Proposed DOJ Rule Says Marijuana Users Likely Wouldn’t Be Eligible To Have Gun Rights Restored

OG Article By Ben Adlin Watch Today's LIVE Episode on X, and Rumble

and Youtube

July 31, 2025

Overview

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is seeking public comments on a proposed rule aimed at guiding the restoration of Second Amendment gun rights for individuals disarmed under federal law. The rule, signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi and published recently, identifies certain applicants, including cannabis users, as "presumptively ineligible for relief" due to perceived "lack of respect for the law and potential dangerousness."

Key Provisions of the Proposed Rule

Federal Law and Cannabis Users

Under federal law, specifically Section 922(g)(3), unlawful drug users, including those using state-legal cannabis, are barred from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition. The DOJ's filing reinforces this stance, categorizing cannabis consumers alongside other "unlawful users of controlled substances" as likely ineligible for relief under the proposed rule.

"Persons currently subject to the prohibitions in 922…(g)(3) (unlawful users of controlled substances)…would presumptively be denied relief because, having an adjudicated status that indicates a lack of respect for the law and potential dangerousness, they are unlikely to meet the statutory criteria."

Flexibility in Decision-Making

The rule allows the attorney general to consider "all relevant circumstances" when evaluating applications for gun rights restoration, rather than relying solely on the facts leading to the firearm disability. This means that while current cannabis users may face rejection, individuals with past drug convictions who no longer use drugs could potentially have their rights restored.

"Such persons can ordinarily take themselves out of the prohibited category by discontinuing their unlawful conduct."

Notification to Local Law Enforcement

Applications for relief will be reported to the chief law enforcement officer in the applicant's locality. Local law enforcement may also serve as a conduit for additional relevant information about the applicant.

Public Feedback

The DOJ is accepting public comments on the proposal for 90 days, until October 20. Comments can be submitted via the DOJ’s Federal Register posting.

Legal Challenges and Court Rulings

Recent federal court decisions have questioned the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3), particularly its broad restriction on gun ownership for drug users. Key rulings include:

• Eighth Circuit: A three-judge panel vacated a conviction under 922(g)(3), stating that the prohibition is justified only in specific circumstances, not universally. The court noted that individualized factual determinations may not always be necessary if the government can prove a particular drug renders an entire class of users dangerous.

• Third Circuit: In contrast, this court emphasized the need for "individualized judgments" to assess the constitutionality of 922(g)(3) as applied to specific defendants, citing historical gun laws based on individual assessments rather than categorical bans.

• Fifth Circuit and Others: Courts, including a federal judge in Rhode Island and the Fifth Circuit in the Daniels case, have ruled the ban unconstitutional in certain applications, citing a lack of historical precedent for such a sweeping restriction.

A Congressional Research Service report highlights that a growing number of federal courts are finding constitutional issues with parts of the firearms prohibition.

Supreme Court Consideration

The issue may soon reach the U.S. Supreme Court. In U.S. v. Hemani, the government argues that Section 922(g)(3) is constitutional, targeting "habitual users of unlawful drugs" who pose a "clear danger of misusing firearms." The statute, it claims, imposes only a temporary ban, as individuals can regain their rights by ceasing drug use.

"Section 922(g)(3) complies with the Second Amendment…That provision targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms: habitual users of unlawful drugs."

However, the term "habitual" does not appear in the statute, which instead refers to anyone "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance."

Two related cases, U.S. v. Cooper and U.S. v. Baxter, also challenge the constitutionality of 922(g)(3). In Cooper, the Eighth Circuit dismissed a three-year sentence for a cannabis user, stating that categorical disarmament based on drug use lacks historical precedent. In Baxter, the court found insufficient factual findings to uphold the ban as applied.

The DOJ has requested the Supreme Court prioritize Hemani, possibly due to the defendant’s additional cocaine use and drug-selling history, which may make the case less sympathetic to drug users’ rights. A ruling in Hemani could impact the outcomes of Cooper and Baxter.

Broader Context and State-Level Developments

DOJ’s Historical Arguments

The DOJ, under the Biden administration, has consistently argued that cannabis users with firearms pose risks to public safety, including improper weapon storage and increased likelihood of criminal activity to support drug use. These claims have been challenged by advocacy groups and lawmakers.

Trump Administration’s Stance

At a 2023 NRA conference, former President Trump suggested a link between “genetically engineered” cannabis and mass shootings, calling for FDA investigations into cannabis and psychiatric drugs as potential causes of gun violence. The current Trump administration’s approach to these cases remains unclear.

State-Level Actions

• Pennsylvania: A recent bill aims to remove state barriers for medical cannabis patients seeking to carry firearms.

• Colorado: An initiative to protect cannabis consumers’ Second Amendment rights failed to qualify for the November ballot due to insufficient signatures.

• Kentucky: The ATF warned that participation in the state’s upcoming medical cannabis program would prohibit residents from buying or possessing firearms under federal law. Bipartisan lawmakers introduced legislation urging federal reforms, supported by Gov. Andy Beshear, who advocates for broader federal cannabis policy changes.

NRA and Advocacy Perspectives

The National Rifle Association’s lobbying arm has noted that recent court rulings have created a “confusing regulatory landscape” for cannabis users’ gun rights. It acknowledges that cannabis use spans a wide range of individuals, many of whom are law-abiding and seek to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

“Cannabis use is no longer limited to the domain of indigenous religious customs or youth-oriented counterculture and now includes a wide variety of people who use it for medicinal or recreational reasons.”

Conclusion

The DOJ’s proposed rule underscores the tension between federal cannabis laws and Second Amendment rights, with ongoing court challenges questioning the constitutionality of blanket firearm bans for cannabis users. As the issue heads toward potential Supreme Court review, the outcomes of cases like Hemani, Cooper, and Baxter could reshape the legal landscape for cannabis consumers seeking to restore their gun rights.