The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in United States v. Hemani.
The Court decided that the federal statute that prohibits the possession or ownership of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” violates the Second Amendment when applied to regular marijuana users.
This ruling could impact individuals who wants to purchase a firearm from a federal firearms licensee. To do so, a person must fill out form 4473 from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and undergo a background check. One of the questions on this ATF form asks: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”
That question will need to be changed.
Indeed, this legality made a lot of news during the Biden administration as former President Joe Biden’s (D) son Hunter was charged with lying on Form 4473—a crime, among possible others, that President Biden pardoned his son for.
In this particular U.S. Supreme Court case, the government charged Ali Danial Hemani with one count of violating the statute in February 2023. Hemani was investigated for an unrelated crime, and when FBI agents searched his home, they found a pistol and marijuana.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit subsequently found the federal law unconstitutional in most cases and ruled that it could only be applied to those who are “presently impaired.”
The U.S. Department of Justice appealed, arguing that the law should be upheld because habitual drug users with firearms present “unique dangers to society.”
This issue is complex partly because, while marijuana remains a controlled substance at the federal level, it has also been legalized in nearly half the states. Further, the Trump administration has made recent moves to shift how marijuana is classified by the federal government.
When asking the Supreme Court to hear this case, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that “[t]he Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that is essential to ordered liberty,” and that “[u]njustifiable restrictions on that right present a grave threat to Americans’ most cherished freedoms.”But, Sauer claimed, the federal law at the center of the case is one of the “narrow circumstances in which the government may justifiably burden that right.”
Sauer maintained that the law “imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction—one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use.” Also, he wrote that the law “stands solidly within our Nation’s history and tradition of regulation” as there were Founding-era restrictions on the possession of guns by “habitual drunkards.”
The U.S. Supreme Court just unanimously rejected these last claims.
“Affording the government ‘broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun’ would risk allowing it to ‘quickly swallow’ the Second Amendment,” ruled the Court in Hemani.
Commenting on the decision, NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford stated, “Today’s unanimous decision in United States v. Hemani is a major victory for the Second Amendment and peaceable gun owners across the United States. The court correctly rejected the government’s attempt to disarm millions of responsible citizens—without any pre-deprivation process—based solely on their status as occasional marijuana users. As the NRA emphasized in our amicus brief, no one should be deprived of their God-given right to keep and bear arms for engaging in nonviolent conduct, and there is no historical justification for doing so.”
A federal firearm-rights restoration process is reopening after more than three decades, but the Second Amendment remains a constitutional right—not a government-issued privilege. AI-generated illustration by AmmoLand News.
United States Attorney General Todd Blanche finalized a federal regulation governing the restoration of federal firearm rights. The new process allows eligible individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms to apply to have those rights restored.
“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” said Attorney General Todd Blanche. “This rule establishes a rigorous, common-sense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration.”
The signed rule has been transmitted to the Federal Register. DOJ cautions that the currently available text is unofficial until formally published.
A Restoration Process Congress Left Dormant for Decades
Section 922(g) prohibits certain categories of people (e.g., felons, domestic violence misdemeanants, unlawful drug users, fugitives, certain aliens, those under domestic violence restraining orders, etc.) from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms or ammunition in or affecting commerce.
Section 925(c), however, has long authorized the Attorney General to grant relief if the applicant shows they “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety” and that granting relief “would not be contrary to the public interest.”
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) previously administered this process by delegation. Still, Congress defunded it via appropriations riders starting in 1992, rendering the program inoperative for over 30 years.
In March 2025, DOJ issued an interim final rule withdrawing the ATF delegation. In July 2025, it published a notice of proposed rulemaking with detailed criteria. After receiving over 15,500 comments (roughly 91% supportive of restoring a workable process), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized the rule.
The program will now be operated through the Office of the Pardon Attorney rather than ATF, although the Attorney General retains the ultimate decision-making authority.
When Will Applications Open?
The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, but DOJ plans to roll out the application process in stages.
According to the Department’s current Federal Firearm Rights Restoration website:
Thirty days after publication, DOJ will begin inviting candidates to apply.
Seventy-five days after publication, the application will open to the public, beginning with the first 5,000 applicants.
At 120 days, DOJ will accept another 500 applicants and begin collecting the application fee.
The Department directs prospective applicants to justice.gov/ffrr for updated eligibility information, application instructions, and the eventual online application.
Who Will Be Presumptively Disqualified?
According to the DOJ, the rule aims to protect Second Amendment rights while ensuring public safety. Relief is discretionary and guided by statutory standards.
Several offenses are presumptively permanent disqualifications. These include violent felonies (homicide, kidnapping, terrorism, stalking, and other crimes of violence), convictions involving brandishing or discharging a firearm, sex offenses requiring registration under SORNA that also trigger a § 922(g) prohibition, and felony-level domestic violence.
There will also be other time-limited presumptive disqualifications, including drug trafficking convictions or misdemeanor domestic violence: at least 10 years after completing the sentence (including probation/supervised release), and other felony convictions: at least 5 years after completing the sentence.
Other statuses that are presumptively ineligible are being a fugitive from justice (§ 922(g)(2)), unlawfully present aliens or certain nonimmigrants (§ 922(g)(5)), and persons subject to qualifying domestic violence restraining orders (§ 922(g)(8)).
The final presumptively ineligible status is being an unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substances (§ 922(g)(3)) — until the pattern of use ends. That final category seems to be at odds with the United States Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Hemani. Still, the DOJ does not believe it is at odds because the Hemani opinion was narrow.
What the Supreme Court Held in Hemani
The Supreme Court held that the federal government could not prosecute Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) based solely on evidence that he regularly used marijuana while possessing a gun in his home. The government did not allege that Hemani was addicted, intoxicated when he possessed the firearm, incapable of managing his affairs, or dangerous to himself or others. Nor did it claim that he had misused the gun.
The Court rejected the government’s attempt to treat anyone who regularly used any amount of a controlled substance as categorically dangerous. Historical laws dealing with intoxication and “habitual drunkards” targeted different conduct, operated differently, and generally required more than the mere regular use of an intoxicating substance.
The Supreme Court nevertheless described its decision as narrow. It did not decide whether the government may disarm people who are addicted or presently intoxicated. It also did not decide whether § 922(g)(3) could be applied when the government presents individualized proof that a person’s drug use makes him dangerous—or proof that a particular drug always renders its users dangerous. The Court expressly declined to pass on those questions either way.
In short, mere regular marijuana use, without more, was insufficient to support the government’s automatic and categorical ban as applied to Hemani.
DOJ Creates a Marijuana Exception
In response to Hemani and the large number of public comments addressing marijuana, DOJ amended the final rule to create an important exception.
For purposes of the rule’s drug-related presumption, DOJ’s definition of “controlled substance” does not include marijuana. As a result, unlawful use of or addiction to marijuana alone does not trigger the same presumption of ineligibility that applies to users or addicts of other controlled substances. The Department also removed proposed requirements that applicants and their character references affirm that the applicant does not use or is not addicted to marijuana.
DOJ acknowledges that excluding marijuana addicts, not merely marijuana users, goes beyond the facts presented in Hemani. The Department says distinguishing a marijuana “user” from a marijuana “addict” would require a highly fact-specific inquiry that could undermine the administrability of the restoration process.
That does not mean marijuana use automatically restores anyone’s firearm rights or removes a federal disability under 922(g)(3). The statute remains on the books, and the relief process itself remains discretionary.
Instead, an applicant whose only drug-related issue involves marijuana may apply without facing the rule’s extraordinary-circumstances presumption. DOJ may still consider the applicant’s marijuana use and other individual circumstances when deciding whether restoration would be consistent with public safety and the public interest.
For controlled substances other than marijuana, the presumption remains. Someone who continues to qualify as an unlawful user or addict will generally be denied absent extraordinary circumstances. Because that disability is status-based, an individual may ordinarily remove himself from the prohibited category by ending the unlawful conduct and breaking the pattern of ongoing use.
What Applicants Must Submit
An applicant must complete the required form and disclose all federal firearm disabilities for which relief is requested. Required materials may include:
Electronic fingerprints or properly completed fingerprint cards.
Certified or otherwise reliable court records.
Charging documents, judgments, plea agreements, and presentence reports.
Proof that every requirement of the sentence has been completed.
State criminal-history records for each jurisdiction in which the applicant has lived or been arrested during the applicable period.
Relevant military, mental-health, domestic violence, citizenship-renunciation, or foreign records.
Affidavits from three qualified character references.
Authorization for DOJ to obtain additional background information.
The final rule shifts responsibility for local law-enforcement notification to DOJ. The Department will notify the appropriate chief law-enforcement officer for the locality where the applicant resides and allow that agency to submit information supporting or opposing restoration.
The application fee is $30 once the fee stage begins, up from the proposed $20. DOJ will periodically review the fee and conduct an audit after the program has operated long enough to produce reliable cost information. Applicants may request a fee waiver or reduction, including for economic hardship.
How DOJ Will Decide Who Gets Relief
The Attorney General may consider the applicant’s entire record, including criminal history, dismissed charges associated with a plea agreement, conduct while incarcerated or under supervision, time since completion of the sentence, rehabilitation, threats, restraining orders, drug use, mental health, character references, and information supplied by local law enforcement.
Significantly, the final rule also allows the Attorney General to consider whether denying relief under an applicant’s individual circumstances would infringe the applicant’s Second Amendment rights.
If relief is granted, DOJ will publish notice of the decision and the reasons for it in the Federal Register. Any restoration applies only to the federal disability addressed in the application. It does not erase independent state or tribal firearm prohibitions, and it does not protect an individual from a new disability arising from later conduct.
An applicant denied relief may petition the United States District Court for the district in which he resides for judicial review.
On any given Saturday in Alabama, a man can leave his driveway, gas up, run by the gun shop for ammo, shoot all morning at the range, and be home for lunch. He hasn’t broken any law or bothered a soul. And in more of our towns than you’d guess, a camera on a pole photographed his truck at every stop and filed it in a searchable database owned by a private company in Atlanta.
The company is Flock Safety, and it runs the largest mass surveillance network in American history, with more than 100,000 cameras by its own count. But don’t be confused; these aren’t run-of-the-mill red light cameras. Every Flock camera photographs every vehicle that passes by, around the clock, whether anyone suspects a crime or not.
And the record contains far more than your tag number. Each image becomes a searchable record containing the plate, time, location, direction of travel, make, color, body type, and other identifying features. Flock calls this part of their system the “Vehicle Fingerprint,” and their own materials advertise the ability to conduct searches using unique vehicle details, including bumper stickers and decals. That matters in Alabama. A Gadsden flag, Glock sticker, BamaCarry decal, or other Second Amendment message on the back of a truck is not just something another driver sees at a red light. It’s now a searchable data point tied to that vehicle, the owner, and your movement.
These cameras came into Alabama the way kudzu did: quietly, then… boom, everywhere.
Birmingham’s city council approved a $9.7 million contract last July for more cameras citywide. Huntsville has run more than a hundred since 2019 and shares into a national pool; Madison, Decatur, Moody, Springville, and retail parking lots have them too. The Alabama Gazette reported that Alabama Power was marketing Flock systems to cities, bundled with utility poles and streetlights, some of which I have noticed just outside my neighborhood.
But here is the craziest part: most of it arrived by consent agenda and contract renewal. The Legislature never voted on a statewide surveillance network. Yet ALEA’s administrative rules let plate reader data sit for five years, the longest of any state, per a 2026 legislative survey, and require every read to feed a statewide registry once ALEA stands it up.
That should stop every gun owner in their tracks. Alabama law, through Act 2024-232, prohibits the government from keeping a list or registry of privately owned firearms or their owners. Gun owners fought hard to secure that protection. Yet today, Flock has effectively created a searchable, five-year archive showing which vehicles with Second Amendment decals park at gun stores on Fridays, attend gun shows, or regularly visit shooting ranges. It may be built from “license plate photos” instead of firearm records, but for all practical purposes, it’s a hard registry of gun owners.
Nobody in any police department has to sit down and build that list, because Flock’s built-in artificial intelligence builds it for them. The software reads every photo, determines what your truck is, tags every sticker and decal, and logs the time and place, 20 billion scans a month, according to the company’s own marketing. Its analytics even flag vehicles that keep showing up together as likely associates. By the time an officer pulls up a chair, the sorting is already done. All anybody with a login has to do is check.
As of today, there are a lot of logins. Roughly 5,000 law enforcement agencies use Flock, and most share their feeds into a national pool. A single lookup can sweep nearly every camera in America at once. No warrant. No judge. Just a few words in a reason box and the Enter key.
This isn’t hypothetical, and we’re not guessing about how this gets used. For example, just last year, a Texas deputy went on the hunt for a woman who had an abortion. One search, roughly 83,000 cameras, 6,809 networks, some as far away as Washington State. The sheriff called it a missing person case until a sworn affidavit surfaced. Whatever you make of that issue, look at the trail: one officer, one computer, enforcing his own state’s law inside somebody else’s. Now hand that computer to an Illinois task force with a magazine ban or a so-called “assault weapons” ban to enforce, and the same play runs against an Alabamian who drove north with a truck bed full of legally owned property.
If you think the feds would never point this at gun owners, they tried it before with far weaker tools. The Wall Street Journal reported that Barack Obama’s Justice Department drew up plans in 2010 to run plate readers at Southern California gun shows – all using far less superior technology than what we have now. An ACLU records request from the same era turned up a DEA email describing joint work with ATF on the same idea. The DEA said nothing ever came of it. Sixteen years later, the network those agents could only sketch is real, nationwide, and off-the-shelf. And it reads now far more than just a one-time ping at a local intersection.
The misuse has already come home. In the last few weeks, Moody’s police department fired a sergeant for using Flock to track a woman he was interested in, and a Springville officer resigned over using it to follow a family member. Both cases landed at ALEA in the same news cycle. The safeguards everybody promised were in place the whole time.
Courts are starting to catch up. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court held that pulling someone’s historical cell phone location records is a search requiring a warrant. This June, in Chatrie v. United States, it said the same about location history held in a tech company’s database, even over a limited period. A lawsuit over Norfolk, Virginia’s cameras, now before the Fourth Circuit, will test whether that logic reaches plate readers. No court has struck these networks down yet, and I won’t pretend otherwise. But the political winds have shifted, and Alabama should seize the opportunity while the wind is at our backs.
Whenever this issue comes up, somebody inevitably says, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” Tell that to the Arkansas couple who were ordered out of their car at gunpoint this February, with their six-week-old baby in the back seat, because a license plate reader misread a single digit. The Institute for Justice has documented numerous mistaken traffic stops caused by fixed plate readers since 2018, and in nearly two-thirds of those cases, officers drew or pointed their firearms at the mistaken culprits. Now imagine a law-abiding Alabama concealed carrier caught in the same AI-generated felony stop. That’s how innocent people get killed.
The older constitutional answer holds, too. General warrants would have solved plenty of crimes, and the founders banned them anyway. Rights were never meant to run on the honor system of 5,000 agencies’ worth of password holders.
This worry isn’t fringe, and it isn’t only ours. The ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have raised the same alarm from the left; dozens of communities, red and blue, have canceled Flock contracts, and Congressman Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican, filed a bill in July to keep federal agencies off these networks. When a radical leftist organization like the ACLU and a hard-nosed conservative like Tim Burchett make the same argument, it deserves all of the public’s attention.
Here is the ask. Show up at your city council and county commission meetings and ask, on the record, how many cameras your town runs, who can search the data, and how long it’s kept. Then call and email your state legislators and tell them the fix is not a tweak or a task force; it is a ban: a state law taking a hacksaw to these cameras, preempting them in every city and county. And until Montgomery acts, press your own county and town to drop the contract and take the cameras down now.
BamaCarry and the National Association for Gun Rights intend to fight this tooth and nail, from council chambers to the State House floor, and we will keep track of who stood where. We’d love to have you fighting alongside us.
Alabama has already decided that the government doesn’t get a list of its gun owners. It’s time Montgomery made it stick.
Taylor D. Rhodes is Executive Vice President of BamaCarry and Executive Director of the National Association for Gun Rights. A Southern Miss and Liberty University graduate, he has spent nearly a decade in the fight for gun rights. He and his family live in Hoover, Ala., and are members of Hunter Street Baptist Church.
On any given Saturday in Alabama, a man can leave his driveway, gas up, run by the gun shop for ammo, shoot all morning at the range, and be home for lunch. He hasn’t broken any law or bothered a soul. And in more of our towns than you’d guess, a camera on a pole photographed his truck at every stop and filed it in a searchable database owned by a private company in Atlanta.