If you told me five years ago that the NRA and NORML would be filing briefs on the same side of a Supreme Court case, I would have thought you were smoking something stronger than what we grow up here in the hills. But here we are. And honestly? This might be one of the most important cannabis cases to hit the Supreme Court in our lifetime.
Let us talk about it.
The Law That Makes Millions of Americans Choose Between Two Rights
Here is the deal. Under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(3), if you use cannabis, you are a prohibited person. That means you cannot legally buy or possess a firearm. Period. Does not matter if you live in one of the 24 states where adult-use cannabis is perfectly legal. Does not matter if you have a medical card. Does not matter if you have never so much as gotten a parking ticket.
Use cannabis, lose your gun rights. That has been the federal government position for decades.
For folks in rural cannabis communities, the kind of places where people grow their own medicine and keep a rifle for coyotes or home protection, this has always been an impossible choice. And for our community in particular, people who have been growing cannabis responsibly for generations, this law has felt like a targeted punishment.
United States v. Hemani: The Case That Changes Everything
The case is called United States v. Hemani, and it started in Texas. Ali Danial Hemani was charged under federal law for possessing a firearm while being a cannabis user. His legal team argued something that a lot of us have been saying for years: you cannot strip someone of their constitutional rights just because they use a plant that is legal in half the country.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. They ruled that cannabis consumers are still the people protected by the Second Amendment, and that the federal government cannot categorically disarm someone without evidence that they are actually dangerous, intoxicated while handling a firearm, or a genuine threat.
That is a huge distinction. We are not talking about someone waving a gun around while impaired. We are talking about someone who uses cannabis on the weekend being told they can never own a firearm. Ever.
The government appealed, and now the Supreme Court has taken up the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for March, and we could have a decision by this summer.
The Alliance Nobody Saw Coming
This is where it gets wild.
The NRA filed an amicus brief alongside groups like NORML and the Drug Policy Alliance, all urging the Supreme Court to strike down this law. The NRA litigation director Joseph Greenlee actually authored the brief on behalf of the NRA, the FPC Action Foundation, and the Independence Institute.
Think about that for a second. The biggest gun rights organization in America is standing shoulder to shoulder with the biggest cannabis advocacy organizations in America. On the same brief. Before the Supreme Court.
A few years ago, the NRA would not even comment on whether this law was constitutional. Now they are actively arguing it should be struck down. That is how much the ground has shifted.
The Arguments That Could Win This
The briefs are actually fascinating if you are into this stuff (and we are).
The NRA argument comes down to history. They point out that during America founding era, drinking was everywhere. Cannabis and other substances were widely used in patent medicines throughout the 1800s. Yet the Founders never created laws that categorically stripped gun rights from people who used intoxicants. The historical approach was narrow: you could not carry a weapon while you were actively drunk. But nobody said a person who drinks on Saturday cannot own a rifle on Monday.
Their brief puts it plainly: To justify firearms prohibition for marijuana users when they are not intoxicated, the government must prove that the ban is consistent with our nation historical tradition of firearm regulation. That tradition supports restrictions on the use of firearms while intoxicated, but it does not support disarming individuals when they are sober merely because they sometimes use intoxicants.
NORML argument hits on the absurdity we have all noticed. People take prescription opioids, benzodiazepines, and all kinds of medications that can impair you far more than cannabis, and none of that triggers a firearms prohibition. Their brief points out that many lawful prescription medications can produce impairment equal to or greater than cannabis, yet their use does not trigger categorical firearms disabilities.
They also argue the law is unconstitutionally vague. If you live in a state where cannabis is legal, how are you supposed to know that state-permitted conduct makes you a federal criminal? Ordinary people cannot reasonably figure that out, and that is a constitutional problem.
The vagueness angle is something the Drug Policy Alliance has pushed hard on too. They argue the law essentially creates a status-based crime. You are punished not for what you did, but for who you are. That potentially violates the Eighth Amendment on top of the Second.
What the Government Is Arguing
The feds are pushing back, naturally. Their position is that founding-era laws restricting the rights of drunkards provide historical justification for disarming drug users. They argue that habitual drug users have a demonstrated propensity to violate the criminal law.
Look, we all know people in our community who use cannabis regularly and are some of the most law-abiding, responsible, and peaceful folks you will ever meet. The idea that using a plant that is legal in your state makes you inherently dangerous or criminal is exactly the kind of reefer madness thinking that got us into this mess.
Why This Matters for Our Community
For folks up in Humboldt, Mendocino, Trinity, all the places where cannabis culture and rural life have been intertwined for decades, this case hits different. These are not abstract legal questions. These are our neighbors.
People who have lived off the land, grown cannabis responsibly, kept firearms for legitimate reasons like wildlife protection or personal safety in remote areas, they have been forced to live in a legal gray zone where exercising one constitutional right means surrendering another.
And it goes way beyond the Emerald Triangle. We are talking about millions of legal cannabis consumers across 24 states who technically become federal criminals the moment they check no on the ATF Form 4473 (that is the form you fill out when buying a firearm that asks if you are a user of illegal drugs). Even if cannabis is completely legal in your state, federal law still considers you an unlawful user.
Hemani attorneys estimate that at least 20% of Americans have tried cannabis. That is a lot of people caught in this trap.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in March. Meanwhile, the ATF has been rewriting its own rules about who counts as an unlawful user, publishing an interim rule on January 22nd. They have acknowledged that whatever the Court decides in Hemani will shape the final version of those rules.
If the Court sides with Hemani, and with the NRA, NORML, the Drug Policy Alliance, and a growing coalition of advocacy groups, it could mean that millions of cannabis consumers across the country have their firearms rights restored. Not in theory. In practice.
If the Court sides with the government, we are stuck with a law that treats responsible cannabis users as second-class citizens who do not deserve the same constitutional protections as everyone else.
The Bigger Picture
Regardless of where you stand on gun policy, this case forces a conversation about how our government treats cannabis consumers. Are we full citizens with full rights? Or are we a special category of Americans who can be stripped of constitutional protections because of a plant?
The fact that the NRA and NORML found common ground here tells you something. When groups that agree on almost nothing both say this law is wrong, maybe it is time to listen.
We will be watching this case closely and reporting on the oral arguments in March. This one matters, folks. For our community, for rural America, for anyone who believes that using cannabis should not make you less of a citizen.
This is one of those rare moments where the legal system might actually catch up to what our community has known all along: cannabis consumers are not criminals, and they should not be treated like ones.
Stay informed with us here at Marijuana Union. We will keep you posted as this case develops.
Related reading: Check out our piece on marijuana terpenes and pain relief, another area where the science is way ahead of the law.