Show Notes

Episode 206. Second Amendment vs. Federal Drug User Gun Ban: Stephen Halbrook Breaks It Down

Constitutional scholar and Second Amendment expert, Stephen Halbrook, joins Alex Ooley for an in-depth discussion on a major pending Supreme Court case involving the federal ban on firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances—particularly marijuana users. They break down the United States v. Hemani case, historical analogues under Bruen, as-applied vs. facial challenges, and what this means for gun rights moving forward. The conversation also covers other key Second Amendment issues percolating in the courts, including public carry restrictions and “assault weapon”/magazine bans.

Guest 

Stephen Halbrook – Renowned Second Amendment attorney, historian, and author. 

Key Topics & Timestamps

00:21 – Introduction and welcome back

01:26 – Overview of the federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) prohibiting “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing firearms

04:03 – Details of the US v. Hemani case: marijuana user, as-applied challenge, government’s attempt to muddy the waters

05:23 – New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen framework: text, history, and tradition test

06:53 – Government’s historical analogues (intoxication, dangerousness) and why they may fall short

07:01 – “Is an unlawful user” – present tense vs. past use; vagueness concerns

08:34 – Comparison to United States v. Rahimi (domestic violence restraining orders)

11:07 – Facial vs. as-applied challenges explained with Rahimi example

12:58 – Limits of historical analogues for marijuana users

15:46 – Potential outcomes and lingering problems with the statute

16:05 – Did Rahimi weaken Bruen? Halbrook’s analysis of surety laws and “going armed” analogues

17:26 – Upcoming public carry case from Hawaii

19:16 – “Assault weapon” bans and standard-capacity magazine restrictions – outlook for Supreme Court review

21:02 – Justice Kavanaugh’s prior views on DC “assault weapon” ban

22:59 – Status of major circuit cases and need for more percolation

23:25 – 922(g) challenges overall (felons, illegal aliens, etc.) – mostly as-applied

25:21 – Closing remarks and museum mention

Main Takeaways

• The Hemani case tests whether regular marijuana users can be categorically disarmed under the Second Amendment post-Bruen.

• The government bears the burden of proving historical analogues; simple intoxication laws may not suffice for non-intoxicated, regular users.

• Even a win for the defendant would likely be narrow (as-applied) rather than striking down the entire prohibition.

  
  

Featured Resources

• Stephen Halbrook’s books and scholarship on Second Amendment history  

• https://stephenhalbrook.com/

• Reason Magazine

• https://reason.com/volokh/2026/03/02/second-amendment-roundup-oral-argument-in-hemani/

• https://reason.com/volokh/2026/02/01/second-amendment-roundup-5th-circuit-holds-disarming-for-meth-conviction-violates-2nd-amendment/

• Supreme Court re Hemani, Bruen, and Rahimi

• https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/

• https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/united-states-v-rahimi/

• https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/united-states-v-hemani/

• Stephen Halbrook on the Forge of Freedom

• https://forgeoffreedom.com/episode-188-the-legal-battle-for-the-second-amendment-with-stephen-halbrook/

• https://forgeoffreedom.com/episode-46-americas-rifle-the-case-for-the-ar-15-by-stephen-p-halbrook/

DISCLAIMER:  This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal, medical, or financial advice. The views expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organizations or individuals they may mention. The hosts and guests are not liable for any damages that may result from someone listening to this podcast.