Can marijuana users legally own guns? The short answer is: it depends on where you live right now, and the Supreme Court is in the process of deciding whether it will depend on anything at all. On March 2, 2026, the justices heard oral arguments in United States v. Hemani, a case that will determine whether a federal law banning drug users from owning firearms is constitutional. The outcome will affect millions of Americans — and Massachusetts gun owners in particular should pay very close attention.
The Law at Issue
The federal statute at stake, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), makes it a felony for anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm. A knowing violation carries a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. Massachusetts has a nearly identical restriction built directly into its License to Carry statute under M.G.L. c. 140, § 131, meaning a Supreme Court ruling here could directly shape how the Commonwealth licenses firearms going forward.
The Facts of the Case
The FBI searched the home of Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man, and found a Glock 9mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. Hemani admitted to using marijuana roughly every other day. Based on that admission, he was indicted under § 922(g)(3). He never claimed he was holding the gun while high — only that he was a regular marijuana user who also owned a firearm.
That distinction turned out to be legally critical.
How the Lower Courts Ruled
The federal district court dismissed the indictment, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Fifth Circuit held that the law is unconstitutional as applied to someone who was not shown to be actually intoxicated at the time they possessed the firearm. Put simply, the court said the government cannot prosecute a drug user simply for owning a gun — only for being high while holding one.
This created a direct conflict with other federal circuits. The Seventh Circuit has consistently upheld § 922(g)(3), ruling that Congress can disarm categories of people it determines pose a heightened danger. The Eighth Circuit has staked out a middle position, requiring the government to make an individualized showing that a specific defendant’s drug use made them dangerous — rather than relying on the categorical ban alone. Three different answers from three different courts is exactly the kind of conflict that draws Supreme Court review.
The Legal Arguments
The government, under the Trump administration, argues that § 922(g)(3) fits squarely within America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Under the test established by New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), any gun restriction must be grounded in the nation’s history and tradition to survive constitutional challenge. The government points to founding-era laws that treated “habitual drunkards” harshly — including vagrancy laws that allowed their imprisonment — and argues that disarming habitual drug users today is a milder version of those same restrictions. Importantly, the government’s petition emphasizes that § 922(g)(3) is actually less restrictive than its historical predecessors, because the person can restore their own gun rights simply by stopping drug use.
Hemani’s defense counters that there is no genuine historical tradition of permanently disarming people simply because they use intoxicating substances with some regularity while otherwise sober. Historical laws regulated using a firearm while actively drunk — not owning one as a general matter. Applying the law to someone who uses marijuana a few times a week but is completely sober when he stores his firearm at home is a different situation entirely.
The defense also raises a vagueness argument: the statute uses the phrase “unlawful user” without defining how frequent, how recent, or how substantial the drug use must be before the firearms ban kicks in. That lack of clarity, Hemani argues, leaves ordinary people with no way to know whether their behavior puts them at risk of a federal felony.
The Unusual Alliances
One of the most striking features of this case is who is standing where. The NRA and the ACLU filed briefs on the same side — both opposing the law. The Trump administration, which has generally supported expanded gun rights, is defending the restriction. Gun control advocacy groups have backed the government’s position.
That unusual lineup reflects how genuinely difficult this case is. It sits at the intersection of Second Amendment rights, federal drug law, and the growing reality that marijuana is legal under roughly half of state laws even while remaining a federal crime.
The Problem for Massachusetts Residents
This is where things get particularly complicated for people living right here in the Commonwealth, and it is something that does not get nearly enough attention.
Massachusetts legalized recreational marijuana in 2016. Adults over 21 can walk into a licensed dispensary today and legally buy marijuana under state law. Many people do exactly that — to manage pain, anxiety, sleep problems, or simply to relax on the weekend. It feels no different, practically speaking, than stopping at a liquor store.
But here is the problem: marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The federal firearms ban under § 922(g)(3) does not care that your state says it is legal. It does not care that you bought it from a licensed dispensary with a receipt. What matters under federal law is whether you are a user of a controlled substance — and marijuana is still a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act, regardless of what Massachusetts law says.
This creates a real and serious trap for law-abiding Massachusetts residents. If you use marijuana legally under state law and you own a firearm, you may already be violating federal law. When you apply for a License to Carry in Massachusetts, you are asked questions about drug use. If you answer honestly and disclose marijuana use, that admission can be used as grounds to deny your LTC application — even though your marijuana use is perfectly lawful under the state law you actually live under every day.
The LTC application process in Massachusetts requires applicants to be “suitable” under state law, and Massachusetts’s own suitability standard mirrors the federal disqualification for drug users. Chiefs of police and licensing authorities have discretion to deny licenses based on marijuana use, and many do. So a Massachusetts resident who uses marijuana legally under state law faces a genuine choice: give up marijuana or give up your ability to get a firearms license. There is no clean middle ground under current law.
The Hemani case has the potential to clarify — or further complicate — this already confusing landscape. If the Supreme Court rules broadly in favor of Hemani and strikes down § 922(g)(3) in most applications, it could put pressure on Massachusetts to revisit its own suitability standards for marijuana users. If the Court upholds the law, the conflict between state marijuana legalization and federal gun rights will remain exactly what it is today: a legal minefield that catches people off guard.
Why You Should Not Navigate This Alone
If you use marijuana and you own or want to own a firearm, or if your LTC application has been denied based on drug use, you need to understand exactly where you stand under both state and federal law. These are not abstract legal questions — they carry real criminal consequences at the federal level and can affect your ability to protect yourself and your family.
A decision in Hemani is expected by early summer 2026, and it could change the legal landscape significantly. In the meantime, the law as it currently stands creates real risks for people who assume that state legalization of marijuana means they are in the clear when it comes to firearms.
If you have questions about your Massachusetts License to Carry, a denial based on drug use, or how your marijuana use may affect your gun ownership, attorney Matthew Peterson is available to help. Contact our office today for a consultation.
