of those guns have now been found at crime scene and or with people wanted on warrants for violent offenses, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb said. Many of the others are still unaccounted for.

“Our city is being flooded with illegal weapons,” he said. “All three of these stores ignored the red flags.”

Washington, D.C., has struggled with gun violence in recent years. The nation’s capital saw its highest number of homicides in more than three decades last year, and more than 90% of those were carried out with firearms, the suit states.

“Many of us watch the news and we wonder where all these guns are coming from,” said Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown. “Now we have part of the answer.”

In Washington, the supply of weapons is often fueled by people who buy guns for others who can’t legally possess them, Schwalb said. About 95% of guns recovered in Washington, D.C., which has strict gun laws, originally come from nearby Maryland or Virginia, Schwalb said. While some of those are stolen weapons, more come from illegal straw sales, according to data about firearm trafficking investigations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The suit seeks unspecified damages and court action to halt any future straw purchases.

The lawsuit is the first to be filed jointly and comes as cities and states around the country file civil suits against gun shops, including in New Jersey, Minnesota, Chicago and Philadelphia. Kansas City also settled a suit last year against a gun dealer accused of ignoring evidence that guns were being sold illegally.

Licensed firearm dealers do work with ATF to identify possible straw purchases, said Larry Keane, senior vice president at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group. Still, he said that warning signs may not always be obvious at busy stores, where a buyer might encounter different employees on different days.

“The focus should be on the actions of the criminal, not trying to scapegoat retailers who do their best every day to try to prevent straw purchasing,” he said, pointing to a 2016 Justice Department survey of people in prison that found a relatively small number had gotten firearms from a retail source.

The new suit, filed with the gun safety group Everytown Law, accuses the Maryland-based stores of failing to respond to warning signs, including bulk purchasing and repetitive purchases.

The three stores sold a total of nearly three dozen similar weapons to Demetrius Minor over a seven-month period in 2021, the suit said. Nearly all were trafficked to others, including people who aren’t legally allowed to buy firearms, the suit alleges. One gun, for example, was found in a D.C. hotel room along with an illegal large-capacity magazine and another was found at the home of a stabbing suspect, the suit says.

Minor pleaded guilty to one count of dealing in firearms without a license last year in a plea deal with prosecutors and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. An attorney who represented Minor could not immediately be reached for comment.

One store, Atlantic Guns, Inc., said it has “never and will never knowingly sell to someone who we have reason to believe is committing a straw purchase.” Another, United Gun Shop, declined immediate comment, and the third, Engage Armament LLC, did not immediately respond.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and court action to halt any future straw purchases.

The practice known as “drip pricing” violates consumer protection laws in the nation’s capital, Attorney General Brian Schwalb said.

“StubHub intentionally hides the true price to boost profits at its customers’ expense,” he said in a statement.

The company did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

The mandatory “fulfillment and service” fees are hidden until the end of a lengthy online purchasing process that often requires more than a dozen pages to complete as a countdown timer creates a sense of urgency, Schwalb said.

That makes it “nearly impossible” for buyers to know the true cost of a ticket and compare to find the best price, he said. Fees vary widely and can total more than 40% of the advertised ticket price, the lawsuit alleges.

StubHub is one of the world’s largest resale platforms for tickets to sports, concerts, and other live events.

Sally Greenberg, CEO of the nonprofit advocacy group National Consumers League, applauded the lawsuit. “Hidden fees in the ticketing industry have truly gotten out of control. The price that is advertised is the price that we should pay — full stop,” she said. Ticket fees were also part of a sweeping antitrust lawsuit the Justice Department filed against Ticketmaster and its parent company in May.

StubHub used to advertise the “all-in” cost of a ticket about a decade ago, but changed after finding that people are more likely to buy tickets at higher prices with the “drip pricing” model, he said.

Washington residents’ per-capita spending on live entertainment outpaces that of many other major U.S. cities and since 2015, StubHub has sold nearly 5 million tickets in Washington and reaped about $118 million in fees, the suit states.

The lawsuit seeks damages and to block the pricing practices. Schwalb settled another lawsuit last year with the Washington Commanders over fans’ season ticket deposit money.

It happened as two deputy U.S. Marshals were on duty in a government car in Washington, D.C., about 1 a.m. on July 5. They were confronted by a man who got out of a silver minivan and pointed a gun at one of them through the driver’s side window, according to a criminal complaint. The car was unmarked but the pair were dressed in U.S. Marshals shirts.

The deputy pulled out his department-issued gun and shot the man about four times, hitting him in the mouth. He then gave the man first aid while the minivan drove away, charges state. The suspect was hospitalized and placed under arrest.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Marshals confirmed the deputies were part of the detail protecting Supreme Court justices. The deputies were stationed near Sotomayor’s home.

There was no indication that Sotomayor was the target of the attack, which comes after a string of high-profile carjackings in the nation’s capital. Other victims last year included a diplomat from the United Arab Emirates and U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas. Secret Service agents protecting President Joe Biden’s granddaughter also opened fire after three people tried to break into an unmarked Secret Service vehicle last year. No one was struck.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court took up an e-cigarette case Tuesday, weighing Food and Drug Administration decisions blocking the marketing of sweet flavored products amid a surge in vaping by young people.

The FDA is appealing a lower court ruling siding with vape companies who argue the FDA unfairly denied more than a million applications to market fruit or candy flavored versions of nicotine-laced liquid that’s heated by the e-cigarette to create an inhalable aerosol.

The case comes as the FDA undertakes a sweeping review after years of regulatory delays intended to bring scientific scrutiny to the multibillion-dollar vaping market, which includes thousands of flavored vapes that are technically illegal but are widely available in convenience stores, gas stations and vape shops. The FDA recently approved its first menthol-flavored electronic cigarettes for adult smokers.

The agency says the sweet flavored e-liquids pose a “serious, well-documented risk” of enticing more young people to pick up a nicotine habit. In 2020, nearly 20% of high school students and almost 5% of middle-school students used e-cigarettes, and almost all of those kids used flavored products, the agency said in court documents.

The agency says companies were blocked because they couldn’t show the possible benefits for adult smokers outweighed the risk of underage use. The companies say they had prepared detailed plans to avoid appealing to young people.

The companies scored a victory when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the vaping company Triton Distribution and tossed out orders denying the marketing of e-liquids with names like “Jimmy The Juice Man in Peachy Strawberry.”

The 5th Circuit found the agency was unfair because it required the companies, without warning, to present studies showing that flavored products would help with smoking cessation.

The justices are expecting to hear the case in the fall.

Other appeals courts have sided with the FDA, which regulates new tobacco products under a 2009 law aimed at curbing youth tobacco use.

Yolonda Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called on the high court to overturn the appeals-court order, calling it misguided and saying it would “cause significant harm to public health and especially to the health of our kids,” if allowed to stand.

Youth vaping has declined from all-time highs in recent years, but 2.8 million middle and high school students still use it, according to federal survey data.

Vaping companies have long claimed their products can help blunt the toll of smoking, which is blamed for 480,000 U.S. deaths annually due to cancer, lung disease and heart disease.

The company, Trinton, is looking forward to the Supreme Court hearing the case, attorney Eric Heyer said. He said the FDA had imposed “surprise, after-the-fact … study requirements” and failed to follow its own guidance.

The case is the high court’s most significant ruling on the issue in decades and comes as a rising number of people in the U.S. are without a permanent place to live.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the high court found that outdoor sleeping bans don’t violate the Eighth Amendment.

Western cities had argued that the ruling made it harder to manage outdoor encampments in public spaces, but homeless advocates said punishing people who need a place to sleep would criminalize homelessness.

In California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom said the decision gives state and local officials the authority to clear “unsafe encampments” from the streets while acting with compassion. “This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years,” he said.

Justice Neil Gorsuch acknowledged those concerns in the opinion he wrote for the majority.

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it,” he wrote. “A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness.”

He suggested that people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise that as a “necessity defense,” if they are ticketed or otherwise punished for violating a camping ban.

Homeless advocates, on the other hand, have said that allowing cities to punish people who have no other place to sleep would ultimately make the crisis worse. Cities had been allowed to regulate encampments under a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling but couldn’t completely bar people from sleeping outdoors.

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading from the bench a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues. “Homelessness is a reality for so many Americans.”

Punishing people for something they can’t control, like homelessness, is cruel and unusual, she said. She warned that striking down Eighth Amendment arguments against camping bans likely won’t end the fights over the ordinances in court.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, criticized the majority ruling, saying cities shouldn’t “attempt to arrest their way out of this problem or hide the homelessness crisis in neighboring cities or in jail.” The only way to truly address it, she said, is to connect people with housing and services.

The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine Western states, has held since 2018 that such bans violate the Eighth Amendment in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds.

Grants Pass Mayor Sara Bristol told The Associated Press that the city will not immediately start enforcing those local ordinances fining people for sleeping outside and that the city council will need to review the decision and determine the next steps.

“This lawsuit was about whether cities have a right to enforce camping restrictions in public spaces, and I’m relieved that Grants Pass will be able to reclaim our city parks for recreation,” said Bristol, who serves in a nonpartisan position. “Homelessness is a complex issue, and our community has been trying to find solutions.”

Attorney Theane Evangelis, who represented Grants Pass before the high court, applauded the ruling, saying the 9th Circuit decision had “tied the hands of local governments.”

“Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis,” she said.

In Portland, meanwhile, a spokesperson for the mayor’s office said the effect of the ruling would likely be muted since the state has separate legal limits on how cities can manage encampments. Seattle officials also expected a limited impact.

An attorney for homeless people who live in Grants Pass bemoaned the decision.

“We are disappointed that a majority of the court has decided that our Constitution allows a city to punish its homeless residents simply for sleeping outside with a blanket to survive the cold when there is nowhere else for them to go,” said Ed Johnson, director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center.

Friday’s ruling comes after homelessness in the United States grew a dramatic 12% last year to its highest reported level, as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people.

More than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using a yearly point-in-time survey in 2007. A lack of access to mental health and addiction resources can contribute to the crisis. Older adults, LGBTQ+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected by homelessness, advocates said.

Nearly half of people without housing sleep outside, federal data shows.

Derrick Belgarde, executive director of the nonprofit Chief Seattle Club, said some people may simply choose to sleep outside. Before his organization was started, members of the local Native American community weren’t using shelters because they didn’t feel safe in them or felt as though they belonged.

“I think it’s going to cause a lot of pain, a lot of misery to deny people the right to safety, to feel safe, to feel a sense of belonging. It’s going to be devastating for a lot of people,” said Belgarde, a member of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians.

The 9th Circuit decision had governed nine states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

___

Associated Press writers Rebecca Santana in Washington, D.C., John Antczak in Los Angeles, Hallie Golden in Seattle and Adam Beam in Sacramento, Calif., contributed to this story.

The emergency application came after a federal appeals court panel rejected Bannon’s bid to avoid reporting to prison by July 1 to serve his four-month sentence. It was addressed to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals from courts in Washington, D.C.

The high court asked the Justice Department to respond to the request by Wednesday, days before the court is set to begin its summer recess. The court denied a similar request from another Trump aide shortly after receiving a response in March.

Bannon was convicted nearly two years ago of two counts of contempt of Congress: one for refusing to sit for a deposition with the Jan. 6 House Committee and the other for refusing to provide documents related to his involvement in Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Bannon has cast the case as politically motivated, and his attorney David Schoen has said the case raises “serious constitutional issues” that need to be examined by the Supreme Court.

If Bannon goes to prison next month, he will likely have to serve his full sentence before the high court has the chance to review those questions, since the court is due to take its summer recess at the end of June, attorney Trent McCotter wrote in his emergency application.

His lawyer says the former adviser didn’t ignore the subpoena but was still negotiating with the congressional committee when he was charged. His previous attorney told him that the subpoena was invalid because the Republican former president has asserted executive privilege and the committee would not allow a Trump lawyer in the room.

In court papers, Bannon’s lawyers also previously argued that there is a “strong public interest” in allowing him to remain free in the run-up to the 2024 election because Bannon is a top adviser to Trump’s campaign.

Bannon’s prison term has been delayed as he appealed. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ordered him to turn himself in after an appeals court panel upheld his contempt of Congress convictions.

A second Trump aide, trade adviser Peter Navarro, was also convicted of contempt of Congress. He reported to prison in March to serve his four-month sentence after the Supreme Court refused his bid to delay the sentence.

Courts have rejected his executive-privilege argument, finding Navarro couldn’t prove Trump had actually invoked it.

Bannon is also facing criminal charges in New York state court alleging he duped donors who gave money to build a wall along the U.S. southern border. Bannon has pleaded not guilty to money laundering, conspiracy, fraud and other charges, and that trial has been postponed until at least the end of September.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, the rapid-fire gun accessories used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, in a ruling that threw firearms back into the nation’s political spotlight.

The high court’s conservative majority found that the Trump administration overstepped when it changed course from predecessors and banned bump stocks, which allow a rate of fire comparable to machine guns. The decision came after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival with semiautomatic rifles equipped with the accessories.

The gunman fired more than 1,000 rounds into the crowd in 11 minutes, sending thousands of people fleeing in terror as hundreds were wounded and dozens killed.

The ruling thrust guns back into the center of the political conversation with an unusual twist as Democrats decried the reversal of a GOP administration’s action and many Republicans backed the ruling.

The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas found the Justice Department was wrong to declare that bump stocks transformed semiautomatic rifles into illegal machine guns because, he wrote, each trigger depression in rapid succession still only releases one shot.

The ruling reinforced the limits of executive reach and two justices — conservative Samuel Alito and liberal Sonia Sotomayor — separately highlighted how action in Congress could potentially provide a more lasting policy, if there was political will to act in a bipartisan fashion.

Originally, imposing a ban through regulation rather than legislation during Donald Trump’s presidency took pressure off Republicans to act following the massacre and another mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida. Prospects for passing gun restrictions in the current divided Congress are dim.

President Joe Biden, who supports gun restrictions, called on Congress to reinstate the ban imposed under his political foe. Trump’s campaign team meanwhile, expressed respect for the ruling before quickly pivoting to his endorsement by the National Rifle Association.

As Trump courts gun owners while running to retake the presidency, he has appeared to play down his own administration’s actions on bump stocks, telling NRA members in February that “nothing happened” on guns during his presidency despite “great pressure.” He told the group that if he is elected again, “No one will lay a finger on your firearms.”

The 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was carried out by a high-stakes gambler who killed himself, leaving his exact motive a mystery. A total of 60 people were killed in the shooting, including Christiana Duarte, whose family called Friday’s ruling tragic.

“The ruling is really just another way of inviting people to have another mass shooting,” said Danette Meyers, a family friend and spokesperson. “It’s unfortunate that they have to relive this again. They’re really unhappy.”

The opinion comes after the same Supreme Court conservative supermajority handed down a landmark decision expanding gun rights in 2022. The high court is also expected to rule in another gun case in the coming weeks, challenging a federal law intended to keep guns away from people under domestic violence restraining orders.

The arguments in the bump stock case, though, were less about Second Amendment rights and more about whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a Justice Department agency, had overstepped its authority.

Bump stocks are accessories that replace a rifle’s stock, the part that rests against the shoulder. Invented in the 2000s, they harness the gun’s recoil energy so that the trigger bumps against the shooter’s stationary finger, allowing the gun to fire at a similar speed as an automatic weapon.

The Supreme Court majority found that the 1934 law against machine guns defined them as weapons that could automatically fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. Bump stocks don’t fit that definition because “the trigger must still be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot,” Thomas wrote. He also pointed to over a decade of ATF’s findings that claimed bump stocks weren’t automatic weapons.

The plaintiff, Texas gun shop owner and military veteran Michael Cargill, applauded the ruling in a video posted online, predicting the case would have ripple effects by hampering other ATF gun restrictions. “I’m glad I stood up and fought,” he said.

In a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues, Justice Sotomayor said that bump stocks fit under the ordinary meaning of the law: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” she wrote. The ruling, she said, could hamstring the ATF and have “deadly consequences.”

ATF Director Steve Dettelbach echoed the sentiment, saying that bump stocks “pose an unacceptable level of risk to public safety.”

The high court took up the case after a split among lower courts. Under Republican President George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama, the ATF decided that bump stocks didn’t transform semiautomatic weapons into machine guns. The agency reversed those decisions at Trump’s urging. That was after the Las Vegas massacre and the Parkland, Florida shooting that left 17 dead.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have their own bans on bump stocks that aren’t expected to be affected by the ruling, though four state bans may no longer cover bump stocks in the wake of the ruling, according to the gun-control group Everytown.

Cargill was represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a group funded by conservative donors like the Koch network. His attorneys acknowledged that bump stocks allow for rapid fire but argued that they are different because the shooter has to put in more effort to keep the gun firing.

The Biden administration had argued that effort was minimal, and said the ATF came to the right conclusion on bump stocks after doing a more in-depth examination spurred by the Las Vegas shooting.

There were about 520,000 bump stocks in circulation when the ban went into effect in 2019, requiring people to either surrender or destroy them at a combined estimated loss of $100 million, the plaintiffs said in court documents.

___

Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Lisa Mascaro in Washington, Jill Colvin in New York, Mike Catalini in Trenton, New Jersey, Jim Salter in St. Louis, and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas, contributed to this report.

___

This story has been updated to correct a reference assault rifle rather than semiautomatic rifle.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for a National Rifle Association lawsuit against a former New York state official over claims she pressured companies to blacklist it following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Giving the NRA a new chance to prove its case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech.”

The NRA said ex-New York state Department of Financial Services Superintendent Maria Vullo violated its free-speech rights during her investigation of NRA-endorsed insurance policies. The group had been working with insurance companies to offer its members Carry Guard policies that covered losses caused by firearms, even when the insured person intentionally killed or hurt somebody. Critics have called the policies “murder insurance.”

In an unusual alignment, the NRA was represented in the case by the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Biden administration argued some of its claims should go forward.

“This is a landmark victory for the NRA and all who care about our First Amendment freedom,” NRA attorney William A. Brewer III said, accusing New York government officials of abusing their power to silence the group.

The Supreme Court ruling favoring the NRA, which is based in Fairfax, Virginia, reverses a lower-court decision tossing out the gun rights group’s lawsuit against Vullo. The decision means the NRA’s lawsuit can go forward, but it does not decide the merits of the claim. It also should not be read to shield the NRA and other advocacy groups from regulation, Sotomayor said.

But, she wrote, the NRA’s complaint “plausibly alleges that Vullo threatened to wield her power against those refusing to aid her campaign to punish the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy. If true, that violates the First Amendment.”

Vullo argued that she rightly investigated NRA-endorsed insurance policies. She said she did speak out about the risks of doing business with gun groups but didn’t exert any improper pressure on companies, many of which were distancing themselves from the NRA on their own at the time.

The NRA said Vullo leveraged the state investigation into the legality of NRA-endorsed insurance products to pressure insurance companies, saying she would go easier on them if they cut ties with the group.

The products clearly violated state law, Vullo countered, including by covering intentional acts and criminal defense costs. The probe started before the Parkland massacre, which left 17 people dead, and the insurance providers ultimately agreed to pay multimillion-dollar fines.

Vullo also sent out guidance letters to banks and insurance companies warning about the “reputational risks” of working with the NRA. The NRA said her words had significant sway because of her position and several companies cut ties with the group, costing it millions of dollars in revenue.

Vullo said the letters were evenhanded, and her attorney argued that letting the lawsuit go forward would improperly muzzle public officials.

___

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed to this story.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Thursday formally moved to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, a historic shift in generations of U.S. drug policy.

A proposed rule sent to the federal register recognizes the medical uses of cannabis and acknowledges it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. The plan approved by Attorney General Merrick Garland would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use.

The Drug Enforcement Administration will next take public comment on the proposal in a potentially lengthy process. If approved, the rule would move marijuana away from its current classification as a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin and LSD. Pot would instead be a Schedule III substance, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids.

The move comes after a recommendation from the federal Health and Human Services Department, which launched a review of the drug’s status at the urging of President Joe Biden in 2022.

Biden also has moved to pardon thousands of people convicted federally of simple possession of marijuana and has called on governors and local leaders to take similar steps to erase convictions.

“This is monumental,” Biden said in a video statement, calling it an important move toward reversing longstanding inequities. “Far too many lives have been upended because of a failed approach to marijuana, and I’m committed to righting those wrongs. You have my word on it.”

The election year announcement could help Biden, a Democrat, boost flagging support, particularly among younger voters.

The notice kicks off a 60-day comment period followed by a possible review from an administrative judge, which could be a drawn-out process.

Biden and a growing number of lawmakers from both major political parties have been pushing for the DEA decision as marijuana has become increasingly decriminalized and accepted, particularly by younger people. Some argue that rescheduling doesn’t go far enough and marijuana should instead be treated the way alcohol is.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York applauded the change and called for additional steps toward legalization.

The U.S. Cannabis Council, a trade group, said the switch would “signal a tectonic shift away from the failed policies of the last 50 years.”

The Justice Department said that available data reviewed by HHS shows that while marijuana “is associated with a high prevalence of abuse,” that potential is more in line with other Schedule III substances, according to the proposed rule.

The HHS recommendations are binding until the draft rule is submitted, and Garland agreed with it for the purposes of starting the process.

Still, the DEA has not yet formed its own determination as to where marijuana should be scheduled, and it expects to learn more during the rulemaking process, the document states.

Some critics argue the DEA shouldn’t change course on marijuana, saying rescheduling isn’t necessary and could lead to harmful side effects.

Dr. Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy adviser now with the group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said there isn’t enough data to support moving pot to Schedule III. “As we’ve maintained throughout this process, it’s become undeniable that politics, not science, is driving this decision and has been since the very beginning,” Sabet said.

The immediate effect of rescheduling on the nation’s criminal justice system is expected to be muted. Federal prosecutions for simple possession have been fairly rare in recent years.

Schedule III drugs are still controlled substances and subject to rules and regulations, and people who traffic in them without permission could still face federal criminal prosecution.

Federal drug policy has lagged behind many states in recent years, with 38 states having already legalized medical marijuana and 24 legalizing its recreational use. That’s helped fuel fast growth in the marijuana industry, with an estimated worth of nearly $30 billion.

Easing federal regulations could reduce the tax burden that can be 70% or more for marijuana businesses, according to industry groups. It also could make it easier to research marijuana, since it’s very difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies on Schedule I substances.

___

Associated Press writers Zeke Miller in Washington and Joshua Goodman in Miami contributed to this report.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of marijuana at https://apnews.com/hub/marijuana.

The rate of stolen guns from cars climbed nearly every year and spiked during the coronavirus pandemic along with a major surge in weapons purchases in the U.S., according to the report, which analyzes FBI data from 337 cities in 44 states and was provided to The Associated Press.

The stolen weapons have, in some cases, turned up at crime scenes. In July 2021, a gun taken from an unlocked car in Riverside, Florida, was used to kill a 27-year-old Coast Guard member as she tried to stop a car burglary in her neighborhood.

The alarming trend underscores the need for Americans to safely secure their firearms to prevent them from getting into the hands of dangerous people, said Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director Steve Dettelbach, whose agency has separately found links between stolen guns and violent crimes.

“People don’t go to a mall and steal a firearm from a locked car to go hunting. Those guns are going straight to the street,” said Dettelbach, whose agency was not involved in the report. “They’re going to violent people who can’t pass a background check. They’re going to gangs. They’re going to drug dealers, and they’re going to hurt and kill the people who live in the next town, the next county or the next state.”

Nearly 122,000 guns were reported stolen in 2022, and just over half of those were from cars — most often when they were parked in driveways or outside people’s homes, the Everytown report found. That’s up from about one-quarter of all thefts in 2013, when homes were the leading spot for firearm thefts, the report says.

Stolen guns have also been linked to tragic accidents, such as when a 14-year-old boy in St. Petersburg, Florida, killed his 11-year-old brother after finding in an alley a gun that had been stolen from an unlocked car a few days before.

At least one firearm was stolen from a car every nine minutes on average in 2022, the most recent year for which data was available. That’s almost certainly an undercount, though, since there’s no federal law requiring people to report stolen guns and only one-third of states require a report.

“Every gun stolen from a car increases the chances it’ll be used in a violent crime,” said Sarah Burd-Sharp, senior director of research at Everytown, which advocates for gun control policies. It’s unclear what’s driving the trend. The report found higher theft rates in states with looser gun laws, which also tend to have higher rates of gun ownership.

The report analyzed crime data from the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System, which includes details about what was stolen and where it came from. Guns stolen from cars bucked car theft trends overall — the rate of other things stolen from cars has dropped 11% over the last 10 years, even as the rate of gun thefts from cars grew 200%, Everytown found in its analysis of FBI data.

In Savannah, Georgia, city leaders last month passed an ordinance requiring people to secure firearms left inside cars after seeing more than 200 guns stolen from unlocked cars in a year. The measure is facing pushback from the state’s attorney general.

The ATF has separately said that theft is a significant source of guns that end up in the hands of criminals. More than 1 million guns were reported stolen between 2017 and 2021, the agency found in a sweeping report on crime guns released last year. And the vast majority of gun thefts are from individuals.

The agency is prohibited by law from publicly releasing detailed information about where stolen guns end up. The information can, however, be shared with police investigating a crime.