Colorado Governor Challenges Federal Gun Ban Tied To Cannabis Use

Colorado Governor Pushes Back Against State Support For Federal Gun Ban Targeting Marijuana Consumers As Supreme Court Case Advances

Colorado’s governor has publicly distanced himself from his own state’s legal stance in a major federal firearms case, saying Colorado should not have supported a lawsuit defending the nationwide prohibition on gun ownership for people who use marijuana. The dispute places the governor at odds with the state attorney general as the issue heads before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Governor Breaks With State Attorney General Over Colorado’s Decision To Back Federal Firearms Restrictions On Cannabis Users

Gov. Jared Polis signaled opposition to Colorado joining a multistate legal filing that supports the constitutionality of the federal statute barring marijuana consumers from purchasing or possessing firearms. The brief, submitted in December, aligned Colorado with the U.S. Justice Department’s defense of the law now under Supreme Court review.

The move drew attention because Colorado is among the states that have legalized cannabis, making its support for the federal restriction notable within the broader legalization landscape.

Polis Argues Marijuana Use Should Not Disqualify Individuals From Exercising Second Amendment Rights

The governor said there is no justification for stripping individuals of gun ownership rights solely due to marijuana use, particularly when similar restrictions are not applied to alcohol consumers. He emphasized that lawful medical or recreational cannabis use should not interfere with constitutional protections.

Polis, who has long supported both marijuana reform and gun rights, reiterated his broader push for federal cannabis rescheduling and criticized delays in updating national marijuana policy.

Governor Acknowledges Conflict Between His Personal Position And Colorado’s Official Legal Filing

After observers pointed out that his comments conflicted with Colorado’s formal position in the case, Polis clarified that he opposes the state’s legal stance and does not believe Colorado should have joined the lawsuit.

While he has voiced strong disagreement, it remains unclear what practical steps he can take to alter the state’s role at this stage of the litigation process.

Supreme Court Case Could Determine Future Of Federal Statute Barring Firearms For Marijuana Consumers

The case before the high court, U.S. v. Hemani, centers on the legality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal provision prohibiting firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances, including marijuana.

Oral arguments are scheduled for March 2, with the outcome expected to shape national policy and influence numerous related cases moving through federal courts.

Gun Rights Groups And Drug Policy Organizations Unite To Challenge Constitutionality Of Federal Ban

The National Rifle Association has joined drug policy reform advocates and civil liberties groups in urging the Supreme Court to strike down the restriction. Their filings argue that modern marijuana laws and evolving public attitudes undermine the historical basis required to justify firearm prohibitions under recent Second Amendment precedent.

They also contend that expanding legalization at the state level further weakens the rationale for a blanket federal ban.

Opposition Briefs Warn Of Public Safety Risks And Urge Court To Uphold Existing Firearms Restrictions

Organizations that oppose marijuana legalization, including prohibitionist advocacy groups, have filed briefs defending the statute. They argue that cannabis use is linked to heightened risks such as violence and mental health concerns and that firearm restrictions are therefore warranted.

Federal government attorneys have similarly maintained that people who use illegal drugs present greater safety risks than alcohol consumers.

Justice Department Guidance And Related Federal Cases Add Complexity To Legal Landscape

Recent disclosures show prior federal guidance urged prosecutors to exercise discretion in certain cannabis-related firearm cases, highlighting internal concern about legal vulnerabilities.

Federal appellate courts across the country have issued differing rulings on the gun ban, with some dismissing indictments, others vacating convictions, and several calling for individualized constitutional analysis. The growing circuit split helped prompt Supreme Court review.

Lower Courts Increasingly Question Constitutionality Of Firearm Prohibitions Tied To Marijuana Use

Multiple federal decisions have found constitutional issues with applying the firearm ban to cannabis consumers. Courts have cited evolving Second Amendment standards and the expanding legality of marijuana at the state level as factors requiring closer scrutiny.

In some cases, convictions have been overturned or sent back to lower courts to determine whether defendants posed an actual danger.

Regulatory Shifts And State-Level Efforts Reflect Broader National Debate Over Guns And Cannabis

Federal regulators have also begun reconsidering how broadly the prohibition applies, proposing rule changes that would narrow who qualifies as an unlawful drug user for firearm enforcement purposes.

Meanwhile, activists in Colorado attempted to place a ballot initiative before voters to protect gun rights for marijuana consumers, though the campaign ultimately failed to gather enough signatures.

Supreme Court Decision Poised To Influence National Policy On Cannabis Use And Firearm Ownership

With legalization expanding and court challenges mounting, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling could determine whether federal firearm restrictions tied to marijuana remain enforceable nationwide or must be reworked to reflect shifting legal and cultural realities.

The decision is expected to carry far-reaching implications for gun policy, cannabis reform and the balance between federal law and state legalization frameworks.