U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether the Government Can Disarm Peaceable Citizens Based on Status Alone

By Corey J. Biazzo, Esq.

The United States Supreme Court is once again being asked to define the outer boundaries of federal power over the Second Amendment. This time, the question is deceptively simple but constitutionally profound:

Can the federal government permanently disarm a sober, non-violent American based solely on their status as an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance—even when that conduct is lawful under state law and untethered from any dangerous behavior?

In United States v. Hemani, (Case. No. 24-1234), the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—the federal statute prohibiting firearm possession by anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance”—violates the Second Amendment as applied. I recently filed an Amicus Curiae Brief urging the Court to affirm the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to peaceable, sober citizens.

This case sits squarely at the intersection of constitutional rights, federalism and executive power and its outcome will shape how far the government may go in conditioning enumerated rights on regulatory classifications.

A Second Amendment Question Framed by Bruen and Rahimi

Since District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court has been clear: the Second Amendment protects an individual right belonging to “the people,” not a privilege reserved for government-approved classes.

That principle was sharpened in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which rejected interest-balancing tests in favor of a text-and-history framework. Under Bruen, the government must show that a modern firearm regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

More recently, United States v. Rahimi reaffirmed that disarmament is constitutionally permissible only when tied to demonstrated dangerousness, supported by historical analogues and procedural safeguards.

Section 922(g)(3) fails that test.

Status-Based Disarmament Has No Historical Pedigree

The Founding generation understood firearm regulation—but they regulated conduct, not identity.

Historical laws punished:

• Carrying arms while intoxicated

• Breaching the peace

• Brandishing weapons to terrorize others

What they did not do was permanently strip sober citizens of their right to keep and bear arms based on lifestyle, habit, or status.

Americans consumed alcohol and other intoxicants extensively throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Yet no jurisdiction imposed a categorical firearm ban on individuals who used those substances while sober. Under Bruen, that historical silence is meaningful.

Section 922(g)(3) is unprecedented: it imposes an indefinite, status-based prohibition untethered from violence, intoxication, or adjudicated threat. That is not regulation—it is disarmament by classification.

Federal Drug Classifications Cannot Define Constitutional Rights

The Second Amendment secures a national constitutional right that must apply uniformly across the United States.

Yet § 922(g)(3) makes the exercise of that right depend on federal drug schedules that directly conflict with state law. In nearly half the States, marijuana use is lawful. Under the government’s theory, the same citizen may lawfully exercise the Second Amendment in one state—and become a federal felon for the same conduct in another.

That result is incompatible with:

• The Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation of the Second Amendment

• Core principles of federalism

• The Framers’ fear of centralized disarmament power

As James Madison warned in Federalist No. 46, an armed citizenry was understood as a structural safeguard against overreach—not a right contingent on administrative definitions.

Federalism permits regulatory diversity, but it does not permit geographically variable constitutional rights.

Why the Fifth Circuit Got It Right

The Fifth Circuit’s decision in Hemani did not dismantle federal firearm law. It issued a narrow, as-applied ruling consistent with Bruen and Rahimi.

Congress remains free to:

• Regulate armed intoxication

• Punish dangerous conduct

• Disarm individuals adjudicated to pose a real threat

What it may not do—consistent with history—is permanently disarm sober, peaceable citizens based solely on status.

The Founding-era “militia” was composed of the body of the people, not a subset deemed worthy by federal regulators.

What’s at Stake

This case is about far more than marijuana or firearms. It is about whether enumerated rights survive when they become inconvenient to modern regulatory schemes.

If the government can redefine constitutional protections through status classifications untethered from history, then no right is secure.

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hemani will determine whether the Second Amendment remains a right of the people, or whether it becomes a conditional privilege—granted or withdrawn by federal designation.

Learn More

To read the full Amicus Curiae Brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, click here:👉 Brief of Corey J. Biazzo as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1234/392679/20260124122800364_Brief_of_Amicus_Curiae_Corey_Biazzo.pdf