NEWSROOM Ninth Circuit says federal drug-user gun ban still stands after Supreme Court's marijuana ruling

[CAguns-News]

Federal law already bars gun possession by anyone who unlawfully uses a controlled substance. The Ninth Circuit says that rule still stands after the Supreme Court's 2026 marijuana decision, and refused to hear this defendant's individual challenge because he barely briefed it.

Read the full article on CA2A.com

Primary source

What does this change mean for California firearm owners? Discuss below.

CA2A Newsroom · AI-generated editorial illustration. Educational information, not legal advice.

 

[dvoncock]

Youngblood was appealing a 922(g)(3) conviction for possessing fentanyl and a firearm—oops! The Stennerson [edit: Hamani] decision was very clear that it created only a narrow carve out for marijuana users who are, otherwise, responsible gun owners. Stennerson [edit: Hamani] himself was a causal user, who smoked “every other day” per the written decision. That is hardly any different than someone who enjoys a cold brewski after work. The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning that 922(g)(3) survives Bruen’s historical analogy test is spot on (even a broken clock is right twice a day) because early American law absolutely regulated the possession of firearms by currently intoxicated people and/or “habitual drunkards”— duh! All in all, this is not really a consequential case at all.

 

[Shellbackitup]

Headline is a bit misleading.

The person was pulled over and found to be in possession of fentanyl, methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and two pistols.

Marijuana was not part of the arrest or challenge, so it's not surprising that the challenge to current law failed.

 

[RustVendor]

Youngblood was appealing a 922(g)(3) conviction for possessing fentanyl and a firearm—oops! The Stennerson decision was very clear that it created only a narrow carve out for marijuana users who are, otherwise, responsible gun owners. Stennerson himself was a causal user, who smoked “every other day” per the written decision. That is hardly any different than someone who enjoys a cold brewski after work. The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning that 922(g)(3) survives Bruen’s historical analogy test is spot on (even a broken clock is right twice a day) because early American law absolutely regulated the possession of firearms by currently intoxicated people and/or “habitual drunkards”— duh! All in all, this is not really a consequential case at all.

Hemani was also in possession of cocaine though. Both that and this case hinge on being "presently intoxicated" while in possession of a firearm. I don't believe it's relegated to only marijuana but Hemani was also an as applied desicion and not a facial challenge so there's a lot of wiggle room in how courts interpret it.

 

[dvoncock]

Hemani was also in possession of cocaine though. Both that and this case hinge on being "presently intoxicated" while in possession of a firearm. I don't believe it's relegated to only marijuana but Hemani was also an as applied desicion and not a facial challenge so there's a lot of wiggle room in how courts interpret it.

Respectfully disagree.

Justice Gorsuch literally said, “In many respects, this case is a narrow one. We do not address efforts to ban addicts [internal citation omitted], or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm.” United States v Hemani, 608 U.S. 772, 794 (2026).

The cocaine aspect is not discussed at all, other than two passing references, noting it was found but Hemani was never charged for its possession.

Edit: I did confuse Stennerson for Hemani in the post you quoted. A danger of posting while on my computer train

 

[RustVendor]

Respectfully disagree.

Justice Gorsuch literally said, “In many respects, this case is a narrow one. We do not address efforts to ban addicts [internal citation omitted], or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm.” United States v Hemani, 608 U.S. 772, 794 (2026).

The cocaine aspect is not discussed at all, other than two passing references, noting it was found but Hemani was never charged for its possession.

We are agreeing kinda because I said it's as applied vs facial we basically means it's still very open to interpretation. The amount of cocaine was not insignificant either it was close to 5 grams. I think the key element is that an "addict" is someone who would presumably never be sober and therefore never be legal to possess a firearm. I don't feel like reading Hemani right now but is there actually anything that specifically allows marijuana vs other drugs? I know they discussed the fact that federal enforcement of marijuana had allowed states to legalize etc but again since it's "as applied" it seems that lower courts can still do what they want but with the precident focusing on someone presently intoxicated.

 

[dvoncock]

We are agreeing kinda because I said it's as applied vs facial we basically means it's still very open to interpretation. The amount of cocaine was not insignificant either it was close to 5 grams. I think the key element is that an "addict" is someone who would presumably never be sober and therefore never be legal to possess a firearm. I don't feel like reading Hemani right now but is there actually anything that specifically allows marijuana vs other drugs? I know they discussed the fact that federal enforcement of marijuana had allowed states to legalize etc but again since it's "as applied" it seems that lower courts can still do what they want but with the precident focusing on someone presently intoxicated.

We are kinda are agreeing, with the nuance in the as applied versus facial challenge issue.

I just think it’s unrealistic to expect any judge to publicly admit in a written decision that a specific person (or an abstract Everyman) who—even only occasionally—gets down with a little Bolivian marching power is GTG possessing guns .

Until a *very* different generation of lawyers fills the federal bench, the same goes for horse, fent, Molly, crank, acid, angel dust, etc.

In Hemani, the focus was Mary Jane because the alphabet men asked him specifically about his smoking habits and he told the every other day. Apparently they either didn’t ask about Coke or he told them only rarely for a special occasion? Based on his statement about being a fan of the devil’s lettuce, the 922 charge was for being a cannabis addict in possession of firearms .

 

[Jimi Jah]

Every SC decision seems to require another.

 

[dvoncock]

Every SC decision seems to require another.

In the business we call it “job security” my friend