Supreme Court Oral Argument: Cannabis Users, Gun Rights & 922(g)(3) (Bruin/Rahimi Analysis)

Send us Fan MailThis episode breaks down excerpts from a Supreme Court oral argument about whether federal law 18 USC 922(g)(3) can categorically bar “unlawful” marijuana users from Second Amendment rights under the Bruin historical-tradition test and in light of Rahimi’s dangerousness focus. It highlights Justice Gorsuch questioning whether “habitual user” is defined too loosely compared to historical “habitual drunkard” laws, and similar concerns from Justices Sotomayor and Barrett about whether scheduling decisions reflect individualized dangerousness. Justice Thomas presses distinctions between marijuana and other drugs (including anabolic steroids) and notes the DEA’s ongoing rescheduling process, while Justice Alito emphasizes the founders’ lack of experience with modern drugs. Justice Kagan poses an ayahuasca hypothetical, and the host predicts a likely 6–3 or 7–2 outcome against the government’s position, with a decision expected by late June.Shout out to this channel, here's the whole thing: https://youtu.be/iMow-Yt1sJo?si=JU1zmjqVxBAgOk_l00:00 Supreme Court Preview00:34 Gorsuch Questions Habitual Use02:14 Founding Era Context03:57 Sotomayor Ambien Analogy05:08 Thomas on Illegality07:24 Alito History Problem09:01 Kavanaugh Mens Rea12:13 Gorsuch Rescheduling Pushback16:19 Barrett Demands Dangerousness23:15 Jackson on Bruin Limits25:25 Kagan Ayahuasca Hypothetical29:02 Predicted Vote Count30:22 Wrap Up and SponsorSupport the showGet our newsletter: https://bit.ly/3VEn9vu