SCOTUS Grants Cert: 2A Rights for Users of Controlled Substances

PeteInNY

🚨 SCOTUS Grants Cert: 2A Rights for Users of Controlled Substances - A Win, or a Trap?

Case: Hemani v. United States (Likely consolidated with others like Daniels)
Statute Challenged: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (Prohibits firearms possession by any person who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance")
Source: CNN Article Link (for reference)

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a high-stakes case challenging the federal ban on gun ownership for users of controlled substances. This case, following Bruen and Rahimi, forces the Court to confront whether a person can be disarmed solely based on their status as a "drug user," absent a finding of violence or dangerousness.

The core legal question is whether the government can demonstrate a historical tradition of disarming individuals simply for using a controlled substance that is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."

The Glaring Problem: A Messy Plaintiff

While the legal principle is a potential massive win for the Second Amendment, the facts of the named plaintiff's case (Ali Danial Hemani) are highly problematic and make a clean victory unlikely:

The government alleges the plaintiff is a drug dealer and a habitual user of substances.
The arrest involved the discovery of a firearm alongside a quantity of marijuana AND cocaine.

This is not the ideal case of a non-violent, state-legal medical marijuana user. This profile makes it easy for opponents—and potentially the Court—to justify the ban by framing the plaintiff as "dangerous" or a "drug trafficker," effectively skirting the core constitutional issue of whether non-violent users can be disarmed.

A narrow ruling upholding the ban as applied to those involved with highly dangerous drugs or trafficking could set a very negative precedent.

Discussion Starter: Where Does This Go?

Given the challenging background of the plaintiff, how do you see this playing out under the Bruen framework?

Will the "dirty" facts (cocaine, alleged trafficking) allow the Court to uphold the ban narrowly? If so, what is the damage to the broader 2A fight against status-based bans?
Does the principle matter more than the person? Should 2A advocates support this case, arguing that the Bruen test must be applied strictly regardless of how sympathetic the individual is?
If the Court strikes down the ban (finding no historical analogue), what is the immediate impact on other "non-violent" prohibited categories?

Let's discuss the legal and political risks involved in this pivotal case. Drop your thoughts below! 👇

69rrdriver

I would say as to point 2 the case should be decided on the law, not the person. Either something is constitutional or it isn't. That said I share your concern as the court seems preoccupied with optics rather than actual questions of law. Bruen, applied properly, should invalidate most gun control across the country. I believe that we would have gotten a more strongly worded opinion except for the squishy justices. Thomas and alito are firmly in our corner, but they still have to contend with ACB and Roberts. The lack of an enforcement wing is also problematic for us. We cannot rely on states to abide by the rulings when there is no punishment for not doing so. If any of us were to disobey a court order we could be personally fined or thrown in jail. Politicians are shielded from these consequences. The doj and Harmeet Dhillon may do us some good but that remains to be seen.