Supreme Court Rejects Gun Charge Based on Marijuana Use Alone

The United States Supreme Court issued an important Second Amendment decision yesterday in United States v. Hemani, a case involving the federal law that prohibits an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance from possessing a firearm. The Court held that it violated the Second Amendment to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm merely because that person is an admitted user of marijuana. For anyone facing a gun charge in Pennsylvania tied to drug use, this decision matters.

What Happened in Hemani

Federal authorities were investigating Ali Hemani and his family for terrorist-related activities. Hemani cooperated fully with authorities. He voluntarily turned over a firearm that he kept in his home and pointed agents to marijuana on the property, which he admitted to using every other day.

The Government did not claim that Hemani threatened anyone, trafficked drugs, or that his marijuana use made him dangerous to himself or others. And he was never charged with any terrorism-related activities.

Nevertheless, the Government charged him under § 922(g)(3), which prohibits an unlawful user of a controlled substance from possessing a firearm. Such an offense carries a sentence of up to 15 years in jail.

The Government argued that Hemani’s admitted use of marijuana several times a week prohibited him from possessing a firearm under § 922(g)(3), regardless of any of the other circumstances like the nature of the drug, the quantity used, or the dangerousness of Hemani.

The Supreme Court rejected the Government’s approach.

The Supreme Court’s Rationale

The Court applied the Second Amendment framework from its relatively recent landmark decision in Bruen. Under that test, the government can only restrict gun rights if the restriction lines up with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Here, the government tried to compare § 922(g)(3) to old “habitual drunkard” laws.

The Court rejected the comparison at every turn. Those historical laws targeted people so incapacitated by drinking that they couldn’t manage their own affairs, not people who simply used regularly. They existed mainly to protect drunkards and their families from financial ruin, not to prevent violence. Moreover, they required a hearing or conviction before anyone lost a right. Section 922(g)(3), by contrast, strips gun rights automatically, the moment someone becomes a regular user of drugs, with no due process at all.

The Court also pointed out that the government can’t credibly brand all marijuana users as dangerous when the Justice Department has spent over a decade pulling back on marijuana enforcement, most states have legalized it, and the federal government recently moved marijuana to a less restrictive schedule.

What the Hemani Decision Means for Pennsylvania Gun Charges

Gun charges tied to drug use come up regularly. The Hemani decision will have an impact on prosecutions not only under federal law, but also under Pennsylvania law. Pennsylvania’s firearms statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105, makes it a crime to possess a gun if you’re a prohibited person, and one way you become prohibited is by being barred under federal law.

If You’re Facing a Gun Charge in Pennsylvania or Under Federal Law

If you or someone you know is facing a gun case in Pennsylvania, under federal or state law, you may be successful in filing a motion to dismiss or motion to quash asserting a violation of the Second Amendment. It is therefore important to talk to an experienced Pennsylvania criminal defense lawyer early. The Supreme Court’s decision in Hemani opens the door for persuasive arguments to be made in support of motions to dismiss gun cases arising from a variety of other contexts, beyond charges tied to marijuana use.

If you are facing a firearms charge in Montgomery County or anywhere in Pennsylvania, contact McMahon, Lentz & Thompson to discuss your options. Call our Norristown office or reach us through mcmahon4law.com.