A coalition of gun rights organizations has filed an amicus transient with the Supreme Court docket, urging the justices to grant certiorari in a case referred to as Harris v. United States, which challenges the federal ban on firearms possession by marijuana customers,
The 24-page transient, submitted by the Second Modification Basis, California Rifle & Pistol Affiliation, Second Modification Legislation Middle, Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols, Minnesota Gun House owners Caucus and Minnesota Gun House owners Legislation Middle, asks the excessive courtroom to take the Harris case and listen to it in tandem with the case of United States v. Hemani, which was granted overview earlier this month.
As famous by AMMOLAND on the time, “The case arises out of Texas and entails defendant Ali Danial Hemani, a twin U.S./Pakistan citizen. In keeping with courtroom filings and information reviews, the FBI searched his household residence and located a 9mm handgun, marijuana, and cocaine. Hemani admitted to utilizing each medicine.”
The Harris case is totally different, however alongside the identical common line, in that events within the amicus give attention to the federal ban because it applies solely to marijuana customers.
Of their amicus, the gun rights teams contend:
“Whereas medicine like fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine haven’t gained any widespread social acceptance and are extraordinarily harmful and addictive, marijuana against this is authorized in two dozen states even for leisure use (and authorized in one other 16 for medicinal use). Even that tally understates public opinion, as legislatures are lagging behind what Individuals overwhelmingly suppose: ‘Practically six-in-ten Individuals (57%) say that marijuana ought to be authorized for medical and leisure functions, whereas roughly a 3rd (32%) say that marijuana ought to be authorized for medical use solely. Simply 11% of Individuals say that the drug shouldn’t be authorized in any respect.’”
Elsewhere within the amicus transient, submitted by attorneys C.D. Michel and Anna M. Barvir at Michel & Associates in Lengthy Seaside, Calif., and Konstadinos T. Moros, SAF Counsel of Document, the gun rights teams observe the next:
“This Court docket has defined that in the case of which varieties of arms might not be banned, the American individuals themselves confer constitutional safety by way of their decisions. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 629 (2008); see additionally Snope v. Brown, 145 S. Ct. 1534, 1535 (2025) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (“Our Structure permits the American individuals—not the federal government—to determine which weapons are helpful for self-defense.”).
“By that very same token, Individuals have additionally historically chosen which substances are acceptable for accountable leisure use, and the elemental proper to maintain and bear arms was by no means denied to individuals who often partook in such medicine— until they have been carrying arms whereas actively intoxicated. Traditionally, the very best instance of that is alcohol, as its widespread consumption predates the founding. And certain sufficient, due to the risks of blending alcohol and firearms, loads of legal guidelines arose to stop inebriated individuals from being armed. However what by no means existed have been legal guidelines that prohibited individuals from proudly owning weapons as a result of they often drank. Within the trendy period, marijuana ought to be handled no otherwise.”
In a ready assertion, Moros—SAF Director of Authorized Analysis and Training—explains, “Historical past exhibits that Founding-era legal guidelines addressed the hazard of blending alcohol and firearms by quickly disarming the actively intoxicated, by no means by stripping gun rights from anybody who merely drank carefully. The Third Circuit ignored this shut historic analogue and as a substitute relied on distant comparisons to legal guidelines disarming the ‘furiously mad.’ We urge the Court docket to intervene and restore the correct Bruen framework.”
SAF founder and Government Vice President Alan Gottlieb noticed, “This case is vital as a result of it impacts tens of millions of law-abiding Individuals who face dropping their Second Modification rights merely for utilizing a substance authorized of their state – usually for medical causes.”
He famous that SAF can be difficult the firearms buy ban by medical marijuana card holders in a case referred to as Greene v. Bondi, which is at the moment within the Third Circuit Court docket of Appeals.
Of their amicus, SAF and its companions argue, “due to the prohibition present in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), if Individuals select to make use of marijuana or different hashish merchandise (that usually are authorized of their state), they need to give up their Second Modification proper earlier than they accomplish that—and never solely when they’re intoxicated. They could not even personal firearms in the event that they commonly devour hashish merchandise. This doesn’t sq. with the prolonged historic custom of how alcohol and firearms have been regulated.”
Their transient quotes a call from the Fifth Circuit Court docket, which acknowledged, our historical past and custom might assist some limits on an intoxicated particular person’s proper to hold a weapon, however it doesn’t justify disarming a sober citizen based mostly solely on his previous drug utilization.”
These instances put the political left in one thing of a quandary. Whereas liberals usually assist marijuana use, the Left just isn’t eager about Second Modification rights. Harris and Hemani might put them in an fascinating, albeit uncomfortable, place.
Supreme Court docket to Take Up Gun Ban for Unlawful Drug Customers
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, writer of a number of books on the Proper to Maintain & Bear Arms, and previously an NRA-certified firearms teacher.
