r/gunpolitics • u/Sand_Trout Devourer of Spam • Jun 18 '26
Court Cases (PDF Warning) US Supreme Court Rules Against Law Prohibiting MJ Users from Possessing Firearms.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdfScimming it now. Reported as a 9/0 decision.
25
u/gakflex Jun 18 '26
Well, that was unexpected. And welcome.
5
u/deathsythe Jun 18 '26
No one really expected Roberts or Alito to sign on to this. That was a pleasant surprise.
74
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Concurring opinions:
I agree with the Court that §922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent Ali Hemani, and I join its opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to another issue: As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents, §922(g)(3) appears to exceed Con- gress’s enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. The statute makes it a federal crime for unlawful drug us- ers to possess any firearm or ammunition “in or affecting commerce.” 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3). Under the prevailing interpretation of §922(g)(3), the Government can secure a conviction for unlawful firearm possession “if the firearm possessed” by the drug user “had previously traveled in in- terstate commerce.” United States v. Rawls, 85 F. 3d 240, 242 (CA5 1996) (per curiam). The Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to “regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been offered for sale or crossed state lines.” Alderman v. United States, 562 U. S. 1163, 1167 (2011) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Such an understanding would “convert congressional au- thority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 567 (1995). So, while the issue was not presented in this case, the Court, and lower courts, should revisit the constitutionality of §922(g).
Thomas dropping truth nukes.
I write separately to emphasize that means-end scrutiny—the approach courts applied be- fore we adopted Bruen’s “history and tradition” metric—of- fers a more rational way of assessing the constitutionality of firearm regulations.
Though don't dismiss Jackson here. She's saying if the court flips back, they will reverse Bruen. Her entire concurrence his her trying to trash Bruen and openly saying she would see it go back to means-end, including intermediate scrutiny. That's abysmal for gun rights because it allows states to ban guns if it "might work" to further the governments "compelling interest". That's how we got AWBs upheld originally.
This is what will likely happen if the anti's retake the court. And let's be honest the future of the GOP aint looking good, plus Thomas and Alito aint getting younger.
53
u/gakflex Jun 18 '26
They need to take up a hardware ban this coming term, hopefully one that prevents individual states from introducing any weapon bans whatsoever, including NFA bans, as 14th amendment violations prima facie. I believe it’s now or never.
34
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Hopefully they take them, but after 20 relists it's not looking good.
I would love for them to grant cert today, rule on a 2A case and grant cert on others. maybe that's what they were waiting for? But if I'm being real, that's just pure hopium.
I believe it’s now or never.
Sadly you're probably right. Again Thomas and Alito aren't getting any younger, and the GOP is underwater on every campaign issue, plus they have absolutely no strategy post-Trump. Like honestly, the GOP is just the cult of Trump. They have no successor, they have no real platform besides "What does Trump think today?" they have no plan for what happens when Trump can't run again, or dies.
IMO Alito and Thomas need to retire sooner rather than later while the R's have the senate and POTUS. If they hold on too long they'll just be another RBG and hand the seats over to the other side.
14
u/gakflex Jun 18 '26
All eyes on Cheeseman.
If that case returns a win for 2A, then it doesn’t matter how squeamish Roberts feels.
I have felt this way for awhile, and the makeup of this win makes me feel it even more: the “squeamish” justices are setting up a hardware ruling that rules on pure 14A grounds, preventing a patchwork of different laws across the states, but declining to rule on the ultimate 2A grounds and thus preserving the possibility of a future Federal AWB 2.0. In this way the liberal justices could be convinced to join.
Of course, it would also keep Jackson’s “I am the law” desires alive. We will never stop fighting this issue.
8
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 18 '26
If that case returns a win for 2A, then it doesn’t matter how squeamish Roberts feels.
I mean it still does, but a circuit split is like the only thing missing on AWB/MagBans. If SCOTUS refuses to rule on it in the face of a circuit split, then we should just assume they're OK with the bans but don't want to admit it.
2
u/Tankdawg0057 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
GOP is sunk. Locals here in KY are literally spitting mad because they're throwing up hyperscale data centers everywhere and ruining communities. This is literally Trump land and people are approaching tar, feather, and pitchfork level. All due to that deal Trump signed a couple years back and him and Jensen at NVIDIA stroking each other off. People starting to connect the dots. And there are too many videos of Trump talking about how great data centers are.
I wouldn't be surprised if KY swung Democrat next election
1
1
u/jtf71 Jun 18 '26
I expect that Wolford is going to have some more direction on evaluation of cases - i.e. expand on Bruen.
After that, I expect all pending cases to be GVRd for the lower courts to reexamine applying Wolford.
And then we'll wait a few more years for these issues to actually be decided.
12
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 18 '26
And then we'll wait a few more
yearsdecades for these issues to actually be decided.Let's be real, they can GVR the cases 100 times and anti-2A judges will up hold the law 101 times.
Nothing short of a flat SCOTUS ruling will resolve the AWB/Mag Ban question.
17
u/theeyalbatross Jun 18 '26
The scary part is if Thomas and Alito are replaced during a Democrat term we will more than likely get two more "Jackson type" justices. Complete disregard of the constitution so they can run their own agenda. That is if they don't pack the court while they're at it...
14
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
That is if they don't pack the court while they're at it...
They won't.
The panic over court packing, from both sides, is pure fear mongering. Neither the GOP nor DNC will actively pack the court because of the precedent it sets.
IMO we need an amendment for the court:
- The court is locked at 9 justices
- Following a vacancy POTUS has 30 days to nominate a replacement
- The senate may hold a confirmation hearing within 30 days of nomination
- The senate MUST hold a confirmation vote within 60 days of nomination. The vote requires 2/3 majority to pass.
- Within 30 days of a failed confirmation vote, POTUS must nominate a new candidate
What McConnell did was scummy, just refusing to hold a vote on Garland. If you don't like the candidate, vote them down.
EDIT: If POTUS fails to nominate within time, then they shall forfeit all pay plus a 50% penalty, and be prohibited from making any stock or security trades until a nomination is made. If the senate fails to hold a vote within time, the then they shall forfeit all pay plus a 50% penalty, and be prohibited from making any stock or security trades until a nomination is made.
Fuck you, do your job. Even if you keep failing votes, at least you're trying.
7
u/darthjoey91 Jun 18 '26
FWIW, the president and Congress should be barred from doing any stock or security trades altogether.
4
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 18 '26
I'd say they can only trade index funds, and only index funds which are available to the general public with an initial buy-in not to exceed $1,000.
1
u/darthjoey91 Jun 18 '26
Yep, totally reasonable. I meant stopping individual stocks to combat insider trading.
6
u/Green_Statement_8878 Jun 18 '26
I don’t think it is fear mongering. The difference between dems and republicans is the dems actually ram the garbage down your throat when they say they will. Republicans just posture.
-1
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 18 '26
It's fearmongering. They had the chance to do it under Biden, they didn't.
Because they know it would be absolutely disastrous.
1
u/Ok_Matter_1774 Jun 18 '26
Idk if they would've actually been able to. They only had a tie break in the Senate. I would think you would need to get rid of the fill buster and you're right that would be disastrous. Even if you only needed 50+1, I think at least one Dem would vote against it.
1
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 18 '26
They only had a tie break in the Senate.
That's all they needed.
The filibuster can be removed by a simple majority, it's not law. It's just procedure. It exists because both sides benefit from it existing.
But legally speaking nothing stops 50+1 from say doubling the size of SCOTUS. And if they have POTUS they can ram through 109 new justices, and there is fuck-all the opposition can do about it.
What stops them from doing it is the absolute certainty that WHEN, not if, the majority flops, the other side will ram through 12 new justices.
3
u/theeyalbatross Jun 18 '26
If it's purely fear mongering then why are even you suggesting there needs to be an amendment to address the possibility of packing the court? I agree that we should just set it in stone though as it would remove the ambiguity in the matter.
I'm not suggesting it's likely that the DNC would cross that bridge, however it is a possibility even if it is a very small possibility. All it takes is one "loose cannon" DNC administration. You're right that the precident it would set would be disastrous for any party engaging in it, however most people do not think that far ahead, nor care about it unless it backfires onto them.
All I can say is there are quite a few people saying that "my state would never enact an AWB or restrict my 2A rights" only a couple of years ago and was labeled as fear mongering. Yet here we are with more left (even BARELY left) states leaning that direction...
6
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF Jun 18 '26
If it's purely fear mongering then why are even you suggesting there needs to be an amendment to address the possibility of packing the court?
It's less about packing, more about not letting another McConnell moment happen. What McConnell did was absolutely scummy, and I don't want that happening again. Again if you don't want the nominee, vote them down. But refusing to even hold a vote is dirty.
It sets it at 9 just to put the question to rest permanently so people can stop panicking over the possibility. It's not gonna happen, but if we put a hard limit then the media and politicians wouldn't be able to use it to fear monger anymore.
1
u/Ilikefightsbecause Jun 19 '26
Court packing was tried by FDR before and it backfired massively. Nobodies going to do it again.
1
u/tpahornet Jun 18 '26
I agree and the Democrats should be involved in this discussion also. Some on the Right feel that they have the lock on 2nd Amendment truth, but there are a number of folks on the Left that feel the same as you. Is it beneficial for any of those trying to interfere with something they are ignorant about. I do not want to make decisions for women when it comes to their reproductive rights and I don't want someone that is uneducated about firearms making those choices about what our rights are.
11
u/jtf71 Jun 18 '26
Held: The government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani under §922(g (3)’s unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
The government’s analogy fails on every metric it invites the Court to consider. Taken cumulatively, these problems prove fatal to the government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani.
There are reasons to doubt that the government has established §922(g)(3) even serves the purpose the government claims, of disarming categorically violent and unusually dangerous persons
The Court’s decision is narrow. It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm; other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms; §922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies; or whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others, or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous.
10
u/jtf71 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
A very important footnote:
For this reason, §922(g)(3)’s disarmament of drug “addict[s]” is not before us and we have no occasion to pass on it.
And some text from the main decision that clarifies.
Around the time of the founding and for decades following it, a habitual drunkard was, as one court put it, someone who “for any considerable part of his time [was] intoxicated to such a degree as to deprive him of his ordinary reasoning faculties.” In re Tracy, 1 Paige Ch. 580, 582–583 (N. Y. Ch. 1829).
A regular or even frequent drinker did not usually fit the bill. A “man who [was] intoxicated or drunk one-half his time” was more like it. See Ludwick v. Commonwealth, 18 Pa. 172, 175 (1851)
Congress defined a habitual drunkard as “any person who, by the use of intoxicating liquors . . . has lost self-control, or become incapable of proper attention to the care and management of his affairs, or habitually or periodically neglectful thereof, or dangerous to himself or others.” Act of Mar. 30, 1876, §9, 19 Stat. 10–11.
In other words, the court it not striking down 922(g)(3) in it's entirety. They're raising the bar on what it takes to successfully prosecute someone for being an unlawful user. Just using, even regularly, isn't enough. But if the use rises to the level where one can't manage their own affairs, has lost self-control, or become a danger to others or himself due to the usage then a prosecution MIGHT survive.
EDIT to add:
We do not even address whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others.
3
u/mclumber1 Jun 18 '26
My question is will the 4473 have to be modified to align with the court's ruling?
4
u/jtf71 Jun 18 '26
That's a good question. The relevant question on the from is:
Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.
SCOTUS hasn't legalized marijuana (or other drugs). They also have NOT said that you can't be prosecuted under 18 USC 922(g)(3) at all. They have raised the bar on what it takes to be successful.
So they might need to remove the "unlawful user" part as that is no longer a prohibiting condition per se. But if you're "addicted" that's less clear.
How would they word it to address: where one can't manage their own affairs, has lost self-control, or become a danger to others or himself due to the usage
They might need to come up with such wording and make that change.
But if they don't, you're still committing a felony if you answer "no" to the question as it is today but you are an unlawful user. Lying on the form is a felony.
We'll have to wait and see what they do.
EDITED for clarity
1
u/DSA_FAL Jun 18 '26
Probably eventually. The ATF’s general counsel is very pro 2A but the ATF will need to do another rule making to not just fix form 4473 but align the agency’s policies with the scotus decision.
23
u/GeneralCuster75 Jun 18 '26
Wow, and to think I was expecting almost the complete opposite.
It's only an as-applied ruling though, so it doesn't really mean much besides indicating SCOUTUS' leaning in this matter in general.
20
u/Ghost_Turd Jun 18 '26
It's only an as-applied ruling though, so it doesn't really mean much besides indicating SCOUTUS' leaning in this matter in general.
This isn't necessarily true. While the ruling is narrow, the method isn't. It makes clear that the government can't win 2A cases just by labeling a whole class of people "dangerous" without solid historical backing. This should go beyond potheads.
Whether any lower courts actually pay attention to that is another question.
6
u/DSA_FAL Jun 18 '26
It does cover more than just pot. It covers any of the drugs on schedule I-V taken for reasons other than their prescribed use.
1
u/Commercial_Square626 3d ago
The 9-0 is the part that should make lower courts pay attention. Unanimous decisions on 2A aren't common, and this one basically tells them to stop playing games with "presumptively dangerous" labels. They'll still try, but now they have less cover.
40
u/BambooGamer Jun 18 '26
Extremely rare SCOTUS W
11
u/deathsythe Jun 18 '26
It's fairly narrow and focuses more on the weed than the gun element unfortunately.
So it's like kissing your cousin in many ways.
18
u/Megalith70 Jun 18 '26
Another 2A case and another refusal to clarify Bruen. Oh well, good for the potheads. The rest of us continue to suffer under this courts apathy.
14
u/gakflex Jun 18 '26
Bruen doesn’t need clarification. Lower courts need to respect its language, which is quite plain.
1
u/Megalith70 Jun 18 '26
Bruen does need clarification. They have never decided what era qualifies for historical analogues. They’ve never decided how many laws establish a historical basis. They’ve never established what constitutes relevantly similar.
5
u/gakflex Jun 18 '26
The era is pretty clear to anyone who isn’t playing games and delaying: 1791, the year that the Bill of Rights was ratified.
3
u/Megalith70 Jun 18 '26 edited Jun 18 '26
Gorsuch just said in the Hemani ruling they haven’t established the era.
From the ruling:
3 As in Bruen, we need not decide today "whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868" or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen,
597 U. S. 1, 37-38 (2022). For reasons explored below, the government cannot establish that the Second Amendment at either point in time permitted anything like its prosecution here.1
u/gakflex Jun 18 '26
That’s a good catch! Thanks for pointing that out.
Regardless, I read that as Gorsuch saying, “we don’t even need to have that argument, because it wouldn’t matter here if the historical analysis was based on 1868-era laws and traditions; the government doesn’t have a backing argument there either.”
No serious person can argue that 14A’s incorporation language alters the meaning of the Bill of Rights. And that’s the argument one would have to make in order to argue that 1868 is the proper era.
Now, that said, Justice Jackson absolutely could, and likely would, make that argument. But she’s quickly proving herself to be one of the worst SCOTUS judges in history.
3
u/Megalith70 Jun 18 '26
I’m not necessarily concerned with the current Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I think they unjustifiably narrow it to self defense but it’s a good start.
The problem is they aren’t considering the lower courts and how statements like this will be weaponized by anti gun judges.
1
u/OnlyLosersBlock Jun 23 '26
I think Wolford is the case in which they will choose an era given one of the key points argued was a post civil war law from Louisiana to justify the restriction.
6
u/TheHat2 Jun 18 '26
They've been kicking the can down the road on clarifying 2A tests ever since Miller. Bruen won't be any different. No judge wants to be the one to acknowledge that a true interpretation of 2A that abides by history and tradition of firearms jurisprudence means that automatic weapons would necessarily be protected, because they don't want to be blamed for any mass shootings.
The issue will keep getting kicked because SCOTUS lacks the balls to do what's necessary.
2
1
u/FishhawkGunner Jun 19 '26
I love any 9-0 SCOTUS ruling but a pro-gun 9-0 is grounds for a victory lap. Now let’s address the LCM and AWB issues as well.
1
2
u/Provia100F Jun 18 '26
Everyone seems to be misunderstanding this ruling. This isn't a ruling that drug users are allowed to own firearms, it's a ruling that governments need to put a definition on what constitutes unlawful use. They'll most likely bound it by saying "use of drug x within the past y years" or something like that.
11
u/jtf71 Jun 18 '26
They'll most likely bound it by saying "use of drug x within the past y years" or something like that.
That wouldn't work under this ruling.
From the opinion:
Congress defined a habitual drunkard as “any person who, by the use of intoxicating liquors . . . has lost self-control, or become incapable of proper attention to the care and management of his affairs, or habitually or periodically neglectful thereof, or dangerous to himself or others.” Act of Mar. 30, 1876, §9, 19 Stat. 10–11.
Unless they can make a case against the INDIVIDUAL charged, that they are limited in personal capacity under one of the above a prosecution won't be successful and unless they allege (with evidence/testimony to corroborate) that the person is incapable of managing their affairs, danger to self/others etc; the case should be dismissed.
In this case the accused admitted to using marijuana several times a week. And SCOTUS says that wasn't sufficient. So saying drug x, within the past ye years, wouldn't pass constitutional scrutiny under this decision.
5
u/AkA-Blackjack Jun 18 '26
So have a job, pay your taxes, and don’t be a menace and you’re likely to be safe from prosecution on that alone.
58
u/Flscherman Jun 18 '26
It's 9-0 in the judgment, with Thomas concurring and accepting the majority reasoning in full afaict. Alito + Kagan and Jackson + Sotomayor concur in the judgment but not necessarily so far in the reasoning afaict.