Gun Rights Groups Urge Supreme Court to Merge Cases on Cannabis Users’ Second Amendment Rights
Advocates Push the Court to Broaden Its Review Beyond a Single Marijuana Case
A coalition of gun rights organizations is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to take a broader look at the constitutionality of the federal firearms ban on marijuana users. The groups argue that the Court’s current focus on one specific case will not fully resolve the issue that affects millions of Americans who legally consume cannabis under state law.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear U.S. v. Hemani, a case involving an individual accused of firearm possession while using illicit drugs. Following that decision, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and five other gun rights organizations filed an amicus brief in a separate case, U.S. v. Harris, urging justices to consider both cases together to ensure a fairer and more comprehensive ruling.
Gun Groups Argue One Case Alone Cannot Settle a Nationwide Constitutional Question
The amici brief contends that Hemani—the case the Court already accepted—is too narrow and involves facts unrelated to marijuana alone. The defendant in Hemani is also accused of dealing multiple drugs and having alleged ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which, the brief argues, makes him an unrepresentative test case for ordinary Americans.
“It would be unjust for this Court to decide an issue affecting millions of Americans based on the unique and highly unusual facts present in Mr. Hemani’s case alone,” the brief states. “The Petitioner here is far more representative of how this issue affects most otherwise law-abiding people who use marijuana—often in compliance with their state’s laws.”
Gun Rights Advocates Say Ban Unfairly Targets State-Legal Cannabis Users
SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb emphasized that the Harris case “is critical because it affects millions of law-abiding Americans who face losing their Second Amendment rights simply for using a substance legal in their state—often for medical reasons.”
Other groups joining the brief include the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Operation Blazing Sword-Pink Pistols, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center.
The coalition argues that federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—which prohibits firearm ownership by anyone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance—no longer aligns with the modern legal and social landscape surrounding marijuana.
Historical Context and Federal Inconsistency Highlighted in Legal Argument
The gun rights groups also challenge the Justice Department’s argument that laws restricting guns from intoxicated individuals in the 18th and 19th centuries justify today’s blanket ban on cannabis users.
“Historically, laws prohibited carrying firearms while drunk, not owning them because someone occasionally drank alcohol,” the brief says. “In the modern era, marijuana should be treated no differently.”
They argue that comparing marijuana to alcohol reveals the overreach of the current statute:
“The law is not akin to banning drunkards from carrying guns; it is akin to banning anyone who has a six-pack of Budweiser in their refrigerator from owning guns.”
Marijuana’s Legal Status and Public Acceptance Strengthen the Case for Reform
The brief points to the growing acceptance and legalization of marijuana across the United States, as well as federal reconsideration of cannabis scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act.
With President Donald Trump reportedly weighing a proposal to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, advocates say it’s inconsistent for the federal government to maintain a firearms ban that punishes state-legal consumers.
“Because of the prohibition found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), if Americans choose to use marijuana products that are legal in their state, they must surrender their Second Amendment rights,” the brief states. “This does not square with historical tradition or constitutional principles.”
Justice Department Requests More Time While Advocates Await Supreme Court Action
On Thursday, the Justice Department asked for more time to submit its own initial brief in U.S. v. Harris, citing the “heavy press” of other cases. The requested extension would move its deadline from October 30 to December 1.
Meanwhile, the DOJ continues to defend the marijuana gun ban in multiple courts, maintaining that cannabis consumers are similar to “habitually intoxicated” or “dangerous” individuals historically prohibited from possessing firearms.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Hemani could determine the fate of several related cases, including U.S. v. Daniels, U.S. v. Sam, and U.S. v. Cooper, all challenging the same federal statute.
Growing Judicial Disagreement Across the Country
Federal courts across the country have issued conflicting rulings on whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment.
- The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court ruling that dismissed an indictment against an Oklahoma man charged with possessing a gun while using marijuana.
- The Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients seeking to exercise their gun rights.
- A federal judge in Rhode Island and another in Texas both found the ban unconstitutional in recent years.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third and Eighth Circuits have also indicated that individualized judicial reviews may be needed to determine whether the ban is justified in each specific case.
State-Level Reactions Reflect a Patchwork of Policy Approaches
While federal courts deliberate, some states are moving to reconcile their gun and marijuana laws. Pennsylvania lawmakers have proposed a bill to allow medical marijuana patients to possess firearms, while Kentucky legislators have introduced a resolution urging Congress to act on federal reform.
Colorado activists recently attempted to qualify a 2024 ballot initiative to protect the gun rights of marijuana users, though it fell short of the required signatures.
The ATF, meanwhile, continues to warn that medical marijuana patients are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms under federal law even if state laws say otherwise.
Supreme Court’s Decision Could Set Major Precedent
If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees to consolidate Hemani and Harris, the resulting decision could have a sweeping impact on the intersection of cannabis and gun ownership rights nationwide.
For now, advocates argue that treating state-legal cannabis users as “dangerous” criminals is incompatible with both the Constitution and the realities of modern legalization.
Topic(s):
OG source Download Article 
