The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging a federal law prohibiting those who use illegal drugs from owning guns.
The case of United States v. Ali Danial Hemani could be a tremendous step for the right to keep and bear arms. But even though this current Supreme Court has been more pro-gun rights, persuading them to strike down this law might not be easy.
Hemani’s case began in 2022 when federal investigators found a Glock 19 pistol in his Texas home as part of an investigation into his alleged communications with individuals connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). After finding that he was a marijuana user, prosecutors charged him for possessing a firearm while being “an unlawful user of a controlled substance.”
He was not accused of being intoxicated at the time. But the prosecution based its case on the fact that he admitted to using the plant. A grand jury indicted him on February 8, 2023, and law enforcement arrested him two days later. His legal team immediately moved to dismiss his case, arguing that it violated Hemani’s Second Amendment rights and that it did not pass the historical analogue test established by the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The district and appellate courts ruled in his favor.
The legal conflict centers on whether Congress can permanently strip gun rights from those who use illegal drugs, even when there is no evidence that the target is dangerous. The Justice Department defended the law by claiming that there are three Founding-era laws similar to it, as required under the Bruen decision.
These include laws to disarm the mentally ill, “dangerous” individuals, and intoxication laws. Still, the defense maintains that “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence,” according to court documents. The lawyers contend that there were no drug laws enacted during the Founding era that justify a blanket prohibition on the right to keep and bear arms.
Hemani’s legal team is requesting that the Supreme Court keep in place the Fifth Circuit’s prior ruling. They point out that the law unfairly criminalizes millions of Americans who consume marijuana under state law while owning guns.
The law was enacted under the 1968 Gun Control Act, which established a list of “prohibited persons” who were barred from owning guns. It was ostensibly part of an effort to address rising violent crime rates and drug abuse by portraying users as a greater risk to public safety.
The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 clarified the prohibition, defining which drugs would fall under the list of prohibited persons. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 established the use of the national background check system to enforce the law. Those who falsely claim that they do not use illicit drugs on the background check form can face up to 10 years in federal prison.
Federal prosecutors used this law to compel a Missouri man named Greg Berry to take a plea deal when he was charged with trading and selling firearms as a hobby. It has also been used against people who are addicted to illegal street drugs, even in states where marijuana is legal.
Those who support the law argue that drug users pose a unique danger to public safety because intoxication can impair judgment, which would increase the likelihood of impulsive or violent behavior. They claim it does not violate the Second Amendment because it is not a lifetime ban. People can own guns after they stop using drugs.
On the flipside, critics point out that the law imposes a broad ban that forces people to disarm even if there is no evidence of current intoxication or dangerous behavior. It also penalizes Americans who comply with state laws allowing marijuana use.
If the Supreme Court rules in Hemani’s favor, it would strike down the federal ban on prohibited persons owning guns. This could mean that those using marijuana — and possibly other drugs — would no longer be disqualified from gun ownership. Millions of Americans could regain their gun rights. Existing convictions could be overturned or successfully challenged. It would also make it harder for federal and state governments to bar certain groups of people from owning guns.
At the end of the day, the question of drug users owning firearms boils down to this question: Does the prohibition work?
Of course it doesn’t.
Those who support gun rights know full well that gun control doesn’t work. The ban needlessly criminalizes people for exercising their Second Amendment rights. Regardless of what one thinks about drug use and addiction, people still have the right to defend themselves. The Constitution says “shall not be infringed,” not “shall not be infringed unless you spark up a joint.”