Court Takes Up Marijuana Gun Ban

The Supreme Court is taking up a case that could end the federal felony ban on gun ownership for marijuana users—and the legal argument is stronger than you might expect.

State of play: The case, United States v. Hemani, is fully briefed before the Court. The defendant's only charged crime is possessing firearms while being a marijuana user. Not while intoxicated. Not while committing another offense. Just: owns guns, also uses cannabis.

The legal question: Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—which bans any marijuana "user" from possessing even a single round of ammunition—survive the Bruen historical tradition test?

The NRA, FPC Action Foundation, and the Independence Institute filed an amicus brief arguing it doesn't. The core argument:

"The historical tradition supports restrictions on the use of firearms while intoxicated, but it does not support disarming individuals when they are sober merely because they sometimes use intoxicants."

The history cuts against the government. American legislatures have always addressed the firearms-and-intoxicants problem through conduct-based rules—don't carry while drunk, don't discharge while impaired—not through status-based prohibitions. You got sober, you got your rights back. That was the entire tradition. Hemp was widely cultivated in the Founding Era, alcohol abuse was a known problem, and militias still showed up armed. Nobody got permanently disarmed for it.

Reality check: The government's historical analogies are weak, and the brief doesn't pull punches about it. The feds point to civil-commitment laws for alcoholics unable to manage their affairs, vagrancy statutes that jailed people for "loitering, juggling, or wearing the clothes of the opposite sex," and surety laws—which the brief notes actually undermine the government's case, since they required an individualized judicial finding of dangerousness before any restriction applied.

Between the lines: The government's evidence on dangerousness is telling. Rather than making a case that marijuana specifically correlates with firearms violence, the brief notes the government leans heavily on incidents involving meth, heroin, PCP, and Quaaludes. That's not an argument about cannabis users. That's a bait-and-switch.

What Idaho owners should know: If you hold a medical marijuana card or use cannabis legally under state law, federal law currently treats you as a prohibited person—full stop. No guns, no ammo. A ruling in Hemani's favor wouldn't legalize marijuana or touch state law, but it could restore Second Amendment rights to millions of otherwise law-abiding owners who've been caught in a statutory trap that the Founders never envisioned.

What to watch: The Court hasn't set oral argument dates yet. Given the Bruen framework the justices themselves established in 2022, the government faces a genuinely hard road here. Watch for whether the Court takes a narrow as-applied ruling or goes broader on the statute itself.

The bottom line: The federal government is prosecuting people for owning guns while sober—based solely on their status as occasional drug users. The historical record says that's never been how this country handled it.