The Surpreme Court appears likely to overturn federal gun control law that bars drug users from owning firearms.

 

Stock photo of a marijuana joint. NBC News/AFP/Getty.

The Supreme Court appears likely to overturn or modify a federal gun control law that bars drug users from owning firearms. NBC News. The case, United States v. Hemani involves Ali Daniel Hemani, who was arrested in Texas by federal officers after being found with marijuana, cocaine and a handgun. Hemani's lawyers argued that the law that bars gun ownership for users of drugs was unconstitutional under the Bruen test, which requires gun laws to have a historical precedent. The Government's argument was that there were historical gun bans for "habitual drunkards", but Hemani's lawyers argued that the standard was a lot higher than simply possessing and using drugs. The court seemed swayed by that argument, with justices noting that simply using drugs did not make someone dangerous and even noted that the bar for habitual drunkards was extremely high, noting the founding fathers own heroic levels of drinking. The case attracted odd bedfellows, with the ACLU, NORML and gun rights groups supporting Hemani while the Trump Administration and gun control groups supporting the law. 

My Comment:

I have written about this law before, but it was in the context of Hunter Biden's conviction of the same crime. Hunter Biden, infamously, lied on his federal 4473 form that everyone has to fill out before buying a gun as part of the background check. There is a box, 11e, that asks if you use drugs and Biden, as a heavy drug user, lied. At the time I thought Hunter Biden might bring the case to the Supreme Court, but Joe Biden pardoned him before the issue became relevant. Thankfully Hemani was able to bring a similar case. 

I do think that the law,  (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)), should be overturned. Being a drug user should bar you from your constitutional right to own firearms. Actually using a gun while high should be a crime, outside of active self defense situations, but simply owning a firearm and using drugs does not make you necessarily dangerous. 

Making the issue even more dumb is the fact that marijuana counts as one of the drugs. Though I am no fan of weed, it's absurd that you are committing a federal crime buying a gun after using a substance that is legal in 40 of 50 states for medicinal use and 24 out of 50 for personal use. And alcohol, a drug that does affect behavior, is not one of the drugs. 

I do think that there is a precedent for laws that could bar drug users from owning firearms, but the standard is going to be extremely high. Habitual drunkards is a level of degeneracy that was hard to reach even back in the time of the founding fathers. Are there drug addicts that reach that level today? Absolutely! And in those cases you probably could bar them from gun ownership. 

But I really do think that there has to be some kind of ruling from the government that says you are a degenerate drug user, like some kind of commitment to a treatment center or strong evidence of bad behavior related to drug use. Given that most degenerate drug users are going to be barred from gun ownership due to felony convictions or being committed to a mental health center, it's kind of a moot point. 

So how will the court rule? I am guessing that the law will be at least partially overturned. The Justices, even the liberal ones, seemed very skeptical of the law as it was written. I don't expect a full repeal of the law, but I would be surprised if the law wasn't seriously modified. 

I'd take the win in either case. Though marijuana isn't legal in my state, and even if it was, I would never try it so I wouldn't have to lie on my federal 4473 form if I ever buy another gun. I don't really have a desire to try pot regardless, but I do think it's ridiculous that if I wanted to I would have to give up my gun rights to do so. That absolutely should change.

Finally, I have to say that I am disappointed that the Trump administration is defending this law. Though Trump has been far better for gun rights than the Democrats, he's also squishy on the issue and this is a good example of that being the case. To be honest, he's also been squishy on marijuana issue as well, going through the trouble of rescheduling the drug, but still having a very baby boomer opinion on the drug and it's users (yes, I know Trump isn't a baby boomer, but still). Folks accuse me of always defending Trump, but this is another case where I do think he should be criticized.  

Mass shooting in Austin Texas appears to have been an act of terrorism.

 

An image of the shooter, Ndiaga Diagne. Fox News.

A mass shooting in Austin Texas is being investigated as an act of terrorism. Fox News. The shooter, 53 year old Ndiaga Diagne, opened fire from his SUV around 2:00 am at a crowd gathered outside of a bar with a handgun. He then got out of his vehicle and continued firing until he was shot and killed by police. Two people were killed by the gunman and 14 others were wounded. The suspect was a naturalized citizen originally from Senegal. He was wearing a shirt that said "Property of Allah" and an undershirt that had the Iranian flag underneath. Despite the motivation likely being Islamic terrorism, no direct links to any terror group or the Iranian government are suspected at this time. 

My Comment:

Looks like the conflict with Iran has stirred up the crazies. This guy was not part of any organization but decided to pick up a rifle and a handgun anyways. Supposedly he has a criminal history and a history of mental illness. He fits the profile of a "lone wolf" terrorist and those do tend to be stirred up by current events. 

I think there is almost zero chance of this guy being directly connected to Iran. He was from Senegal, not Iran and no connection has been found between him and Iran. And this was not an all organized attack. The attacker just went to a popular night-life location and opened fire, that's not exactly a complicated plan. I would expect that a state sponsored terror attack would be a lot more sophisticated than that and would target something more important than a crowd at bar close. 

Indeed, I think the idea of Iran having a bunch of sleeper cells in America is pretty provably false at this point. Iran did not activate any sleeper cells when the United States bombed Iran's nuclear facilities or during the war with Israel. I am guessing if they had large numbers of sleeper agents they would have activated them last year. Iranian Americans are generally against the Iranian government as well. 

Thankfully, this attack was put down pretty quickly. Indeed, it seems like the attacker made a pretty bad mistake in opening fire with his handgun first as opposed to his rifle. This gave the cops time to kill him quickly after his first attack. It also may be why so few people died, I can't imagine his pistol fire was accurate from the seat of his car and the rounds were a lot less powerful. 

There are some pretty obvious questions as to why this guy was allowed to stay in the United States and get citizenship. He was originally a tourist overstay from 2000 but was allowed to be a permanent resident in 2006 after a marriage to an American citizen, and got his own citizenship in 2013. Of course, none of this would have been happened if he had been deported after overstaying his visa. 

It's rather surreal that this attacker may have been tweeting at a sitting US Congressman, Randy Fine. Fine was in the news for being rather anti-Muslim and Diangne may have tweeted at him after Fine said that if you hear "Allahu Akbar" someone's about to get killed. I don't know if it's confirmed that this was the shooter or not, but still, it's bizarre. 

The Muslim terrorist in Austin had tweeted at me.

He was upset I said that when someone screams Allahu Akhbar there’s a good chance someone is going to get killed.

That’s exactly what this Muslim terrorist was screaming last night as he murdered Americans.

The time for… https://t.co/PbgJBoC4DB

— Congressman Randy Fine (@RepFine) March 1, 2026

So, is there potential for more attacks like this? Like I said, I think sleeper attacks are unlikely, but lone wolf attacks like this are fairly likely from the Islamic community. These kinds of attacks often follow major media events like the conflict with Iran. And I don't think it will just be the Islamic community that will be stirred up. The far left could be a threat as well, given how deranged they have become about President Trump. Such attacks aren't certain, but are possible, so it would be smart to keep your head on a swivel until the war ends...