NRA Files Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Strike Down Firearm Prohibition for Marijuana Users

January 30, 2026
8:00 am

▶

Listen to Article

The National Rifle Association just dropped a powerhouse amicus brief in support of a Supreme Court case that could shatter one of the most insidious federal gun control schemes targeting law-abiding Americans: the lifetime firearm ban on marijuana users. Teaming up with the Independence Institute and FPC Action Foundation, the NRA is urging the justices to strike down 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance from possessing firearms. This isn't some fringe issue—it's a direct assault on the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans in states where cannabis is legal for medical or recreational use, turning everyday citizens into instant felons for exercising both their 5th Circuit-recognized gun rights and state-protected weed rights. Digging deeper, this brief lands at a pivotal moment post-Bruen, where the Court's demand for text, history, and tradition tests have exposed ATF overreach like never before. The NRA smartly argues that Founding-era laws never disarmed people for mere substance use—think no analogues to banning musket-toters for swigging too much ale or opium tinctures, which were common then. Instead, historical restrictions targeted the dangerous or violent, not passive users. Contextually, this builds on wins like Rahimi (narrowing domestic violence disarms) and mocks the Biden admin's desperation to cling to outdated 1968 Gun Control Act relics amid 38 states plus DC greenlighting cannabis. The implications? A victory here could nullify felon-in-possession charges nationwide for pot users, freeing up the 2A community from a backdoor prohibition that's ensnared veterans with CBD prescriptions and normies alike—potentially unlocking challenges to other status-based bans like those for non-violent misdemeanors. For the 2A faithful, this is red meat: it's not just about guns or weed, but reclaiming constitutional sovereignty from alphabet soup agencies. If SCOTUS bites, expect a domino effect—ATF's laundry list of prohibited persons gets scrutinized, state nullification efforts gain steam, and the gun grabber narrative crumbles under federalism's weight. Stay locked in; this brief is a masterclass in Bruen-era lawfare, and the NRA's swinging for the fences to keep America armed and free.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

Digging deeper, this brief lands at a pivotal moment post-Bruen, where the Court’s demand for text, history, and tradition tests have exposed ATF overreach like never before. The NRA smartly argues that Founding-era laws never disarmed people for mere substance use—think no analogues to banning musket-toters for swigging too much ale or opium tinctures, which were common then. Instead, historical restrictions targeted the dangerous or violent, not passive users. Contextually, this builds on wins like Rahimi (narrowing domestic violence disarms) and mocks the Biden admin’s desperation to cling to outdated 1968 Gun Control Act relics amid 38 states plus DC greenlighting cannabis. The implications? A victory here could nullify felon-in-possession charges nationwide for pot users, freeing up the 2A community from a backdoor prohibition that’s ensnared veterans with CBD prescriptions and normies alike—potentially unlocking challenges to other status-based bans like those for non-violent misdemeanors.

For the 2A faithful, this is red meat: it’s not just about guns or weed, but reclaiming constitutional sovereignty from alphabet soup agencies. If SCOTUS bites, expect a domino effect—ATF’s laundry list of prohibited persons gets scrutinized, state nullification efforts gain steam, and the gun grabber narrative crumbles under federalism’s weight. Stay locked in; this brief is a masterclass in Bruen-era lawfare, and the NRA’s swinging for the fences to keep America armed and free.

Share this story