A coalition of gun rights organizations has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the justices to grant certiorari in a case known as Harris v. United States, which challenges the federal ban on firearms possession by marijuana users,
The 24-page brief, submitted by the Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center, asks the high court to take the Harris case and hear it in tandem with the case of United States v. Hemani, which was granted review earlier this month.
As noted by AMMOLAND at the time, “The case arises out of Texas and involves defendant Ali Danial Hemani, a dual U.S./Pakistan citizen. According to court filings and news reports, the FBI searched his family home and found a 9mm handgun, marijuana, and cocaine. Hemani admitted to using both drugs.”
The Harris case is different, but along the same general line, in that parties in the amicus focus on the federal ban as it applies only to marijuana users.
In their amicus, the gun rights groups contend:
“While drugs like fentanyl, heroin, and methamphetamine have not gained any widespread social acceptance and are extremely dangerous and addictive, marijuana by contrast is legal in two dozen states even for recreational use (and legal in another 16 for medicinal use). Even that tally understates public opinion, as legislatures are lagging behind what Americans overwhelmingly think: ‘Nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) say that marijuana should be legal for medical and recreational purposes, while roughly a third (32%) say that marijuana should be legal for medical use only. Just 11% of Americans say that the drug should not be legal at all.’”
Elsewhere in the amicus brief, submitted by attorneys C.D. Michel and Anna M. Barvir at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, Calif., and Konstadinos T. Moros, SAF Counsel of Record, the gun rights groups note the following:
“This Court has explained that when it comes to which types of arms may not be banned, the American people themselves confer constitutional protection through their choices. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 629 (2008); see also Snope v. Brown, 145 S. Ct. 1534, 1535 (2025) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (“Our Constitution allows the American people—not the government—to decide which weapons are useful for self-defense.”).
“By that same token, Americans have also traditionally chosen which substances are acceptable for responsible recreational use, and the fundamental right to keep and bear arms was never denied to people who occasionally partook in such drugs— unless they were carrying arms while actively intoxicated. Historically, the best example of this is alcohol, as its widespread consumption predates the founding. And sure enough, because of the dangers of mixing alcohol and firearms, plenty of laws arose to prevent inebriated people from being armed. But what never existed were laws that prohibited people from owning guns because they sometimes drank. In the modern era, marijuana should be treated no differently.”
In a prepared statement, Moros—SAF Director of Legal Research and Education—explains, “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the danger of mixing alcohol and firearms by temporarily disarming the actively intoxicated, never by stripping gun rights from anyone who simply drank in moderation. The Third Circuit ignored this close historical analogue and instead relied on remote comparisons to laws disarming the ‘furiously mad.’ We urge the Court to intervene and restore the proper Bruen framework.”
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb observed, “This case is critical because it affects millions of law-abiding Americans who face losing their Second Amendment rights simply for using a substance legal in their state – often for medical reasons.”
He noted that SAF is also challenging the firearms purchase ban by medical marijuana card holders in a case known as Greene v. Bondi, which is currently in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In their amicus, SAF and its partners argue, “because of the prohibition found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), if Americans choose to use marijuana or other cannabis products (that often are legal in their state), they must surrender their Second Amendment right before they do so—and not only when they are intoxicated. They may not even own firearms if they regularly consume cannabis products. This does not square with the lengthy historical tradition of how alcohol and firearms have been regulated.”
Their brief quotes a decision from the Fifth Circuit Court, which stated, our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage.”
These cases put the political left in something of a quandary. While liberals generally support marijuana use, the Left is not keen about Second Amendment rights. Harris and Hemani could put them in an interesting, albeit uncomfortable, position.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
