Can Marijuana Users Own a Gun? What the Supreme Court’s Hemani Decision Changed

After the Supreme Court’s June 2026 ruling in United States v. Hemani, marijuana users have significantly more constitutional protection against a specific federal gun charge — but the answer to whether you can legally own a gun is not simply “yes.” The decision blocks federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) based on marijuana use alone, but it does not legalize gun ownership for all marijuana users, does not affect the separate felon-in-possession ban, and leaves several critical questions open. This is a fast-moving area of law, and what you do next depends heavily on your individual history and your state.

The Federal Law Behind the Ban: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)

Federal law — specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — makes it a federal crime for any person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm or ammunition. Because marijuana remains a federally controlled substance, this provision historically applied to marijuana users regardless of whether their state had legalized recreational or medical use. Your state’s permission was legally irrelevant at the federal level.

For decades, federal prosecutors used § 922(g)(3) against people whose only apparent connection to a gun charge was owning a firearm while also using marijuana — sometimes based on nothing more than finding marijuana and a gun in the same home. That approach is now constitutionally foreclosed. But the statute itself has not been repealed, and it still matters in other contexts.

What United States v. Hemani Decided

On June 18, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 opinion in United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234 (U.S. June 18, 2026). Justice Gorsuch wrote for the Court. The holding: prosecuting a person under § 922(g)(3) based solely on their marijuana use is not consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and therefore violates the Second Amendment.

The government argued that founding-era laws disarming “habitual drunkards” provided sufficient historical precedent to justify categorically barring marijuana users from gun ownership. The Court rejected that analogy, finding those historical laws too different in scope and structure to support the blanket disarmament of anyone who uses marijuana.

The practical result: federal prosecutors can no longer sustain a § 922(g)(3) charge based only on proof that a person uses marijuana, without additional evidence. That is a meaningful constitutional shift — and it is also a deliberately narrow one.

What Hemani Did NOT Change

Marijuana Is Still a Federal Controlled Substance

The Hemani ruling does not decriminalize or legalize marijuana at the federal level. Marijuana remains a federally controlled substance. The Court addressed only whether marijuana use alone can serve as the constitutional basis for a gun charge under § 922(g)(3). It held that particular application of the statute unconstitutional. It did not rewrite federal drug law, and it did not signal that marijuana users have an unlimited right to possess firearms. The federal classification of marijuana has not changed.

The Felon-in-Possession Ban Is Completely Untouched

If you have a prior conviction for a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, the federal ban under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) still applies in full. Hemani addressed only § 922(g)(3). The two provisions are entirely independent. A prior marijuana-related felony conviction can itself be a disqualifying offense under § 922(g)(1), and Hemani does nothing to change that. If your concern is a prior conviction rather than current drug use, you are dealing with a separate legal question that this ruling does not resolve.

Being Armed While Actually Intoxicated Is an Open Question

The Court expressly left open whether the government may disarm a person who is actually intoxicated while armed. That scenario — someone actively impaired while handling or carrying a firearm — is meaningfully different from merely being a marijuana user, and the Court declined to address it. Being armed while actively under the influence of marijuana is a distinct factual situation that Hemani does not protect. States also have their own laws on carrying or using firearms while impaired, which vary significantly from state to state.

Individualized Evidence of Dangerousness Left Open

The ruling bars prosecutions that rest on marijuana use alone. The Court explicitly reserved judgment on whether § 922(g)(3) charges supported by individualized proof of dangerousness — for example, documented threatening behavior connected to drug use — might survive constitutional scrutiny. If the government has evidence beyond mere marijuana use, the constitutional analysis could be different. Hemani does not answer that question.

Congress Retains the Power to Act

The Court also noted that it was not deciding what laws Congress might pass in the future concerning particular drugs and firearms. The ruling narrows how the existing § 922(g)(3) can be constitutionally applied today. It does not permanently foreclose new legislation if Congress acts with an adequate historical justification. The legal framework here remains subject to change.

ATF Form 4473: A Critical and Evolving Issue

When you purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, you must complete ATF Form 4473. That form has historically included a question asking whether you are an unlawful user of or addicted to marijuana or any other controlled substance. Knowingly answering that question falsely is a separate federal crime, entirely independent of any § 922(g)(3) prosecution.

Whether and how the ATF revises Form 4473 in response to Hemani is actively evolving at the time of publication. Do not assume that the Hemani ruling tells you how to answer this form. Do not assume the form has already been updated. Before purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer, verify the current version of ATF Form 4473 and any updated official ATF guidance directly from the ATF’s official website. This is a time-sensitive matter where the rules may change, and answering incorrectly in either direction carries legal risk.

Your State’s Laws Still Apply Independently

Even where federal § 922(g)(3) charges based on marijuana use alone are now constitutionally blocked, your state may have its own restrictions on firearm possession by marijuana users or by people under the influence of any substance. State laws vary widely: some prohibit carrying while impaired; others have licensing or permitting rules that may be affected by marijuana use; some have their own constitutional provisions. The Hemani ruling addresses only the federal constitutional limits on one specific federal statute. It does not preempt or override state-level restrictions, which you must check separately.

What About Medical Marijuana Cardholders?

Before Hemani, federal enforcement guidance treated medical marijuana cardholders the same as any other marijuana user under § 922(g)(3) — state authorization was legally irrelevant to the federal prohibition. The ruling improves the federal constitutional landscape for cardholders significantly. However, it does not create a guaranteed safe harbor. The unresolved questions around actual intoxication, individualized evidence of dangerousness, ATF Form 4473 compliance, and state-level restrictions mean the landscape remains unsettled. Holding a medical marijuana card does not by itself resolve any of those open issues.

What You Can Do

• Read the ruling narrowly, not broadly. Hemani blocks § 922(g)(3) charges based on marijuana use alone. It is not a blanket constitutional right to possess firearms for drug users generally. Understand exactly what was decided and what was left open before making any decision.
• Check your state’s law separately. State restrictions on firearms and marijuana or drug use are independent of the federal § 922(g)(3) issue and differ widely from state to state. Your state may impose its own prohibitions that Hemani does not address.
• Verify ATF Form 4473 before any licensed dealer purchase. The form and ATF guidance may change in response to Hemani, and checking current instructions directly from the ATF’s official source is essential. Do not guess at how to answer the form.
• If you have any prior felony conviction, address that separately. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is entirely unaffected by Hemani. A prior felony — including a marijuana-related felony — can independently disqualify you from possessing firearms under federal law.
• Do not handle or carry firearms while impaired. Being armed while actually under the influence of marijuana or any substance raises legal risks that Hemani explicitly left unresolved, both federally and under state law.
• Consult a licensed attorney in your state if you need to understand how these rules apply to your specific situation. Individual facts matter greatly, and laws in this area are changing quickly.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234 (U.S. June 18, 2026) is a genuine and significant constitutional development: it prevents federal prosecutors from charging a person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) based solely on their marijuana use. But the decision is deliberately narrow. Marijuana is still federally controlled. The felon-in-possession ban under § 922(g)(1) stands fully intact. Being armed while actually intoxicated, individualized proof of dangerousness, and the status of ATF Form 4473 are all still open. The practical rules for marijuana users who own or want to own guns are shifting — and will continue to shift as Congress, the ATF, and lower federal courts respond to this ruling in the months and years ahead.

This article is general legal information only and does not constitute legal advice or create any attorney-client relationship. Laws in this area are changing rapidly. Always verify current federal and state rules before making any decision about firearm purchase or possession. Individual circumstances vary widely; consult a licensed attorney in your state for guidance specific to your situation.