The Gun Rights of Drug Users Are Up for Grabs at the Supreme Court

“These laws may address a comparable problem—preventing intoxicated individuals from carrying weapons—but they do not impose a comparable burden on the right holder,” Judge Kurt Engelhardt wrote for the panel. “In other words, they pass the ‘why’ but not the ‘how’ test. Taken together, the statues provide support for banning the carry of firearms while actively intoxicated. Section 922(g)(3) goes much further: it bans all possession, and it does so for an undefined set of ‘user,’ even while they are not intoxicated.” (Emphasis his.)

Earlier this year, the Fifth Circuit sided with Hemani on his Second Amendment challenge by reiterating its ruling in Connelly. The Justice Department then urged the Supreme Court to intervene in a petition for review in June. Solicitor General John Sauer emphasized that the Trump administration supported the Second Amendment, but also argued that it fit within the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulations.

Most of the government’s emphasis centered on the alcohol analogy. “If anything, Section 922(g)(3) rests on an even stronger justification than laws about drunkards,” the Justice Department told the court. “Habitual users of drugs, which are unlawful, pose a greater danger than habitual users of alcohol, which was legal at the founding and remained legal for most of American history.”