In yet another twist in the ever-contentious battle between gun rights and drug laws, a Texas federal judge has ruled that using marijuana doesn’t automatically strip a person of their Second Amendment rights. Yes, you read that right. Being a pot smoker no longer means you forfeit your constitutional right to bear arms—at least for now.
The decision, which came from U.S. District Judge David Briones of the Western District of Texas, is likely to send shockwaves through both the gun rights and cannabis communities. It’s the latest blow to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which has long prohibited drug users—including marijuana enthusiasts—from owning or purchasing firearms.
The specific case, U.S. v. Gil, centers around Adrian Gil, an El Paso man who, in 2021, found himself on the wrong side of the law after officers discovered multiple firearms and several large, vacuum-sealed bags of marijuana in his home. According to court documents, Gil admitted to being a daily marijuana user since he was 14 years old. But when the government tried to prosecute him under federal law banning drug users from owning firearms, Judge Briones slammed the brakes.
Why? Because, as the judge explained, Gil is still part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. And, as it turns out, the government couldn’t prove that Gil was high when the cops arrested him. That detail turned out to be the nail in the coffin for the prosecution.
A Closer Look at the Decision
To understand just how significant this ruling is, let’s dig into the logic behind it. Judge Briones leaned heavily on the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which laid out a new framework for deciding Second Amendment cases. Under Bruen, courts must first determine if the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the defendant’s actions. If it does, the government must then prove there’s a historical precedent for restricting those actions.
When applied to Gil’s case, the logic was simple: The Second Amendment protects “the people,” and that includes pot smokers. Judge Briones noted that the Bill of Rights uses the phrase “the people” five times, and in each instance, it refers to all members of the political community—not some exclusive club of morally upright citizens.
“The coverage of the Second Amendment is broad at this stage of the analysis, and the language of the Second Amendment is clear on this point,” Judge Briones wrote.
As for the historical precedent? The government couldn’t come up with any evidence of a law from the founding era that would support banning habitual cannabis users from owning guns. Sure, marijuana wasn’t a thing back in the 1700s, but that didn’t stop the judge from rejecting the federal government’s arguments outright.
The Charges, the Appeal, and the Fallout
Adrian Gil’s story begins in 2021, when police were called to his home over a reported fight involving a firearm. What they found was a treasure trove of evidence: two massive bags of marijuana and multiple firearms. To make things worse, Gil openly admitted to officers that he was a daily marijuana user and even acknowledged that he knew marijuana users couldn’t legally own guns.
Gil was subsequently indicted, pled guilty, and was sentenced to 35 months in federal prison. But he wasn’t about to take it lying down. On appeal, Gil argued that the federal law banning drug users from owning firearms violated his constitutional rights.
Judge Briones agreed. The prosecution’s failure to prove that Gil was actually intoxicated at the time of his arrest or when he was caught with the firearms was a major sticking point. While the government painted Gil as a chronic pothead who “just liked good weed,” it couldn’t clear the legal hurdle set by the Bruen decision.
“In line with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Connelly, this Court agrees that ‘based on habitual or occasional drug use, § 922(g)(3) imposes a far greater burden on [Defendant’s] Second Amendment rights than our history and tradition of firearms regulation can support,’” Briones concluded.
A Blow to the Gun Control Act of 1968
For decades, the Gun Control Act of 1968 has served as a cornerstone of federal firearms regulation, and its prohibition on drug users owning guns has rarely been challenged—until now. Recent court decisions, including this one, are chipping away at the law, with some judges declaring it unconstitutional while others uphold it.
This legal tug-of-war highlights the deep divide in how Americans view the intersection of gun rights and drug use. On one hand, opponents of the law argue that it’s a blatant violation of the Second Amendment, penalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens for their lifestyle choices. On the other hand, supporters claim it’s a common-sense measure to keep firearms out of the hands of people who might not be in the best state of mind to use them responsibly.
But Judge Briones’ ruling makes one thing clear: The government’s argument that marijuana users are inherently unfit to own guns doesn’t hold up to constitutional scrutiny.
What This Means for Gun Owners and Cannabis Users
So, what does this ruling mean for the average American who enjoys both firearms and the occasional joint? For now, it’s a win—at least in the Western District of Texas. But don’t start celebrating just yet. This decision is likely to face challenges, and it’s far from the final word on the issue.
What’s undeniable is that rulings like this one are forcing the federal government to confront the growing conflict between state-level cannabis legalization and federal drug laws. With marijuana now legal for medical or recreational use in most states, the idea that pot users should automatically lose their gun rights is looking increasingly outdated.
But here’s the kicker: If we’re serious about protecting constitutional rights, we can’t pick and choose which ones matter. Whether you’re a gun owner, a cannabis user, or both, this case is a reminder that the Bill of Rights doesn’t come with asterisks.
In the meantime, the fight isn’t over. For those who believe in both the Second Amendment and personal freedom, rulings like this are a step in the right direction. For the federal government, it’s a wake-up call. The days of using outdated laws to strip Americans of their rights might finally be coming to an end.