The Supreme Court’s Next Second Amendment Case Just Got Even More Interesting

January 24, 2026
2:20 pm

▶

Listen to Article

The Supreme Court's docket just lit up with U.S. v. Hemani, a case that's poised to sharpen the blade of Second Amendment protections—or dull it, depending on how the justices slice it. At its core, Hemani challenges the federal ban on firearms possession by unlawful drug users, specifically targeting the ATF's crackdown on those who admit to past marijuana use via Form 4473. Rahi Hemani, the appellant, lost his guns after checking yes on that form for prior weed use, even though his record shows no convictions. This isn't some fringe hypothetical; it's a direct collision between Bruen's 2022 text, history, and tradition test and longstanding federal statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits unlawful users from owning firearms. With oral arguments on track, whispers from the bench suggest a potential blockbuster, especially as public opinion on cannabis softens nationwide. What makes this riveting for the 2A community isn't just the weed angle—it's the slippery slope staring us down. Bruen demanded gun laws mirror historical analogues from 1791 or 1868; good luck finding colonial-era precedents banning hoplites for puffing on hemp. Critics like the Biden DOJ argue unlawful user is a presumptively lawful regulation, but that's circular logic when marijuana's Schedule I status crumbles under state legalization waves—over 24 states now permit recreational use. A win for Hemani could dismantle not just drug bans but invite scrutiny of alcohol prohibitions (hello, 1934 NFA debates) or even mental health red flags without due process. Imagine: your average Joe loses carry rights because of a decade-old college blunt? That's the dystopia we're fighting. Conversely, an affirmance hands regulators a blueprint to expand prohibited persons categories, from CBD users to prescription pill poppers. For gun owners, this is chess, not checkers—position your advocacy now. Groups like FPC and GOA are all-in, filing amicus briefs hammering the historical mismatch. If SCOTUS sides with text over bureaucracy, it fortifies Rahimi's guardrails post-Bruen, signaling that feel-good safetyism can't override the Constitution. Stock up on popcorn; Hemani could redefine shall not be infringed for the THC generation, proving once again that 2A battles are won in courtrooms, not just at the range. Eyes on the justices—your rights hang in the balance.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

The Supreme Court’s docket just lit up with U.S. v. Hemani, a case that’s poised to sharpen the blade of Second Amendment protections—or dull it, depending on how the justices slice it. At its core, Hemani challenges the federal ban on firearms possession by unlawful drug users, specifically targeting the ATF’s crackdown on those who admit to past marijuana use via Form 4473. Rahi Hemani, the appellant, lost his guns after checking yes on that form for prior weed use, even though his record shows no convictions. This isn’t some fringe hypothetical; it’s a direct collision between Bruen’s 2022 text, history, and tradition test and longstanding federal statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits unlawful users from owning firearms. With oral arguments on track, whispers from the bench suggest a potential blockbuster, especially as public opinion on cannabis softens nationwide.

What makes this riveting for the 2A community isn’t just the weed angle—it’s the slippery slope staring us down. Bruen demanded gun laws mirror historical analogues from 1791 or 1868; good luck finding colonial-era precedents banning hoplites for puffing on hemp. Critics like the Biden DOJ argue unlawful user is a presumptively lawful regulation, but that’s circular logic when marijuana’s Schedule I status crumbles under state legalization waves—over 24 states now permit recreational use. A win for Hemani could dismantle not just drug bans but invite scrutiny of alcohol prohibitions (hello, 1934 NFA debates) or even mental health red flags without due process. Imagine: your average Joe loses carry rights because of a decade-old college blunt? That’s the dystopia we’re fighting. Conversely, an affirmance hands regulators a blueprint to expand prohibited persons categories, from CBD users to prescription pill poppers.

For gun owners, this is chess, not checkers—position your advocacy now. Groups like FPC and GOA are all-in, filing amicus briefs hammering the historical mismatch. If SCOTUS sides with text over bureaucracy, it fortifies Rahimi’s guardrails post-Bruen, signaling that feel-good safetyism can’t override the Constitution. Stock up on popcorn; Hemani could redefine shall not be infringed for the THC generation, proving once again that 2A battles are won in courtrooms, not just at the range. Eyes on the justices—your rights hang in the balance.

Share this story