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

This 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:    • [Full Argument] Supreme Court Skeptical in...   00:00 Supreme Court Preview 00:34 Gorsuch Questions Habitual Use 02:14 Founding Era Context 03:57 Sotomayor Ambien Analogy 05:08 Thomas on Illegality 07:24 Alito History Problem 09:01 Kavanaugh Mens Rea 12:13 Gorsuch Rescheduling Pushback 16:19 Barrett Demands Dangerousness 23:15 Jackson on Bruin Limits 25:25 Kagan Ayahuasca Hypothetical 29:02 Predicted Vote Count 30:22 Wrap Up and Sponsor