A coalition of national and state gun rights organizations has filed a 24-page amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, pressing justices to review Harris v. United States, a case that challenges the federal prohibition on firearm possession by marijuana users.
(Photo credit: jirkaejc/Newscom).
The brief, submitted by the Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center, argues that the restriction found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is inconsistent with the nation’s historical treatment of alcohol and firearms.
Attorneys C.D. Michel and Anna M. Barvir of Michel & Associates, along with Konstadinos Moros of SAF, contend that while laws have long prohibited carrying guns while actively intoxicated, there is no historical precedent for disarming sober individuals who occasionally consume substances like alcohol—or, in modern times, marijuana.
“Historically, the best example is alcohol,” the filing states. “Plenty of laws arose to prevent inebriated people from being armed. But what never existed were laws that prohibited people from owning guns because they sometimes drank. In the modern era, marijuana should be treated no differently.”
The brief emphasizes marijuana’s growing acceptance, noting it is now legal to some extent in 40 states, including 24 where it is allowed for recreational use. Public opinion has shifted in parallel, with surveys showing nearly 60% of Americans supporting full legalization. The groups argue this reality stands in stark contrast to harder drugs such as heroin or fentanyl, which remain both illegal and socially unacceptable.
The petitioners are asking the Court to consider Harris alongside United States v. Hemani, which was granted review earlier this month. That case involves a defendant accused of possessing firearms along with marijuana and cocaine, but amici caution that its unusual facts—including alleged ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps—risk producing a ruling unrepresentative of most marijuana cases.
Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the outcome could affect “millions of law-abiding Americans who face losing their Second Amendment rights simply for using a substance legal in their state—often for medical reasons.” SAF is also separately challenging the ban as it applies to medical marijuana cardholders in Greene v. Garland, now pending in the Third Circuit.
The brief concludes that intoxication and responsible use must be treated differently: “It is akin to banning anyone who has a six-pack of Budweiser in their refrigerator from owning guns,” it states.
The groups are urging the Court to grant certiorari and resolve a growing circuit split on how marijuana use intersects with the right to keep and bear arms.
More articles from The Marijuana Herald can be found below.
