Key Takeaways
- The DOJ’s new rule allows cannabis users to restore their firearm rights, reflecting a shift in federal policy after a significant Supreme Court ruling.
- Under the Federal Firearm Rights Restoration rule, marijuana is excluded from the definition of ‘controlled substance,’ therefore removing presumptive disqualifications for users.
- Restoration is not automatic; applicants must show they do not pose a danger to public safety and pay a $30 fee for processing.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hemani established that marijuana use alone cannot disqualify someone from owning a firearm.
- The rule specifically applies to cannabis; users of other controlled substances still face disqualification under the same restoration framework.
For decades, federal law treated cannabis consumers the same way it treated people who posed documented dangers to public safety. Touch a plant, lose a constitutional right. No individualized assessment required. No proof of dangerousness needed. Just the fact of marijuana consumption was enough.
That logic has now officially collapsed at the federal executive level.
On August 17th, Attorney General Todd Blanche finalized the Department of Justice’s Federal Firearm Rights Restoration rule, a sweeping program that revives the long-dormant process under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) that allows prohibited individuals to apply to the Attorney General for restoration of their federal firearm rights. Buried inside that rule is a provision that is very significant for the cannabis community: marijuana has been removed from the rule’s definition of “controlled substance,” and cannabis consumers are no longer treated as presumptively dangerous under the restoration framework.
This is federal executive policy catching up to a major Supreme Court ruling. And it matters for millions of people.
What the DOJ’s Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Rule Actually Does
Congress originally created the restoration process in 1968 under the Gun Control Act, but since 1992 it had been effectively shut down. Congress prohibited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from using appropriated funds to process applications, leaving an estimated 30 million Americans with no meaningful path to recover their Second Amendment rights.
The new rule, which will be submitted to the Federal Register today, on August 20th, takes effect 30 days after publication. It reinstates a functioning application process directly under the Attorney General, bypassing the defunct ATF mechanism.
Restoration is not automatic. Each applicant must demonstrate to the Attorney General’s satisfaction that they are not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The DOJ will conduct individualized assessments, with strong presumptions against relief for violent felons, registered sex offenders, and others who present ongoing dangers to public safety.
The application carries a $30 fee, requires electronic fingerprints, criminal history records, and three sworn character references. The program will roll out in stages, with DOJ inviting applicants 30 days after publication, opening to the first 5,000 applicants at 75 days, and accepting 500 more applicants per round at 120 days.
How the Supreme Court’s Hemani Decision Forced This Change
The marijuana carve-out in the DOJ’s restoration rule does not exist in a vacuum. It flows directly from the Supreme Court’s unanimous June 18, 2026 decision in United States v. Hemani, which restructured how the federal government can restrict gun rights based on cannabis consumption.
Federal prosecutors charged Ali Danial Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that makes it a felony for an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm. The government’s case: Hemani used marijuana and owned a firearm securely stored in his home. No violence. No threat, or other crimes. Just a plant and a gun.
The Court rejected that logic 9-0.
Writing for a unanimous bench, the Court stated that the government was asking it “to conclude that anyone who regularly uses marijuana is categorically violent and dangerous without any further showing.” The majority found that the historical laws the government cited “targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.” The government’s analogies failed. The prosecution violated the Second Amendment.
However, the Court left room for future prosecutions where individualized evidence of dangerousness exists or where a substance “renders its users dangerous because of its potency or for some other reason.” But marijuana use alone, without more, no longer qualifies.
What the Marijuana Carve-Out Means in the Rule’s Text
Under the new definitions at 28 CFR § 107.1, “‘Controlled substance’ has the meaning given the term in 27 CFR 478.11, except that it does not include marijuana.” The term “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” similarly excludes those whose only unlawful drug history involves marijuana.
This means cannabis consumers seeking firearm rights restoration no longer face a presumption of ineligibility under the drug-use provisions of the rule. Applicants and their character references no longer need to confirm that the applicant avoids marijuana use or addiction.
Worth noting: the DOJ acknowledged that excluding marijuana “addicts,” not just marijuana “users,” goes beyond the strict facts of Hemani. The Court’s ruling focused on a consumer who kept a firearm safely stored. The DOJ extended the carve-out to cover addiction as well, explaining that distinguishing between a “user” and an “addict” would be a highly fact-specific and administratively unworkable inquiry that would undermine the entire restoration program’s efficiency.
The DOJ also pointed to public comments it received during the rulemaking process. Of the 15,559 total comments submitted, a significant portion focused specifically on marijuana users, with commenters arguing that regular cannabis consumption does not render someone dangerous and that casual alcohol users face no such presumption when seeking restoration.
Does This Mean Marijuana Consumers Automatically Get Their Gun Rights Back?
No. And this detail matters.
The marijuana carve-out removes cannabis from the presumptive disqualifier list, meaning that marijuana use alone will not automatically result in a denial. But restoration is still an individualized process. If a cannabis consumer has other disqualifying history, including violent felony convictions, recent drug trafficking convictions, or other ongoing prohibited status, those factors will still affect the outcome.
The Attorney General retains broad discretion to consider an applicant’s “past or present use or abuse of controlled substances” as one factor in the overall review, even for marijuana. Removing the presumption does not remove marijuana from the conversation entirely.
For people whose only bar to firearm rights was marijuana use or addiction, and who have no other disqualifying history, the path to restoration just became significantly more accessible.
It is also worth separating this rule from the standard gun purchase process. The standard ATF Form 4473, filled out by anyone buying a firearm from a federally licensed dealer, is a separate matter. Advocates expect ATF to issue updated guidance on that form following Hemani, but that change has not yet been finalized.
What Happens to Other Controlled Substance Users Under the Rule?
People prohibited under § 922(g)(3) based on substances other than marijuana are not automatically included in the carve-out. However, the DOJ notes an important practical reality: a drug-use prohibition is not permanent. Because federal background check records (NICS Indices) retain drug-use entries for only one year, a person can effectively exit the prohibited category by stopping use and allowing 12 months to pass. Those individuals would not need to apply for restoration at all.
Before ATF’s recent rule changes, the NICS Indices showed 54,136 active entries for unlawful drug users as of December 31, 2025. By May 31, 2026, that number had dropped to 6,169 following updated definitions of what constitutes an “unlawful user.” That is an 89 percent reduction, making the restoration process largely irrelevant for the vast majority of people previously flagged under the drug-use category.
What This Means for the Cannabis Community Going Forward
The federal government spent years arguing in court that marijuana consumers were categorically dangerous, drawing comparisons between cannabis users and the mentally ill to justify disarmament. The Supreme Court rejected that argument unanimously. The DOJ’s restoration rule now formally reflects that rejection at the policy level.
Kostas Moros, director of legal research and education for the Second Amendment Foundation, told Marijuana Moment that his organization is “pleased to see the DOJ acknowledge the recent Hemani ruling and adapt the rule to it, which will help a large number of affected people get their gun rights back.” He added that the rule, paired with expected ATF changes to Form 4473, means “the massive injustice of denied Second Amendment rights for mere casual use of marijuana will soon be in the dustbin of history.”
Nearly two-thirds of states have legalized marijuana in some form. The Supreme Court has spoken unanimously. The federal government is now rewriting its own restoration framework in response. That is a meaningful shift, even if the work is not finished.
Cannabis consumers interested in the Federal Firearm Rights Restoration program can visit justice.gov/ffrr for eligibility information, application instructions, and updates on when applications open.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not automatically. The rule applies to the restoration application process under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) for people who have already lost their federal firearm rights. It does not change the standard gun purchase process through ATF Form 4473. Separate ATF guidance on how cannabis consumers are treated during routine firearm purchases is expected following the Hemani ruling but has not yet been finalized.
On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the federal government cannot prosecute someone for possessing a firearm solely because they use marijuana. The Court found that applying 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) to Ali Danial Hemani, who kept a firearm safely stored at home while being a marijuana consumer, violated the Second Amendment. The ruling requires individualized evidence of dangerousness rather than a categorical ban based on cannabis use alone.
Any person currently prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) may apply. However, strong presumptive disqualifications remain for violent felons, registered sex offenders, those serving sentences or in pretrial programs, and users of controlled substances other than marijuana. Each case is assessed individually, and restoration is not guaranteed for anyone.
The marijuana carve-out applies specifically to cannabis. Users of other federally controlled substances are still subject to the drug-use presumptive disqualifier under the restoration framework. That said, drug-use prohibitions under federal background check records expire after 12 months of non-use, meaning most people in this category can exit the prohibited status without needing the restoration program at all.
The rule was finalized on August 17, 2026 and submitted to the Federal Register on August 20, 2026. It takes effect 30 days after publication. Applications will begin opening in stages, with the first 5,000 applicants invited at 75 days post-publication and the $30 application fee beginning at 120 days. Visit justice.gov/ffrr for current timelines.
Yes. The marijuana carve-out removes cannabis from the presumptive disqualifier list, but the Attorney General can still consider an applicant’s substance use history as part of the broader individualized review. Removing the presumption does not mean marijuana is completely irrelevant to the outcome, only that it no longer creates an automatic bar.
