Lawyer Who Won SCOTUS Marijuana-Gun Case Says Ruling Breathes New Life Into 2A

Supreme Court Expands Gun Rights for Cannabis Users

The Supreme Court's June 2026 decision invalidated the federal prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful drug users as applied to individuals complying with state cannabis laws. The 6-3 ruling in United States v. Daniels found that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment when enforced against Patrick Daniels, a Mississippi medical marijuana patient charged after purchasing a revolver in 2022.

Lead counsel Mark Pennington told reporters the decision represents the Court's most aggressive application of the historical test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). That framework requires the government to identify a historical analogue from the founding era to justify modern firearm restrictions.

"The Court didn't just apply Bruen—it sharpened it," Pennington said. "This ruling makes clear that post-hoc public safety arguments can't substitute for historical evidence."

Historical Analysis Drives Majority Opinion

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, concluded that no founding-era statute disarmed individuals based solely on substance use without a showing of present danger. The opinion surveyed colonial-era disarmament laws. It found that historical regulations targeted those adjudicated as dangerous—lunatics, felons in custody, insurrectionists—not individuals engaged in lawful conduct under state authority.

The government failed to demonstrate that the founding generation would have tolerated disarming a citizen who posed no imminent threat, the Court held.

Thomas distinguished modern Controlled Substances Act classifications from 18th-century frameworks. The majority rejected the government's argument that intoxicating-substance users formed a historical class subject to categorical disarmament, noting that alcohol consumption—ubiquitous at the founding—never triggered firearms forfeiture absent violent conduct or adjudication.

One question remains open. Does the statute stay constitutional as applied to users of federally illegal drugs with no state-law authorization? That question wasn't before the Court.

Implications for Federal Enforcement and State Programs

The ruling immediately affects an estimated 12 million Americans who hold state-issued medical marijuana cards and the 38 states with legal cannabis programs. ATF Form 4473, the federal firearms transaction record, warns purchasers that marijuana use—regardless of state law—disqualifies them from gun ownership. That warning now conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent in medical-cannabis states.

Federal prosecutors had secured hundreds of § 922(g)(3) convictions annually, many involving no violent conduct. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives hasn't yet issued guidance on how the decision affects pending cases or Form 4473 instructions. The Department of Justice declined to comment.

Pennington noted that the decision's reasoning extends beyond cannabis. "If the government can't disarm someone for state-legal marijuana use, the same historical test applies to other substance-use prohibitions," he said. For more context on the intersection of cannabis law and firearms regulation, see the CannIntel topic hub on marijuana and gun rights at the Supreme Court.

Certain convictions remain undisturbed. The ruling doesn't affect convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which bars firearm possession by convicted felons, or § 922(g)(4), covering individuals adjudicated as mentally defective—provisions that rest on historical analogues the Court has previously recognized.

Next procedural step: The case returns to the Fifth Circuit for entry of judgment. Federal defenders in at least six circuits have filed motions to vacate § 922(g)(3) convictions in light of the decision. The first wave of dismissals is expected within 30 days.