9–0 STUNNER: SCOTUS Slaps Biden Gun Ban

A revolver and bullets placed on an American flag

A unanimous Supreme Court just told the federal government it cannot strip gun rights from peaceful marijuana users just for admitting they smoke.

Story Snapshot

The Supreme Court ruled 9–0 that the federal government cannot prosecute a man for owning a gun just because he regularly uses marijuana.
Justice Neil Gorsuch said the government failed the Second Amendment test that requires gun laws to match the nation’s historical firearm traditions.
The ruling limits a 1968-era federal law that treated millions of otherwise law‑abiding marijuana users as felons if they owned guns.
The decision is narrow, but it is a clear win for the Second Amendment and a warning shot against status‑based gun bans.

Supreme Court Slaps Down Gun Ban Based Only On Marijuana Use

The case, United States v. Hemani, started when federal agents searched a Texas home, found a lawfully purchased handgun, and then charged the owner under a 1968 law that makes it a crime for an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance to possess a firearm.^[7] He had not fired the gun, threatened anyone, or even been caught holding it while high, but he admitted he used marijuana regularly, which prosecutors said was enough.^[7]

A federal district judge threw the case out, and the conservative‑leaning Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the government could at most punish someone who is armed while actually intoxicated.^[6] The Fifth Circuit relied on its earlier decision in Connelly, which held that history might support bans on carrying a gun while drunk but not a blanket ban on sober users based only on status.^[1] The Biden‑era case then moved up to the Supreme Court.

Why The Justices Rejected The Government’s “Drug User” Category

The government argued that the law was a “limited, inherently temporary restriction” aimed at so‑called dangerous “habitual users of unlawful drugs,” and claimed history allowed lawmakers to disarm modern marijuana users just like “drunkards” centuries ago.^[9] Nineteen state attorneys general, led by Illinois, backed that position and insisted the sweeping ban on marijuana users owning guns was consistent with historical precedent.^[17]

The justices were not convinced. The Court’s conservative majority has already said in its 2022 Bruen ruling that any modern gun law must line up with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, not just vague public‑safety claims.^[16] In this case, Justice Gorsuch and his colleagues concluded that there is no real historical match for taking guns from a sober citizen solely because he sometimes uses a substance the government dislikes.^[8] The old “drunkard” laws dealt with people who were proven dangerous or actively intoxicated, not ordinary adults who occasionally used a legal or illegal substance.^[18]

What The Decision Does — And Does Not — Change

The Court’s ruling is an “as‑applied” decision, which means it focused on this man’s situation: a regular marijuana user, not shown to be impaired or dangerous when he possessed his firearm.^[1] The justices did not wipe out every part of the federal drug‑user gun ban, but they made clear the government cannot lean on a vague “unlawful user” label to strip away gun rights from otherwise peaceful people.^[3] Future prosecutions will now face much tougher questions about actual danger and real historical support.

That matters in today’s world, where marijuana is legal or decriminalized in most states but still illegal under federal law.^[7] Millions of gun‑owning Americans have been stuck in a legal trap: follow state marijuana laws and risk a federal felony, or give up their Second Amendment rights. The Fifth Circuit has already said that simple cannabis use, without intoxication while armed or violence, cannot justify disarmament under the Constitution.^[3] The Supreme Court just backed that core idea.

What This Means For Gun Owners, The Constitution, And The Deep State

This decision is part of a wider fight over status‑based gun bans, where Washington tries to brand entire groups as “prohibited persons” with no individual proof of danger. After Bruen, lower courts across the country have started striking down laws that go far beyond true threats, and this case is another reminder that the Bill of Rights does not vanish because bureaucrats dislike your lifestyle.^[16] The message is simple: government must prove real risk, not just wave around broad labels like “drug user.”

Today, the Supreme Court just ruled 9-0 in United States v. Hemani that the federal government can’t prosecute casual marijuana users for owning guns under the current law.

They struck down the application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) against a Texas man who used marijuana regularly…

— Peace Advocate (@AlaskanNative95) June 18, 2026

For conservative readers, there is a clear takeaway. The same federal machine that pushed speech policing, “woke” mandates, and sweeping pandemic rules also tried to turn everyday marijuana users into felons for owning a gun they bought legally. This time, every justice — right and left — said no. The ruling does not resolve every Second Amendment fight, and it does not excuse true criminal behavior, but it is a solid win for individual liberty, due process, and the basic idea that rights belong to the people, not to the government.