Send lawyers, guns and money…
The US Supreme Court has ruled that the use of marijuana in it of itself does not prohibit you from possessing a firearm.
In Hemani, law enforcement in Texas, suspecting Mr. Hemani of terrorism-related activities, conducted a search of his home in 2022.
Mr. Hemani cooperated with law enforcement, surrendered a gun he had in the house, disclosed the presence of marijuana on the property, and consented to an interview. He admitted to marijuana use, disclosing he used it “about every other day.”
More than six months after the search, and relying solely on Mr. Hemani’s admitted use of marijuana, Hemani was prosecuted under 18
U. S. C. §922(g)(3) for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while
being an unlawful user of a controlled substance.
Hemani moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the prosecution violated the Second Amendment. The district court granted Hemani’s motion, the government appealed to the Fifth Circuit and lost. It was then appealed that to the US Supreme Court.
US Supreme Court Holding: “The government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani under §922(g)(3)’s unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.”
“(a) The Second Amendment protects the right of “all Americans” to
keep and bear firearms for self-defense, District of Columbia v. Heller,
554 U. S. 570, 581, though like most individual rights it has its limits,
id., at 626. To determine when the government infringes the Second
Amendment, the Court begins by asking whether the Amendment’s
terms cover the conduct in question; if so, the Constitution “presumptively” protects it. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, 24. To overcome that presumption, the government bears the burden of showing its regulatory efforts are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Ibid. … “the appropriate analysis involves considering whether the challenged regulation is consistent with the principles that underpin our regulatory tradition,”
“…The government construes §922(g)(3) to automatically ban
an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an
unlawful user of any controlled substance and remains in effect until
he ceases being one, regardless of what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts, whether his drug use has ever made
him a danger to himself or others” regardless o f “why he keeps a gun, or how safely he does so…”
“…(4) There are reasons to doubt that the government has established §922(g)(3) even serves the purpose the government claims, of
disarming categorically violent and unusually dangerous persons.
… Additionally, the government’s own regulatory actions undercut its position: the Department of Justice has directed federal prosecutors to curtail enforcement efforts against marijuana users, most States have legalized marijuana use to some degree, and the government recently moved some marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III…”
“…(c) The Court’s decision is narrow. It does not address efforts to ban
addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm…; provisions disarming individuals convicted of felonies; or
whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3)
accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others…”
Affirmed.
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and THOMAS, SOTOMAYOR, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. JACKSON, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which KAGAN, J., joined.
Matthew Thompson is civil litigation attorney in Mississippi. He believes in responsible gun use and ownership and a common sense approach to our Constitutional freedoms, laws that actually protect persons, and laws that make conduct and actions a crime. The US supreme Court was unanimous in this decison.
(601) 850-8000 - - BowTieLawyer.MS 