Can Marijuana Users LEGALLY Own Guns? NEW Supreme Court Case US v. Hemani

[00:00:00]The Supreme Court just ruled nine to nothing that the federal government cannot take away your gun rights just because you smoke a little marijuana.

[00:00:10]And to get there, the highest court in the land had to spend 19 pages explaining how absolutely hammered the founding fathers were. I'm not joking.

[00:00:21]This opinion has a body count and it is measured in bottles. Let's talk about it. Look, here's what happened. A guy named Ali Hamani, Texas guy, holds down a normal job, lives with his parents, gets a visit from the federal government back in 2022. And they're not there for a parking ticket. They show up because they suspect him and his family of terrorism related activity. Serious stuff. And here's the thing about Mr. Hamani, he could not have been more cooperative. They searched the house, he hands over a gun he keeps there, he points the agents towards some marijuana on the property, and then he sits down for an interview and tells them straight up he uses marijuana, and I'm quoting for the record, about every other day.

[00:01:06]Now, stop and picture how that interview went. A man is being investigated for terrorism and he volunteers his weed schedule. That is either the most honest man in Texas or the worst poker player in America. So, what comes of the terrorism investigation? Nothing. No terrorism charge. They also find some cocaine in his parents' closet. He says it's his because he's a good boy, right?

[00:01:33]But then his mom hid it and he hadn't touched it recently. And the cocaine charge? Well, nothing came of that as well. Six months go by and the federal GOVERNMENT COMES BACK WITH EXACTLY one charge. Not terrorism, not cocaine, they charge him with owning a gun while being a marijuana user. That's it. There's a federal law, 922G3, that says if you're an unlawful user of any controlled substance, you are automatically banned from owning a firearm. And the penalty? Up to 15 years in federal prison and a lifetime ban on ever owning a gun again for using marijuana every other day in 2026 when most of the country has decided that's about as scandalous as a glass of wine with dinner. Now, here's where it gets good because the government had to walk into the Supreme Court and defend this.

[00:02:26]And after a case called Bruen a few years back, the rule is simple. If the government wants to take away a Second Amendment right, it can't just say, "Trust us, he is dangerous." It has to point to history. It has to show that back at the founding, we had laws that were, and the legal phrase is, "relevantly similar." So, the government goes digging through the history books and the best thing they can come back with is this habitual drunken law. Their argument, and I want to be fair to them here, their argument is that a guy who smokes weed every other day in 2026 is basically the same as a habitual drunkard in 1791. Same danger, same logic, disarm them both. There's just one problem, and it's a big one. To figure out what a habitual drunkard even was back then, the court had to look at how much the founding generation was actually drinking. And folks, they were drinking. Let me read you what is actually in this Supreme Court opinion.

[00:03:26]This is the United States reports now.

[00:03:29]This is law. John Adams, second president of the United States, started his day with a tankard of hard cider at breakfast. Breakfast.

[00:03:40]James Madison, the man who wrote the Bill of Rights, the man who gave us a Second Amendment, by one account drank a pint of whiskey a day. George Washington routinely had three glasses of fortified wine in the evening, which the historians describe as, and I love this, not enough to be considered a heavy drinker in his day. Not enough. That was a light night for George. And Thomas Jefferson liked three or four glasses of wine with dinner.

[00:04:08]But my favorite, my absolute favorite is this. A few days before the framers assigned the Constitution, they threw a farewell party for George Washington at a tavern in Philadelphia. 55 guests. And the Supreme Court, citing the actual bar tab, tells us those 55 people went through 54 bottles of fortified wine, 60 bottles of regular wine, eight bottles of hard stock, 22 of porter, eight of cider, 12 of beer, and seven big bowls of punch. That is the room that wrote our founding documents. Listen, I was in a fraternity at DePaul University. I never had that much alcohol at a single party. That blows me away. So, here is the legal point, and it's a real one.

[00:04:55]The government wanted habitual drunkard to mean person who uses an intoxicant regularly. And the court said, "No."

[00:05:04]Back then, a habitual drunkard wasn't a guy who drank every day. Half the country drank every day. To qualify, you had to be so far gone that you were, and these are the actual standards from the statutes, incapable of conducting your own affairs. Mentally incompetent. You had lost the power of self-control. The Temperance Society of that era >> [clears throat] >> said you could drink 12 oz of hard liquor a day and still only count as an occasional drunkard. Occasional. So, the analogy falls apart. Those old laws didn't target people for using a substance, they targeted people who were so incapacitated they couldn't run their own lives. And the government admitted it had zero proof that Mr. Hamani was anything like that. They didn't know how much he used. They didn't know how strong it was. They didn't know if it affected him at all. The court put it perfectly. Maybe Hamani's got a serious problem, or maybe he takes a mild gummy to sleep a few nights a week. The government answer was, "It doesn't matter." And the court said, "It does matter." And it didn't stop there. The court found three more holes. Hole one, those old laws gave you a hearing, a court, a judge, some kind of process before you lost your rights. This law today, it's automatic. The second you become a user, your Second Amendment rights just vanish. No hearing, nothing.

[00:06:26]Hole two, those old drunkard laws were mostly about keeping people from ruining themselves and their families, not about violence.

[00:06:35]Different purposes entirely. And hole three, this is the one the government really couldn't answer.

[00:06:41]The same federal government that says marijuana users are too dangerous to own a gun has spent the last decade telling its own prosecutors to ease up on marijuana, watching about 40 states legalize it, and moving some marijuana products to a lighter drug schedule. The court basically said, "You don't get to call those people uniquely dangerous when you help build the legal weed industry yourself." Here's why all this matters, and it's a lot bigger than weed. The principle in this case is that the government does not get to wave its hand, stamp whole category of people dangerous, and then strip them of a constitutional right with no proof and with no process. Because if it can do that to marijuana users, it can do that to anybody. And Justice Barrett once wrote, "Give the government that kind of power, and it will quickly swallow the Second Amendment." But, and I need you all to hear this because this is exactly where people get themselves in the trouble.

[00:07:39]This ruling is narrow. The court did not say the whole law is dead. It did not say addicts can own guns. It did not say that you can be high and armed, and it absolutely did not change the federal form you sign when you buy a gun, the one that asks if you use marijuana.

[00:07:57]Lying on that form is still its own federal crime. And look, especially in states where marijuana is still illegal, this federal ruling does not change those states' laws one bit. So, if you're in a state where marijuana is still illegal and you're thinking this is a green light, talk to an actual lawyer before you do anything. This case protects a man from being prosecuted after the fact for casual use. It's not a permission slip. So, that's United States vs. Homani. Nine justices, zero dissents, and one extremely well-lit founding generation, and a win for a simple idea. The government actually has to prove its case before it can take your rights. If you believe the Second Amendment means something and the government should have to do its homework before it disarms you, please share this video with somebody who needs to hear it. Hit subscribe, leave a comment, because the courts are handing down gun cases faster than I can film them. And if the government ever shows up at your door asking about your weekend, you already know. You don't volunteer your weed schedule. You stay polite, you ask for a lawyer, and you always plead the fifth. If you're facing charges in Indiana, give me and my team a call here at Mark Lopez Law Firm. We'd love to talk about your options. But seriously, plead the fifth, always.