Cannabis and Gun Ownership: The Federal Ban Just Took a Major Hit
For nearly six decades, the federal government’s position was blunt: if you regularly used marijuana—even legally under state law—you could lose your right to possess a firearm.
On June 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government went too far.
How the federal ban worked
The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to” a controlled substance from receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition.
Because federal law continued treating most marijuana use as unlawful, the prohibition included:
- Recreational cannabis users
- State-approved medical marijuana patients
- People who used marijuana regularly but never handled a gun while impaired
- Existing gun owners—not merely people attempting a new purchase
The ATF enforced this rule through Form 4473, completed when purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. The form asks whether the buyer unlawfully uses marijuana or another controlled substance, and historically warned that marijuana remained unlawful federally regardless of state legalization.
Answering “yes” meant the dealer could not complete the sale. Answering falsely could produce a separate federal criminal charge.
Why did the government connect marijuana with guns?
The government has offered several related arguments.
First, intoxicants can impair judgment, coordination, and self-control. When firearms are involved, even temporary impairment can have deadly consequences.
Second, the government argued that regular drug users present an increased risk of firearm misuse, violent behavior, or criminal activity connected to obtaining drugs.
Third, federal attorneys claimed the ban resembled historical laws restricting “habitual drunkards.” If earlier governments could limit the liberty of people chronically incapacitated by alcohol, the argument went, Congress could temporarily disarm habitual drug users.
Finally, the government characterized the law as preventive. It did not have to wait until someone used a gun irresponsibly; it could remove the firearm before something happened.
That last point was also the ban’s greatest constitutional weakness: it assumed dangerousness without requiring evidence that the individual was actually dangerous.
The state-law contradiction
Cannabis policy changed dramatically while the federal firearm law remained largely frozen in 1968.
Most states now permit marijuana in some form. Some allow medical use, others permit recreational use, and several regulate cannabis much like alcohol. State legalization, however, could not override federal firearm law.
This created a bizarre legal divide: a person could purchase cannabis from a state-licensed dispensary, pay state taxes, and follow every state rule—yet still be classified federally as an unlawful drug user prohibited from possessing a gun.
A medical card offered no federal firearm exemption.
Florida illustrates the conflict particularly well. Florida authorizes medical marijuana and does not automatically disqualify someone from firearm possession merely because that person holds a medical card. But federal law and the ATF’s purchase process still stood in the way.
In 2025, the Eleventh Circuit revived a lawsuit brought by Florida medical-marijuana patients. The court found that the government had not shown that compliant medical users could automatically be compared with felons or demonstrably dangerous people.
Other states also distinguish between merely using cannabis and carrying a firearm while impaired. That resembles how the law treats alcohol: drinking does not normally eliminate gun rights, but carrying or using a firearm while intoxicated may be prohibited.
What happened in United States v. Hemani
Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas resident, admitted to using marijuana approximately every other day. During a 2022 search, federal agents found marijuana and a firearm in his home.
The government did not allege that Hemani:
- Was intoxicated while handling the firearm
- Was addicted to marijuana
- Used the gun unlawfully
- Had become dangerous because of cannabis
- Committed a violent crime
Nevertheless, prosecutors charged him under the federal unlawful-user prohibition. Marijuana use alone was supposed to be enough. He faced up to 15 years in prison and, following conviction, potentially permanent loss of firearm rights.
Lower courts dismissed the charge. The Supreme Court affirmed that result.
Why the Supreme Court rejected the government’s position
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion concluded that the historical comparison with “habitual drunkards” did not work.
Historical laws generally targeted people so chronically intoxicated that they could not manage their affairs. They also usually required a court proceeding, conviction, commitment decision or similar process before liberty was taken away.
The federal drug-user prohibition worked differently. It automatically disarmed a person based on regular use of any controlled substance, regardless of:
- The substance involved
- The amount consumed
- Whether the person was ever armed while impaired
- Whether the person had threatened anyone
- Whether the person could safely manage personal affairs
The Court also questioned the government’s dangerousness argument. Controlled substances are scheduled for many reasons—not solely because they cause violence. The government could not simply label an enormous group dangerous and use that label to eliminate a constitutional right.
What the ruling changes—and what it does not
The ruling means the federal government cannot constitutionally prosecute someone like Hemani solely because that person regularly uses marijuana while otherwise safely possessing a firearm.
But the Court did not eliminate every gun restriction involving drugs.
The decision expressly left room for laws covering:
- People suffering from addiction
- Individuals whose drug use makes them dangerous
- Particular drugs proven to create an unusual risk of firearm misuse
- Drug trafficking or possessing a gun in connection with another crime
- Someone is presently intoxicated while possessing or using a firearm
The Court also did not erase Section 922(g)(3) from the statute books or rewrite Form 4473. Agencies, dealers, prosecutors, and lower courts will now have to determine how the remaining law operates. Congress may also replace the blanket prohibition with a narrower law focused on impairment, addiction, or proven dangerousness.
No one should interpret the decision as permission to lie on a federal firearm form or carry a gun while high.
The real principle is simpler: using cannabis does not automatically prove that someone is dangerous, irresponsible, or outside the Second Amendment. After decades of treating marijuana use as sufficient by itself, the government must now show considerably more.
Sources
- United States v. Hemani, U.S. Supreme Court opinion, June 18, 2026.
- 18 U.S.C. §922, federal firearm prohibitions.
- ATF clarification concerning marijuana legalization and firearms.
- Florida Commissioner of Agriculture v. Attorney General, Eleventh Circuit opinion.
- United States v. Connelly, Fifth Circuit opinion.
- DEA and Federal Register marijuana-rescheduling materials.
