Surprised to see this has not been mentioned on here yet. Interesting case, imo. Thoughts???



WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Congress can’t automatically bar all users of illegal drugs from having guns, further expanding the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

In a 9-0 ruling, the court rejected the prosecution of a Texas man who used marijuana and was convicted of violating a federal law that prohibits drug users from carrying guns.

The court didn’t fully strike down the law. It left open the possibility that it could be used to convict people who are addicted to drugs or who carry a gun while intoxicated. The court also said the law might still apply to drugs that pose a “special risk” of misusing firearms.

“Without question, some unlawful users of controlled substances can pose a risk of violence,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. But he added that the current statute on the books isn’t written narrowly enough to cover only “categorically and unusually dangerous” people.

The Trump administration, in a rare argument for tighter gun control, had asked the Supreme Court to preserve the federal ban after the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it unconstitutional.

The case centered on Ali Hemani, who was charged with violating a law prohibiting illegal drug users from owning guns after federal agents found marijuana, cocaine and a pistol in a search of his home. He later admitted to using marijuana a few times a week.

Hemani argued the charges violated his right to own a gun for self-defense. The case marked the latest chance for the Supreme Court to apply its blockbuster 2022 ruling that significantly expanded gun rights by decreeing that gun-control regulations are only constitutional if they are consistent with gun restrictions from early American history.

Many modern drugs didn’t exist in early America, and the concept of drug addiction wasn’t well understood. In Hemani’s case, the federal government argued that the modern gun ban for drug users was analogous to 18th-century laws that restricted the rights of people deemed “habitual drunkards.” But Gorsuch—who emphasized during oral arguments in the case that many of the Founding Fathers were heavy users of alcohol—rejected the government’s analogy.

His opinion discussed at length the early American laws on drunkenness and concluded that they couldn’t support a ban on drug users having guns.

“We appreciate that drugs and guns can sometimes make for a dangerous mix,” Gorsuch wrote. But he said “the habitual drunkard laws on which the government relies here differ dramatically” from the statute challenged in the case.

“They targeted different kinds of people, did so for different purposes, and operated in different ways,” the justice, a Trump appointee, wrote.

While all nine justices voted to reject the prosecution of Hemani, several wrote separately to invoke different reasoning or elaborate on their views about the court’s Second Amendment doctrine.

Justice Samuel Alito said the court should have just said the government’s historical analogues are too far afield to justify charging Hemani under the ban, since “marijuana use today is like alcohol use at the founding,” in the sense that it is widespread and increasingly socially acceptable.

“We do not know how much he used, the strength of the marijuana he used, how many times he used it on the days in question,” he wrote in a concurring opinion that Justice Elena Kagan joined, making for an unlikely pairing between justices typically on opposing sides of the court.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the history-based test that the court announced in its 2022 ruling.

Former President Biden’s son Hunter was charged under the same law at issue in the ruling and was convicted by a jury in 2024 of possessing a revolver while being an unlawful drug user. Hunter Biden was later pardoned by his father.

The case is one of two high-profile disputes over gun rights the court heard this term. The justices are also considering the constitutionality of state laws that ban guns from being carried into supermarkets, gas stations and other public-facing locations by default unless property owners have given their express permission. The decision in that case is expected by early July.

I think dope-heads shouldn't have guns!

Should drinkers?

should they, probably not. but should they be prohibited, no.

There's a difference there IMO. Drinking+guns has it's own brand of stupidity. There are laws in place for habitual drunks to not have guns.

Drugs are different. There is a blood trail of ALL illegal drugs. Any aspiring drug dealer is already a felon, (whether he has been convicted or not), and probably is carrying a gun. By the fact that he is selling drugs means that any firearm he carries is also illegal.

It'll never happen, but if you could get rid of drugs this gun crime would be cut dramatically.

PS, I'll give the pot heads a break here, I'm not judging them. It's legal in my state now anyway. But, before it was drug dealers, undoubtedly armed were making money from the sale of illegal pot.

That's how the cartels got their start was running pot over the border in bales for American usage. Now they've branched out into more dangerous drugs.

What laws are you referring to?

Personally, I don't even think felons should be prohibited from owning guns. Felons are people that have committed a crime, served their time, and are released. IMO that should be the end of their punishment for the crime committed. If a person is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a gun, then they should not be released from prison in the first place.

4473 Alcohol is a controlled substance.

Nope!

Use same "impaired" limit as driving.

But driving a vehicle isn't in the constitution. But we don't pay that out dated document any attention anyway, if we did we wouldn't be nearly 40 trillion in debt.

Well, sure. But that's not what this case was about.

Ok, I will bite. The question is "Are you an UNLAWFUL user of XXX". How do you "unlawfully" use alcohol?

Bingo.

As a compromise, could they not be prohibited in that state where possession is illegal(TX) but not prohibited in a state in which it is not(MO)?
The right to defend oneself is a God given right, not a government given right. Government should be tightly controlled in limiting such rights. IMO.

this is a very distinct difference that should not be overlooked

Impaired carry in WI is a crime

even if it in your back pack and you called an uber because you had a disagreement with someone where you were staying and they call it in and you get picked up walking to the uber with your backpack on that just picked up from inside to leave.

you need to unload it , which if you are already inebriated isn't really a good option either but the law is the law , basically you have to unload and secure before you start drinking if you are not in your own home.

My first post in a long time. In Nevada at 3:00 A.M. with stores every where you can buy a bottle of whiskey, go gambling, buy marijuana, find a nice lady of the night and the buy a gun....and It's all legal. What am I missing?
edited to add: And the go trapping the best cats in the world the next morning. LOL...Take care...OTG

Same here. Be a doper, be a gun owner. Chose one.

OK look at it a little different

HOW might the law get miss used

I think the ruling puts the burden on LE to show you were impaired

I dislike marijuana and drugs period but , Further securing the 2nd from even what would seem a "reasonable" restriction is a good thing , it helps secure it from what they will try to secure as "reasonable" later because you know they will be selling a lot of very unreasonable to us restrictions that will sound very reasonable to them.

I have to agree with yotetrapper30. Historically if convicted of a crime, you served your time and if released without further restrictions (parole), citizens where free to own and carry a weapon in public; until it wasn't ... when our government decided that we needed to take people's rights away in the interest of enhanced public safety.