The Supreme Court said it would decide whether drug users have a constitutional right to own a gun, a new showdown over the scope of the Second Amendment.
The justices agreed to hear the Trump administration’s fight to preserve a federal law that bans people who use illegal drugs from possessing a firearm. The dispute marks a rare instance in which the administration is advocating for gun control instead of pushing to expand gun rights.
The case comes from the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled it is unconstitutional to charge someone with illegal gun possession if the defendant was not under the influence at the time of the arrest....
The appeals court found no historical support for disarming someone who was sober at the time they had a gun, a rule it established in a 2024 case that threw out a gun charge against a Texas woman who was a nonviolent marijuana user....
The same law was the basis of one of Hunter Biden’s convictions last year. A federal jury in Delaware found him guilty of three felony counts, including possession of a revolver while being an unlawful drug user. He was later pardoned by his father, former President Joe Biden.
[Solicitor General] Sauer argues that a 2024 Supreme Court ruling made clear that the nation has a tradition of temporarily disarming people deemed to be dangerous. That decision upheld a law that restricts people from owning a gun if they are subject to a restraining order for domestic violence.
The federal prohibition on gun possession by drug users “provides a modest, modern analogue of much harsher founding-era restrictions on habitual drunkards, and so it stands solidly within our Nation’s history and tradition of regulation,” he said.
The court will likely hear oral arguments early next year, with a decision expected by the end of June.
It is the second gun rights case the court has agreed to hear this term. The justices will also consider if states can ban licensed gun owners from carrying firearms on private property without the property owner’s explicit permission.
This is the exact language from the current Form 4473:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
This is really about little more than the federal government's stubborn insistence that marijuana remain illegal, in the face of a growing legalization movement in many states. Guns. Have them.
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.
Socialism is the gospel of envy.
I can't wait for the liberals to take the side of preserving guns rights for druggies*
The Supreme Court said it would decide whether drug users have a constitutional right to own a gun, a new showdown over the scope of the Second Amendment.
The justices agreed to hear the Trump administration’s fight to preserve a federal law that bans people who use illegal drugs from possessing a firearm . The dispute marks a rare instance in which the administration is advocating for gun control instead of pushing to expand gun rights.
The case comes from the New Orleans-based Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled it is unconstitutional to charge someone with illegal gun possession if the defendant was not under the influence at the time of the arrest....
The appeals court found no historical support for disarming someone who was sober at the time they had a gun, a rule it established in a 2024 case that threw out a gun charge against a Texas woman who was a nonviolent marijuana user....
The same law was the basis of one of Hunter Biden’s convictions last year. A federal jury in Delaware found him guilty of three felony counts, including possession of a revolver while being an unlawful drug user. He was later pardoned by his father, former President Joe Biden.
[Solicitor General] Sauer argues that a 2024 Supreme Court ruling made clear that the nation has a tradition of temporarily disarming people deemed to be dangerous. That decision upheld a law that restricts people from owning a gun if they are subject to a restraining order for domestic violence.
The federal prohibition on gun possession by drug users “provides a modest, modern analogue of much harsher founding-era restrictions on habitual drunkards, and so it stands solidly within our Nation’s history and tradition of regulation,” he said.
The court will likely hear oral arguments early next year, with a decision expected by the end of June.
It is the second gun rights case the court has agreed to hear this term. The justices will also consider if states can ban licensed gun owners from carrying firearms on private property without the property owner’s explicit permission.
on October 20, 2025, 12:58:41
Previous Message