Sometimes the clearest sign that a law has outlived reality is who shows up to challenge it.
In a case now headed to the Supreme Court, NORML and the National Rifle Association are effectively on the same side, opposing a federal rule that can turn marijuana users into prohibited gun owners, even when they are sober and nonviolent.
Yes, that NORML. And yes, that NRA.
At the center of the fight is a federal statute dating back to 1968 that bars any “unlawful user” of a controlled substance from possessing a firearm. On paper, it sounds like a public safety measure. In practice, it sweeps far wider, potentially covering millions of Americans who use cannabis occasionally, medically, or in compliance with state law.
The case, United States v. Hemani, asks whether that kind of blanket ban can survive modern constitutional scrutiny. The Trump administration wants the Court to reinstate a prosecution against a gun-owning marijuana user in Texas. A federal appeals court previously ruled that disarming someone based solely on past or occasional drug use, without evidence of danger or impairment, goes too far.
What makes this moment unusual is not just the legal argument. It’s the coalition pushing back.
Alongside NORML and the NRA are criminal defense lawyers, civil liberties groups, and policy organizations from across the ideological map. They don’t agree on much. But they agree on this: treating cannabis use as a status that strips people of constitutional rights, without clear standards or individualized findings, is a problem.
Historically, laws addressed the risks of firearms and intoxication in a much narrower way. They focused on conduct, like carrying or firing a weapon while drunk, usually in public. They did not impose permanent bans on gun ownership simply because someone consumed an intoxicant at some point in …
Read More
Author: Javier Hasse / High Times
