The Supreme Court just added a second gun case to its docket this term, taking up United States v. Hemani, a challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — the federal ban on firearm possession by “unlawful users” of controlled substances.
On paper, that sounds like the kind of Bruen-era opportunity gun owners should cheer. In reality? This may be the wrong vehicle at the wrong time.
What the Case is About, in Plain English
Section 922(g)(3) makes it a federal felony for anyone who uses illegal drugs to possess a firearm. There’s a long history of disarming people who are actively intoxicated (think “no guns while you’re drunk”).
But there isn’t a clear historical tradition of a 24/7/365 ban on gun ownership for anyone who uses a disfavored substance at any point. That’s an especially big deal in the dozens of states where adults can legally use marijuana under state law while federal law still says it’s illegal.
The Fifth Circuit looked at those history-and-tradition questions and said the statute was unconstitutional as applied to Hemani. The Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to reverse — and the Court said, “We’ll hear it.”
Why Gun Owners Shouldn’t Assume This Is a Win
Two big reasons.
1) “Bad facts make bad law.”
This isn’t a clean “state-legal marijuana cardholder wants to keep a home-defense pistol” test case. According to the government’s filings summarized by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law (see video above), Hemani comes wrapped in ugly facts: alleged ties and sympathies the feds highlight, plus admissions of regular drug use and drugs recovered during a search alongside a handgun. Even if some of that is disputed, it’s exactly the kind of record that tempts courts to announce broad, government-friendly rules. If SCOTUS wants to draw a line that keeps §922(g)(3) largely intact, this is the perfect vehicle to do it.
2) The bandwidth problem
The Court already granted another firearms case this term (Wolford v. Lopez, targeting Hawaii’s “sensitive places” carry restrictions). Historically, SCOTUS doesn’t take many Second Amendment cases in a single term. With high-capacity magazine bans, so-called “assault weapon” bans, and other post-Bruen litigation queuing up, adding Hemani now could crowd out cleaner, more impactful petitions.
The Stakes for Real People
For millions of otherwise law-abiding gun owners living in states with legal cannabis, §922(g)(3) is a trap. Under current federal law, a recreational joint on Friday night can make you a prohibited person on Saturday morning.
SEE ALSO: CBS Chicago: Blacks with Valid CCWs Face Felony Charges Anyway
That’s exactly the kind of overbreadth Bruen was supposed to rein in — disarming the dangerous while respecting the rights of the ordinary. The fear is that Hemani’s messy record nudges the Court toward blessing a broad, status-based prohibition instead of a narrower, conduct-based rule (e.g., no guns while impaired).
What to Watch Next
- Briefing & oral argument: DOJ will push a sweeping “habitual user = prohibited person” theory. The defense will argue history supports disarming only when someone is actually intoxicated or actively dangerous, not forever because of past use.
- How the justices frame “history and tradition”: Do they focus on laws punishing carrying while drunk, or do they embrace modern status bans?
- Collateral impact: A government win could embolden agencies and lower courts to uphold other status-based disqualifiers with thin historical roots.
Bottom line
Yes, the Supreme Court taking another gun case could be huge. But Hemani is a risky hill to fight on. With the government setting the table and the facts looking tailor-made to spook judges, a decision that shores up §922(g)(3) could leave state-legal users — and anyone else swept into a vague “unlawful user” category — disarmed nationwide.
We’ll track the briefing, the argument date, and what this means for gun owners who live at the intersection of evolving state drug laws and a stubborn federal prohibition.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Read the full article here
