Should Drug Users Have Guns?

As the Supreme Court begins its new term, firearms regulations will once again be under judicial scrutiny. The high court previously agreed to hear a challenge to a Hawaii state law that bans guns on private property (unless explicitly permitted by the owner), and this week, it indicated it would hear arguments in United States v. Hemani. The case involves a long-standing federal law that bans firearm possession for habitual drug users.

Let’s take a closer look at the history of this law, the implications of the case, and the potential consequences of the ruling.

Background

Currently, federal law prohibits firearm possession for any person who is an active user of a controlled substance, with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. There are hundreds of controlled substances federally regulated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), ranging from the increasingly state-legal marijuana to a plethora of other substances with varying levels of impairment, danger, and potential medical uses. This law faced another legal challenge earlier this year, when a Fifth Circuit court of appeals found in United States v. Daniels that it does not apply to individuals sober at the time of arrest.

The ban was enacted in 1968 as part of the Gun Control Act, and is enshrined in Title 18, section 922(g) of the United States Code. It’s the same law that bans firearm possession for certain mentally ill people and for anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence or a crime carrying a sentence of more than a year. The Trump Administration has had mixed feelings about these two provisions. It has signaled support for the mental illness provision, even considering expanding it to include transgender people. Simultaneously, it has sought to ease the criminal convictions provision, creating a pathway back to gun rights for convicts.

This time, the administration is on the side of regulation, arguing that the ban on drug users is justified as “narrow circumstances” under which gun rights should be restricted in the interest of public safety. The case concerns Ali Danial Hemani, who was indicted in 2023 for possession of a 9mm pistol in combination with possession of marijuana and cocaine. Hemani argues that the charge is a violation of his Second Amendment rights, a claim a lower court agreed with. Similar to Daniels, Hemani argues that he was not under the influence at the time of arrest—something not denied by the prosecution.

As with all Supreme Court cases, this one has implications far beyond whether Hemani walks free. In contrast to the Daniels case, Hemani has challenged the entire charge—and in doing so, the entire ban. The case will thus determine whether drug users across the nation continue to be barred from gun ownership, with an array of implications for public health, equity, and the legal precedent.

If the Law Stands

The Supreme Court itself has identified the practical importance of this case due to the “frequency of prosecutions” that are made under section 922(g). The DOJ agrees, saying that the ruling will affect hundreds of prosecutions a year. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that in 2024, 7,419 convictions involved the section. While the most common grounds for the charges were prior felonies, the number also includes drug use-related violations. The court’s ultimate decision will therefore have a real impact on law enforcement.

And for the general public? The relevance of the case centers on the health implications of drug use and firearm possession. Both gun violence and drug abuse are major public health concerns—the former is the leading cause of death among American children and teenagers—and there is a correlation between the two. A 2017 study found that substance abuse is related to the risk of firearm homicide in adolescents.

A Johns Hopkins analysis, published in response to United States v. Daniels, warns that granting drug users access to firearms could increase gun-related homicides and suicides. Specifically, there is strong evidence of a link between substance abuse and risky firearm behaviors among young people. The study also finds substantial evidence connecting access to firearms and substance use as drivers of male-perpetrated intimate partner violence. The evidence is strongest for marijuana users, with a number of studies consistently showing a relationship between its use and a variety of violent crimes. The report counters the idea that these instances of violence are primarily due to mental illness, as drug use is actually a better predictor of violent behavior than psychiatric diagnoses.

Beyond public health concerns, the case is part of a broader debate over whether the Second Amendment is an absolute right or should be subject to regulation. In 2022, the majority-conservative court weighed in, ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that firearms restrictions must demonstrate alignment with the “historical tradition” of American firearms law. This requirement—known as the Bruen test—will be applied in the Hemani case.

To that end, the DOJ is arguing that the ban is a more modest application of the founding-era restrictions for “habitual drunkards.” The decision will thus set a precedent that shows whether this line of argument is valid under the Bruen test. If the law is struck down, it sends a message that the court will require a stronger link to historical tradition to justify similar firearms regulations.

If the Law Is Struck Down

So why would a law that the data shows is so effective be struck down? Beyond Constitutional arguments, Hemani’s lawyers contend that it is too broadly written, posing an unfair risk of technical violations, particularly due to the widespread and growing use of marijuana by the general population—about 20% of people have tried the drug, and about half of states have legalized its recreational use.

There are also more general concerns about discrimination in the enforcement of drug-related offenses. Minorities—and particularly Black individuals—are disproportionately likely to be arrested, charged, and sentenced for marijuana-related offenses. The Johns Hopkins researchers point out that invalidating marijuana-related firearms charges could help improve equity for these groups. This isn’t strictly an argument against the law, but it is a key point in the larger question about the ambiguous status of marijuana-related offenses.

The Bottom Line

While striking down the law might ease some risks to social drug users and minority communities, the law is supported by significant public health evidence that reinforces its efficacy. If it is struck down, a major law enforcement tool for keeping guns out of the hands of violent illegal drug users would be eliminated. This poses a risk of increased gun violence—particularly among youth and victims of domestic violence. Such a ruling would also raise the bar on passing the Bruen test for any future gun case, and set the highest court in the land even more firmly on the side of a broad application of the Second Amendment.

At 97Percent, we support laws that keep guns away from those with an elevated risk of committing a violent act while protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. In this case, a narrow ruling that allows the law to stand with a carve-out for users of legally obtained marijuana, with no criminal or domestic violence history, makes the most sense to us. The complication, of course, is that marijuana remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance at the federal level, despite its legalization in 40 states for medical purposes and 24 states for recreational use. In other words, it’s a lot for the court to sort out. We will see what they decide in June 2026.