Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Marijuana Use Does Not Strip Gun Rights

A Unanimous Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 18 that smoking marijuana does not strip a person of gun rights under the Second Amendment. All nine justices agreed that using marijuana does not negate the right to own a gun and that a person cannot be punished for it.

The case stemmed from an investigation into Ali Hemani, a Dallas resident who holds both U.S. and Pakistani citizenship. During a 2022 search of his family home, Hemani cooperated with government agents and led them to a gun and some marijuana inside the house.

In an interview, Hemani admitted to smoking marijuana a few times a week. More than six months after the search, the Department of Justice charged him with knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

Hemani challenged the charges in court, and the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision is an important test of both gun rights and drug laws as marijuana becomes more acceptable in American society.

The government had suspected Hemani and his family of terrorism-related activities, which prompted the original investigation.

What the Justices Said

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the federal law used to prosecute Hemani does not square with the right to bear arms. “It makes no difference either if he keeps a firearm only in his home for self-defense, never misuses a gun while intoxicated, and never poses a danger to himself or others as a result of his marijuana use,” Gorsuch wrote.

Gorsuch noted that the statute requires only that the government show an individual “regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance.”

The Department of Justice had cited “habitual drunkard” and vagrancy laws to support its position. Gorsuch argued those laws usually offered the accused some kind of process before their liberties were curtailed.

The law as written, he said, “automatically divests an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user and until he ends his drug use all without any pre-deprivation process.”

Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan concurred in a separate writing, criticizing the government’s attempt to prosecute Hemani.

What the Ruling Does Not Do

The decision does not fully invalidate the federal law. The justices did not rule on whether addicts or intoxicated people are allowed to carry a firearm.

It also does not prevent Congress from restricting gun rights for users of some other drug if it creates a special risk of misuse.

Alito wrote that the government “has failed to show that a marijuana user like (Hemani) is incapacitated in a way analogous to the habitual drunkards that the government’s analogues regulated.”

The ruling comes the same year the federal government rescheduled medical marijuana and considers it a less dangerous drug. Oklahoma is one of 41 states that now have a medical marijuana program.

In April, after 89 years of considering marijuana illegal and 56 years as a Schedule I-listed drug, the government loosened its restrictions in states with a medical marijuana program.

Related Stories

• NH Democrat Urges Cannabis Legalization To Retain State Revenue
• New York Court Rules Local Cannabis Zoning Rule Preempted By State
• Rhode Island Hemp Farmer Challenges Attorney General Candidates On Regulation