Trump’s Solicitor General Argues Marijuana Users Owning Guns Creates Public Safety Risk, Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Ban

OG Article By Jason Beck Watch Today's Episode on YouTube X Rumble

June 23, 2025

In a recent Supreme Court brief, Acting Solicitor General Curtis Gannon, representing the Trump administration, argued that allowing marijuana users to possess firearms poses a “clear danger” to public safety. The filing addresses a case challenging federal restrictions on gun ownership for cannabis users, asserting that these prohibitions are consistent with the Second Amendment and historical firearm regulations.

Gannon emphasized that marijuana use is linked to increased risks of violence, mental health issues, and impaired judgment, which could exacerbate dangers when combined with gun ownership. The brief cites studies suggesting cannabis can contribute to aggressive behavior and cognitive impairment, arguing these factors justify the ban to protect public safety.

The case stems from a challenge by a Pennsylvania man, convicted of possessing firearms as a marijuana user, who claims the federal law violates his Second Amendment rights. The Justice Department counters that the restriction aligns with longstanding laws prohibiting gun ownership by individuals deemed untrustworthy or dangerous, such as felons or those with mental illnesses.

Gannon’s brief also references the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires gun laws to be rooted in historical tradition. The administration argues that bans on firearm possession by certain groups, including those using intoxicants, have historical precedent dating back to the Founding era.

Critics, including gun rights advocates and marijuana reform groups, argue the law unfairly penalizes cannabis users, especially in states where marijuana is legal. They contend the restriction lacks evidence tying marijuana use to gun violence and infringes on constitutional protections. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, have previously questioned the ban’s constitutionality, suggesting it may not align with historical standards.

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled oral arguments for the case, which could significantly impact federal gun laws and marijuana policy. The outcome may clarify whether current restrictions on cannabis users’ gun rights can withstand Second Amendment scrutiny in light of evolving state laws and public attitudes toward marijuana.