Positive News
06.27.2026
The last few days have brought a series of developments from the courts which have been positive for gun owners.
While we still have many fights ahead of us, it’s always nice to have good news to report.
You may have seen some in-depth reporting on these cases elsewhere, but if not, we’d like to recap them for you here.
The first case, US v Hemani, dealt with a man who was convicted of being in possession of a firearm while being an “unlawful user of a controlled substance” in this case, marijuana.
Hemani was a dual citizen of the US and Pakistan. As noted in the story linked above:
”Suspecting Mr. Hemani and his family members of terrorism-related activities, the government conducted a search of the family home in 2022. Throughout the process, Mr. Hemani proved cooperative: he surrendered a gun he kept in the house, pointed agents to some marijuana on the property, and consented to an interview during which he told law enforcement agents that he used marijuana about every other day. More than six months after the search, and relying solely on Mr. Hemani’s admitted use of marijuana, the government prosecuted Mr. Hemani under 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3) for knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance. “
Ultimately, he and his family were cleared of any terrorist-related crimes, but the Feds, doing what the Feds do, had to nail him on something even if it had nothing to do with what they originally accused him of. So they charged him with having a firearm while using pot. This is a federal offense that can send you to prison for 15 years.
In most of the United States marijuana is not illegal. But the feds still consider its possession to be unlawful, and it has been their position that you cannot purchase or possess a firearm if you use or possess pot. While enforced very selectively (many Oregon pot dealers and growers possess firearms, as do countless Oregonians who only use pot), the Feds can still come after you if it suits their purposes.
The Supreme Court threw out his conviction. They took the position that the law in question was so overbroad that it simply could not be justified in the case of an occasional user of a substance most of the country considers legal.
What makes this case interesting for gun owners, well beyond the pot issue, is the fact that the court rejected one of the state’s main justifications for the law and the conviction:
“The government analogizes its construction of §922(g)(3) to what it calls “habitual drunkard” laws, which it submits enjoy deep roots in the country’s history and are “relevantly similar” to the regulation it wishes to enforce…”
SCOTUS said of this position;
“The government’s analogy fails on every metric it invites the Court to consider.”
Here is the court’s response to the state’s position:
“The government’s claim that historical laws targeted habitual drunkards for the same reason §922(g)(3) targets unlawful users—because they regularly use intoxicants—is difficult to square with the historical record. Around the time of the founding and for decades following it, a habitual drunkard was generally someone who “for any considerable part of his time [was] intoxicated to such a degree as to deprive him of his ordinary reasoning faculties…”
But here is the part that we think is most important, as you will see:
“The historical laws the government identifies usually provided some form of process before an individual lost any of his liberties, even temporarily: a vagrant could be sent to a workhouse or jail generally only upon a conviction; a habitual drunkard could be assigned a guardian or committed to an asylum usually only after proceedings before something like a probate court; and surety statutes typically required a proceeding before a justice of the peace or a comparable officer before a bond could be ordered. By contrast, on the government’s account, §922(g)(3) automatically divests an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user and until he ends his drug use—all without any pre-deprivation process.”
The court correctly notes that even these somewhat antiquated laws about vagrants and “habitual drunkards” require some kind of due process before the accused loses their rights. As you know, Oregon’s “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (Red Flag) law provides no such safeguard, a point we have been arguing since it was first created thanks to a “pro-gun Republican” lawmaker who wrote and promoted this travesty.
It is our hope that at some point this important distinction will help us unravel Oregon’s absurd ERPO law and restore some justice to people who are punished based on what someone says they might do in the future.
The second case of major importance is “Wolford vs Lopez”. In this case, the Supreme Court threw out Hawaii’s laws that essentially made the entire state off-limits to concealed carry.
Hawaii has a long history of outright antagonism against Second Amendment Rights, something the state appears to be oddly proud of. When the Supreme Court ruled in the “Bruen” case that states cannot create absurd barriers to people’s rights to carry firearms for self-defense, Hawaii did what New York did. They said “fine, you can own a firearm for self-defense, you just can’t carry it anywhere.”
SCOTUS notes in its ruling:
“The Second Amendment cannot give way to “the spirit of Aloha” in Hawaii, …any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple (Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald). Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.”
In this case, “Hawaii also relies on an 1865 Louisiana statute enacted as part of the notorious Black Codes to disarm blacks and leave them defenseless against attacks.”
This is particularly ironic. However, thankfully, the court was having none of it.
“Against this history, Hawaii’s claim that this tainted artifact from Louisiana’s Black Code illuminates the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken seriously.”
It remains to be seen what Hawaii will dream up next to keep its citizens disarmed and defenseless. As we have seen, states have shown no reluctance to ignore the Supreme Court and so far have faced little pushback. In our Federal case against Measure 114, (Oregon Firearms Federation v Kotek,) the judge pointedly ignored the Supreme Court’s direction from Bruen and has never been held accountable.
That case now languishes in the worst court in America, the Ninth Circuit. While we believe the court will do all it can to not rule on it for as long as possible, one more case out of Virginia is a positive sign for gun owners.
As you know, Virginia recently elected a leftist extremist to be governor, much like Oregon continues to do. In the wake of her election, Virginia passed a sweeping ban on modern firearms and magazines.
But as noted in Ammoland:
“A Virginia judge has issued a statewide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Commonwealth’s new ban on so-called “assault firearms” until December 31, 2026, handing Virginia gun owners a major victory just days before the law was scheduled to take effect.
The ruling came Thursday in Crump v. Katz, the state-court challenge to Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s sweeping gun-control package. The judge read the preliminary injunction from the bench and made clear that the assault-firearms ban is now enjoined statewide while the case proceeds.”
Needless to say, the state will be pulling out all the stops to overturn this injunction, violate their own constitution, and turn as many of their citizens as possible into criminals. But for now, this is certainly welcome news.
For whatever reason, the US Supreme Court has been avoiding ruling on cases concerning modern firearms and standard capacity magazines, although several of these cases are before them. These delays are a minefield for gun owners, especially those who occasionally travel across state lines. And, as noted, the Ninth Circuit is stalling on making decisions that will affect Oregon gun owners looking at the prospect of Oregon’s Supreme Court approving Mz 114. Should that happen, our Federal case will probably be the only thing standing in the way of a de facto ban on firearms sales and massive restrictions on possession in Oregon. No matter what happens, we can expect the Oregon legislature will continue to do all it can to obstruct Oregonians’ rights. Our fight will continue. But we are pleased to have been able to share some positive news.
Thank you for your support.