The debate over Second Amendment rights and federal cannabis prohibition has reached yet another critical stage. Erik Harris, a Pennsylvania man prosecuted for lying about his marijuana use on federal firearms forms, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case. This petition could reshape how millions of Americans who use cannabis in legal states exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.
Harris’s case represents a growing legal challenge to federal gun laws that treat cannabis users as inherently dangerous, despite growing evidence that recreational marijuana use carries no greater public safety risk than alcohol and other legal substances. His attorneys argue that current federal statutes create an unconstitutional barrier between cannabis users and their Second Amendment rights, particularly as cannabis legalization continues expanding across the nation.
The petition comes at a time when roughly 74 percent of Americans live in states where marijuana is legal in some form, yet federal law continues to classify all cannabis users as prohibited persons under gun ownership statutes. This disconnect has created what legal experts describe as a “confusing regulatory landscape” that strips constitutional rights from otherwise law-abiding citizens.
The Case Against Erik Harris
In early 2019, Erik Harris purchased three firearms from licensed dealers in Pennsylvania. During each transaction, he completed federal Form 4473, which asks whether the purchaser is “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” controlled substances. Harris answered “no” to this question, despite admitting to police that he frequently smoked marijuana recreationally.
Federal prosecutors charged Harris with six counts: three for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of a controlled substance under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), and three for knowingly making false statements on his firearms purchase forms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). Notably, the government never alleged that Harris was intoxicated when purchasing the firearms or while carrying them.
The case gained momentum after one of Harris’s handguns was found in a friend’s possession just five days after purchase. Harris reported the weapon stolen, but during the subsequent police investigation, he admitted to regular marijuana use. This admission led to federal charges and ultimately a sentence of six months incarceration and three years supervised release.
Constitutional Arguments and Legal Strategy
Harris’s legal team has crafted a two-pronged constitutional challenge that could have far-reaching implications for cannabis users nationwide. Their primary argument centers on whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment when applied to individuals who use marijuana recreationally but were not intoxicated during firearm possession.
The defense argues that current federal law strips Second Amendment rights based on “loose predictive judgments” about cannabis users’ likelihood to pose danger if armed. This approach, they contend, lacks the historical foundation required by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which established that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Harris’s attorneys also challenge the constitutionally vague nature of the “unlawful user” designation in federal law. The statute provides no clear timeframe for what constitutes current use versus past use, leaving law-abiding citizens uncertain about their legal status and constitutional rights.
The Alcohol Double Standard
Perhaps the most compelling aspect of Harris’s petition involves the glaring inconsistency in how federal law treats different substances. The petition notes that under the government’s logic, federal law could constitutionally disarm “the millions of ordinary Americans who regularly drink wine with dinner or enjoy a beer after work.”
This comparison highlights a fundamental inequity in current federal policy. Alcohol consumption is responsible for thousands of gun-related deaths annually, with studies consistently showing strong correlations between alcohol use and violent crimes involving firearms. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has reported that alcohol is a factor in approximately 40 percent of violent crimes in California, including those involving firearms.
Cannabis use, by contrast, shows dramatically different patterns. Research indicates that marijuana users are statistically less likely to engage in violent behavior compared to alcohol users. It’s not crazy to put together that cannabis-related gun crimes primarily stem from the illicit market created by prohibition, rather than the pharmacological effects of the substance itself.
Federal policy continues to treat cannabis users as inherently dangerous while ignoring the well-documented risks associated with alcohol consumption. This disparity becomes even more pronounced considering that alcohol remains legal and socially acceptable, while cannabis users in legal states face federal firearm prohibitions.
Growing Legal Conflicts Across Federal Courts
Harris’s case exists within a larger landscape of conflicting federal court decisions that have created legal uncertainty nationwide. A recent Congressional Research Service report noted that a growing number of federal courts are “finding constitutional problems in the application of at least some parts” of the federal firearms prohibition as it applies to cannabis users.
These conflicting rulings have created what the National Rifle Association describes as a “confusing regulatory landscape” that impacts Americans’ Second Amendment rights differently depending on their geographic location. Some federal circuits have upheld the prohibition, while others have found constitutional violations, leaving cannabis users uncertain about their legal status.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Harris’s conviction in July 2025, but Judge Thomas Ambro’s partial dissent highlighted the constitutional problems with the government’s position. Ambro argued that the government must prove Harris’s marijuana use causes him to “pose a clear threat of physical violence to another” before constitutionally disarming him.
Cannabis, Guns, and Your Rights: What’s Next?
The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear Harris’s case could have profound implications extending far beyond firearms law. Currently, over 50 million Americans live in states with legal recreational cannabis, while millions more have access to medical marijuana programs.
These individuals face an impossible choice under current federal law: exercise their state-legal right to use cannabis or maintain their federal constitutional right to bear arms. This just continues to highlight the challenges arising from the federal government’s classification of cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance, even as many states have moved toward legalization.
Legal experts suggest that a favorable Supreme Court ruling could undermine other aspects of federal cannabis prohibition. If the Court determines that cannabis use alone cannot justify stripping constitutional rights without evidence of actual impairment or dangerousness, similar logic might apply to other areas where federal prohibition conflicts with state legalization efforts.
The case also highlights the urgent need for federal cannabis policy reform. Removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act would eliminate the legal basis for treating cannabis users differently from alcohol users under federal firearms law, while also reducing the illegal market activities that contribute to actual cannabis-related gun crimes.
Path Forward on Gun Rights For Cannabis Users
Harris’s petition is more than an individual’s fight for constitutional rights. It symbolizes the growing recognition that federal cannabis prohibition creates unjust consequences that extend far beyond drug policy into fundamental constitutional protections.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to discuss Harris’s petition and similar cases in October 2025. Legal observers note that the Department of Justice has acknowledged the inconsistent federal court rulings and has requested that the Supreme Court consider the broader constitutional questions surrounding cannabis users’ Second Amendment rights.
The Erik Harris case forces a fundamental question about American justice and constitutional rights. Should law-abiding citizens lose their Second Amendment protections based on legal conduct in their home states?
Can federal law constitutionally treat cannabis users as inherently dangerous while ignoring equivalent or greater risks from alcohol consumption?
These questions demand answers not just for Harris, but for millions of Americans navigating the complex intersection of state cannabis legalization and federal constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear this case will signal how seriously the nation’s highest court takes these constitutional conflicts created by outdated federal cannabis prohibition.
As state-level cannabis legalization continues expanding and public support for reform grows, federal policy must evolve to match constitutional principles and scientific evidence rather than decades-old stigma and fear.
The Harris petition offers the Supreme Court an opportunity to address these critical issues and provide much-needed clarity for cannabis users seeking to exercise their full constitutional rights.
