The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Hemani is likely to have major implications for millions of Americans who own firearms, use marijuana, or both (in violation of current federal law). And it’s not like the gun control lobby has completely ignored the case. Both Brady and Everytown for Gun Safety submitted amicus briefs supporting the Trump administration’s position that Section 922(g)(3) can be used to prohibit any and all “unlawful” drug users, regardless of what drug it is, how much of it is taken, or whether that individual drug user has ever shown themselves to be a danger while under the influence.
Yet, at least as of mid-afternoon on Monday, none of the anti-gun groups have made a peep about today’s oral arguments, which doesn’t seem to have gone well for the government. The closest commentary that I’ve been able to find comes from Duke Center for Firearms Law, which is run by an attorney who has worked extensively with groups like Everytown in the past. At least Duke’s willing to acknowledge what happened.
Hemani debrief: overall, justices seemed very skeptical of the govt’s argument. Only Alito and the Chief are clearly on the govt’s side. A lot of skepticism about how habitual drunkard statutes are sufficiently relevant to 922g3’s restriction on unlawful users.
— Duke Center for Firearms Law (@DukeFirearmsLaw) March 2, 2026
Pepperdine University law professor Jake Charles, who helped author a brief in support of the government’s decision, was also following along to the oral arguments, and he too struggled to find a positive takeaway from the “MOAR GUN LAWZ” point of view.
I think the Chief & Alito are very skeptical of the challenger here; they seem to think Congress can of course disarm drug users. But…it’s hard for me to see many other justices clearly on that side. I’m sure the govt will get more than 2 votes, but not sure it’ll be a majority.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s 7-2, though I could also see Justice Clarence Thomas joining Alito and Roberts in voting to uphold 922(g)(3) as it applies to Ali Danial Hemani.
I don’t think Charles fairly describes the challenger’s position, though. Hemani’s attorney Erin Murphy repeatedly stated that Congress could categorically deny firearm possession to some drug users, so long as it its rationale was grounded in the national tradition of firearm regulation and was based on a factual finding of a particular drug’s dangerousness. What it can’t do, however, is look at historical statutes that regulated the behavior of “habitual drunkards” and assume it has the power to treat all “unlawful users” of drugs in roughly the same fashion.
Murphy did an excellent job of pointing out that “drunkards” weren’t just people who regularly imbibed alcohol. If that was the definition, then most American adults could have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights. It was the fact that their alcohol use rendered them a danger to themselves or others that gave the state the authority to step in and impose sanctions on their individual liberties. That argument can and does certainly apply to some habitual drug users, but it’s hard to argue with a straight face that it applies to every one of them.
I was a little nervous about where a majority of the justices would come down before oral arguments began, but I feel much more confident after listening to two hours of questioning. It may be 7-2, 6-3, or even 5-4 if Kavanaugh or Barrett throws us a curveball, but I believe there’ll be a majority ruling in Hemani’s favor. How broad or narrow it is I’d say is still very much undecided, and we will likely see some of the justices in the majority use very different arguments and rationales before they end up in the same place.
Which brings us back to today’s silence of the gun control groups. Yes, Everytown and Brady submitted briefs in favor of the DOJ’s position, but no anti-2A group has really been talking heavily about Hemani, because they know that as much as most Democrats despite our right to keep and bear arms, they’re also not generally fans of putting people behind bars… even for serious, violent offenses. Moreover, most Democrats support legalizing marijuana, and aren’t really keen on using its federal status as a Schedule 1 drug as an excuse to go after people, gun owners or not.
If I’d been advising Everytown or Brady I would have told them to side with Murphy and her client. Even if they had argued that yes, the statute is confusing, vague, and unconstitutional as it applies to this individual, but it still has merit in other criminal cases, that would be a defensible position (at least depending on where they drew the line). By declaring that the law is valid in all applications, though, the anti-gun groups have positioned themselves on the wrong side of history and a large number of the Democrats they depend on as their base of support.
Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
