A surprising alliance (at least to me) has formed between several gun rights groups and marijuana law reform groups in the Supreme Court case United States v. Hemani, challenging the federal law that prohibits firearm possession by “unlawful users” of controlled substances under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).
Both the NRA and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) have filed amicus briefs urging the Court to uphold a Fifth Circuit ruling that found the ban unconstitutional as applied to non-dangerous marijuana users.
The law, enacted in 1968, makes it a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison for “unlawful users” of controlled substances, including state-legal cannabis, to possess firearms. This federal prohibition affects residents of 40 states plus D.C. that have legalized marijuana in some form, whether medicinal or recreational, even when users are sober. While the Trump administration recently reclassified marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to Schedule III, it remains illegal for cannabis users to possess firearms.
The NRA’s brief, filed with the Independence Institute and FPC Action Foundation, argues that historical regulations targeted conduct like carrying firearms while intoxicated rather than intending to be a blanket disarmament of users regardless of their sobriety or state law. The brief also emphasizes that early laws were narrow, applying only to active impairment in public rather than to status-based bans on possession at home.
NORML’s brief, led by its board and legal team, also asserts that the ban violates the Second Amendment by treating cannabis consumers as presumptively dangerous, ignoring that prescription meds that cause similar impairment don’t trigger gun prohibition. NORML also points out that, given the widespread use of cannabis, courts struggle to define exactly what an “unlawful user” is, leaving millions in legal limbo, especially in legal states.
In reference to the court case above, in January 2025, Ali Hemani, a U.S.-Pakistan citizen living in Lewiston, Texas scored a major win when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his charges, deeming the federal gun ban unconstitutional for non-dangerous marijuana users. This case and subsequent victory were built directly on their 2024 precedent in United States v. Connelly where the court ruled there’s no historical tradition for stripping sober citizens of their firearms rights based solely on past drug use.
Now, the Supreme Court has taken up Hemani’s case, with oral arguments set for March 2.
Other groups, including some considered more on the “conservative” side of the spectrum, have backed this as well. Gun Owners of America criticized the weak historical analogies the Trump DOJ has made in defending the gun ban, such as vagrancy laws for “habitual drunkards,” which required judicial process before restriction, unlike the blanket user ban we’ve had on the books since 1968.
The FPC has argued that Congress lacks Article I authority as the ban isn’t tied to commerce or militia powers. The Trump administration still defends the law despite dropping some prior analogies. Those in favor of the ban say it prevents risk from impaired users, but critics often point out that there is a lot of selective enforcement of the law and no proof of increased danger for a vast majority of cannabis users.
From my perspective, this is a wild and almost unprecedented move by the NRA and will no doubt ignite tensions between federal drug policy and Second Amendment rights, potentially freeing millions from fear of prosecution, at least in states where cannabis use has been legalized. The Court’s decision could redefine exactly who loses gun rights because of their current or past legal drug use.
With organizations like the NRA, FPC, and GOA teaming up with pro-marijuana organizations like NORML, the landscape could change significantly. If you’re interested in this topic, be sure to stay tuned in to Shooting News Weekly, as we’ll be keeping tabs on the situation as it develops.