Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.4K

Under federal law, "unlawful" users of drugs are not allowed to possess firearms. But what exactly does that mean? Is someone who smoked a joint ten years ago forbidden from exercising their Second Amendment rights? What about someone who occasionally uses drugs, but is not addicted to them?

The Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3) in early March when it hears oral arguments in U.S. v. Hemani, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (and its parent agency the Department of Justice) are already taking a second look at the current interpretation of the statute, which Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued applies only to "habitual" drug users who are currently engaged in unlawful drug use.

The proposed rule would read, in part, that “[a] person who regularly uses a controlled substance over an extended period of time continuing into the present, without a lawful prescription or in a manner substantially different from that prescribed by a licensed physician, is an unlawful user of a controlled substance.” It would also clarify that someone is not considered an unlawful user if "the person has ceased regularly unlawfully using the substance, or if the person’s unlawful use is isolated or sporadic or does not otherwise demonstrate a pattern of ongoing use. A person is also not an unlawful user if the person, while using a lawfully prescribed controlled substance, deviates slightly or immaterially from the instructions of the prescribing physician.”

> Under federal law, "unlawful" users of drugs are not allowed to possess firearms. But what exactly does that mean? Is someone who smoked a joint ten years ago forbidden from exercising their Second Amendment rights? What about someone who occasionally uses drugs, but is not addicted to them? > The Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3) in early March when it hears oral arguments in U.S. v. Hemani, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (and its parent agency the Department of Justice) are already taking a second look at the current interpretation of the statute, which Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued applies only to "habitual" drug users who are currently engaged in unlawful drug use. ------------------------------------- > The proposed rule would read, in part, that “[a] person who regularly uses a controlled substance over an extended period of time continuing into the present, without a lawful prescription or in a manner substantially different from that prescribed by a licensed physician, is an unlawful user of a controlled substance.” It would also clarify that someone is not considered an unlawful user if "the person has ceased regularly unlawfully using the substance, or if the person’s unlawful use is isolated or sporadic or does not otherwise demonstrate a pattern of ongoing use. A person is also not an unlawful user if the person, while using a lawfully prescribed controlled substance, deviates slightly or immaterially from the instructions of the prescribing physician.”
You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (7).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

We had helmet laws here for a long time Amazingly enough we got rid of them. Seatbelts are still mandatory though. You also used to not be able to buy alcohol on Sundays here.