Using marijuana no longer automatically makes you a federal felon for keeping a gun, but the Supreme Court did not make marijuana users and gun owners fully legal, and the federal gun purchase form still asks about marijuana use. In United States v. Hemani (No. 24-1234, decided June 18, 2026), every justice agreed that prosecuting a man for owning a gun based only on his admitted marijuana use “about every other day” violated the Second Amendment. The Court called its own ruling narrow, and on October 13, 2026 it turned away a separate appeal from a man barred from guns because of a felony conviction for growing marijuana.
Hunting season is open in much of the country, and the question we hear most from readers is some version of this: “I have a medical card (or I use legally in my state). Can I buy a rifle?” The honest answer as of October 16, 2026 is that your legal risk has dropped, but it has not disappeared. Here is what Hemani actually decided, what it left open, what the ATF form says today, and where people still get into trouble.
What the Supreme Court Decided in Hemani
Ali Hemani, a Texas-born dual U.S. and Pakistani citizen living near Dallas, was not charged with anything violent. Federal agents searched his family’s home in 2022 over suspected terrorism-related activity. According to the opinion, he surrendered a gun he kept in the house, pointed agents to marijuana on the property and told them he used marijuana “about every other day.” More than six months later, prosecutors charged him with a single count under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), which bars anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm. The charge rested solely on his marijuana use. He faced up to 15 years in prison under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(8).
A district court dismissed the indictment, the Fifth Circuit agreed, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson. The government had compared its rule to early American laws aimed at “habitual drunkards.” The Court found the comparison failed: those laws targeted people so incapacitated by drink they could not run their own affairs, usually after some legal process, while the government’s reading of 922(g)(3) disarms anyone who regularly uses “any amount of any controlled substance” automatically, with no hearing and no showing of danger.
The opinion also pointed to the government’s own conduct. It noted that the Justice Department had told prosecutors to ease off marijuana users, that most states have legalized marijuana to some degree, and that the government “recently moved some marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III.” That, the Court wrote, leaves the government “awkwardly positioned” to call the millions of Americans who regularly use marijuana “categorically and unusually dangerous.”
The vote: unanimous result, different reasons
The judgment was 9-0, but not every justice signed the main opinion. Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence adding that, in his view, Congress lacks Commerce Clause power to ban gun possession just because a gun once crossed state lines, as the National Constitution Center summarized. Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, concurred while criticizing the history-based test the Court uses for gun cases. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kagan, concurred only in the judgment. He agreed the government’s historical examples did not fit Hemani, wrote that “marijuana use today is like alcohol use at the founding,” and stressed that nothing in the ruling casts doubt on the bans for felons and the mentally ill.
What Hemani Did Not Change
The Court spelled out its limits in unusually direct language: “In many respects, this case is a narrow one.” It said it was not deciding:
- Bans on gun possession by people who are addicted to a drug, or who are presently intoxicated.
- Other laws Congress might pass after finding that users of a particular drug pose a “special risk of misusing firearms.”
- The felon-in-possession ban, 922(g)(1), which often covers people with drug convictions.
- Whether prosecutors could still win a 922(g)(3) case with individualized proof that a person’s drug use makes them dangerous, or proof that a certain drug always makes users dangerous.
In practice, that means Hemani protects someone like Hemani: a regular user, no addiction alleged, no danger alleged, gun kept at home. Change those facts and the protection gets thinner. Hemani also did not repeal 922(g)(3). The statute is still on the books.
The October 13 Cert Denial: Growing Marijuana and the Felon Ban
On October 13, 2026, the Court denied review in Johnson v. United States, No. 26-270, leaving in place an April 29, 2026 Tenth Circuit decision. As The Daily Caller reported, petitioner Joseph Frederick Johnson had a conviction for growing marijuana and was charged as a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition. The Cato Institute and the National Rifle Association filed amicus briefs at the petition stage, according to the docket. The United States waived its right to respond.
A cert denial does not decide anything on the merits and sets no national precedent. But it is a clear signal for readers: Hemani is about use. If you have a felony conviction, including one for cultivation or sales, the separate felon ban still applies, and the Supreme Court has so far declined to revisit it in a marijuana case.
Hemani at a Glance: Where the Risk Stands
| Your situation | Status as of October 16, 2026 |
|---|---|
| Regular marijuana user, no addiction, no felony, gun kept at home | Hemani says prosecution on use alone, on facts like his, violates the Second Amendment |
| Carrying or using a gun while high | Not protected; the Court expressly left bans on the “presently intoxicated” open |
| Addicted to marijuana or another drug | Not decided; 922(g)(3) still covers people “addicted to” a controlled substance |
| Felony conviction, including for growing or selling marijuana | Felon ban, 922(g)(1), untouched; Johnson appeal denied October 13 |
| Answering “no” on Form 4473 while you use marijuana | Still risky; the current form says marijuana remains federally unlawful and false statements to a dealer are a separate crime |
| State-licensed medical marijuana patient | Improved but unsettled; ATF has proposed form changes that are not final |
What About ATF Form 4473?
When you buy a gun from a licensed dealer, you fill out ATF Form 4473. The current version asks whether you are “an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug” or other controlled substance, with a warning that marijuana “remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized” in your state, as Marijuana Moment quoted it. Hemani did not change the form.
Three ATF actions matter here:
- New definition of “unlawful user” (January 2026). An interim final rule effective January 22, 2026 (91 FR 2698) now defines an unlawful user as someone who “regularly uses a controlled substance over an extended period of time continuing into the present.” It says a person is not an unlawful user if they have stopped regular use or if their use “is isolated or sporadic.”
- Proposed new form (May 2026). ATF published a 60-day notice on May 8, 2026 (91 FR 25448), with comments due July 7. According to Marijuana Moment, the draft would change the warning to say federal law does not permit marijuana use or possession “for recreational purposes,” which would stop treating state-licensed medical use as disqualifying.
- Old form extended (July 2026). On July 29, 2026, ATF published an interim notice saying it would ask the Office of Management and Budget to extend the existing form “without change” while it reviews comments. A further 30-day notice is still to come.
So the form dealers use today still carries the old marijuana warning. Lying on it is its own federal offense: 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6) makes a knowingly false statement to a dealer a crime, punishable by up to 10 years under 924(a)(2), whether or not your gun possession itself could be prosecuted after Hemani. We cannot tell you how to answer. If you use marijuana, talk to a firearms lawyer in your state before you sign.
Does Schedule III Medical Status Help Card Holders?
Possibly, but nobody should treat it as settled. The April 2026 Justice Department and DEA order moved FDA-approved marijuana products and marijuana held under a state medical marijuana license to Schedule III. Adult-use and unlicensed marijuana remain Schedule I, and a broader hearing on rescheduling all marijuana is on hold. (Our guide to marijuana’s federal drug schedule tracks each step.) The order is also being challenged in the D.C. Circuit.
Schedule III does not by itself make a drug lawful to use without a valid prescription, and 922(g)(3) still turns on “unlawful” use. ATF’s draft form suggests the agency sees state-licensed medical use differently now, but a draft is not a rule. For history: in 2011 ATF sent an open letter telling dealers that a medical marijuana card gives them “reasonable cause to believe” a buyer is an unlawful user, and the Ninth Circuit upheld that approach in Wilson v. Lynch (2016). That letter has not been formally replaced by a final form. Our medical marijuana card guide covers the other federal trade-offs that come with a card.
What This Means for You
- Never mix guns and getting high. Hemani left bans on the “presently intoxicated” intact, and many states have their own laws on carrying or hunting under the influence. Keep firearms unloaded and locked when you use.
- A felony is a separate problem. A past conviction for growing or selling marijuana can still bar you under 922(g)(1). Ask a lawyer about expungement, pardons or relief options in your state.
- Do not guess on Form 4473. The current form still treats all marijuana use as unlawful. A false answer is a crime even if possession would not be.
- Watch for the final ATF form. If ATF adopts the draft, state-licensed medical patients may get a clearer path. Until then, the old wording governs.
- Check your state, too. State concealed-carry and hunting rules vary. Start with our cannabis laws by state and the federal marijuana laws overview.
- Do not travel across state lines with cannabis. That remains illegal under federal law, gun or no gun.
Marijuana and Gun Rights FAQ
Can marijuana users legally own guns now?
Partly. Hemani held that prosecuting a regular marijuana user with no addiction or danger alleged, for a gun kept at home, violated the Second Amendment. The statute still exists, and addiction, intoxication and felony convictions were left open.
Was the Hemani decision unanimous?
The judgment was 9-0. Seven justices joined Justice Gorsuch’s opinion; Justices Alito and Kagan concurred only in the judgment, and Justices Thomas and Jackson wrote separate concurrences.
Can I buy a gun with a medical marijuana card?
It is unsettled as of October 16, 2026. The current Form 4473 still says marijuana is federally unlawful even where states allow it. ATF has proposed language aimed only at recreational use, but that form is not final. Talk to a firearms lawyer first.
What did the Supreme Court do on October 13, 2026?
It denied review in Johnson v. United States, No. 26-270, leaving in place a Tenth Circuit ruling against a man with a marijuana-growing conviction who was charged as a felon in possession. A denial is not a ruling on the merits.
Does Hemani mean I can carry while high?
No. The Court said it was not addressing bans on people who are presently intoxicated, and state laws on carrying or hunting while impaired still apply.
Is lying on Form 4473 still a crime after Hemani?
Yes. A knowingly false statement to a licensed dealer violates 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), punishable by up to 10 years in prison, regardless of the Hemani ruling.
For more federal coverage, see our cannabis news section.
Status as of October 16, 2026. James Buddsey will update this story when ATF finalizes the new Form 4473 or the courts issue new rulings on marijuana and firearms. General information, not legal advice.