Federal Appeals Court Delivers Major Victory for Cannabis Users’ Gun Rights, Challenging Long-Standing Ban
ATLANTA, GA – In a landmark decision poised to reshape Second Amendment jurisprudence, a federal appeals court has ruled that the blanket federal prohibition on firearm ownership for state-legal cannabis users is likely unconstitutional. This pivotal judgment, handed down by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Wednesday, August 20, 2025, marks a significant victory for cannabis patients and gun rights advocates across the nation, adding considerable momentum to the ongoing legal challenges against federal drug and gun laws. The news has reverberated through legal and advocacy circles, highlighting the growing conflict between state-level cannabis reforms and entrenched federal statutes.
The Landmark Eleventh Circuit Decision
The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling emerged from the case Florida Commissioner of Agriculture v. Attorney General, which challenged 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and (d)(3), federal provisions that bar “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing or purchasing firearms. The plaintiffs included registered medical cannabis patients Vera Cooper and Nicole Hansell, alongside Neill Franklin, a former police officer. They argued that these federal restrictions infringed upon their Second Amendment rights solely due to their lawful participation in state-sanctioned medical cannabis programs. Former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried was an initial figure in the lawsuit.
Writing for the panel, Judge Elizabeth Branch emphatically stated that the federal government “failed to meet its burden… to establish that disarming medical marijuana users is consistent with this nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation.” The court found that the factual allegations did not support the inference that state-legal medical marijuana users are inherently similar to felons or other dangerous individuals historically subject to firearm prohibitions. This distinction is crucial, as the court differentiated between those actively intoxicated and sober individuals who use cannabis in compliance with state law, noting that the latter act with “rational thought” in their decision-making. The ruling vacates a lower court’s dismissal, sending the case back for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
A Shift in Legal Precedent: The Bruen and Rahimi Impact
This decision is the latest in a series of federal court rulings prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision. Bruen established a rigorous “text, history, and tradition” test, requiring any gun regulation to be consistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Subsequent Supreme Court guidance in United States v. Rahimi (2024) further clarified that only individuals posing a clear threat of physical violence could be disarmed, a standard that lower courts are now applying to cannabis users.
Legal experts note that the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis strongly aligns with this evolving legal framework, suggesting that categorical prohibitions on groups not historically deemed dangerous may not withstand constitutional scrutiny. The government’s historical arguments—often comparing cannabis users to dangerous individuals like alcoholics or the mentally ill—have largely failed to convince federal appellate judges that such broad restrictions align with 18th-century firearm regulations.
A Patchwork of Rulings: Other Federal Courts Weigh In
The Eleventh Circuit is not alone in its skepticism of the federal ban. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued similar rulings, notably in United States v. Daniels, which also found 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to an individual based solely on past cannabis use. District courts in Oklahoma, Texas, and Rhode Island have also issued opinions questioning or striking down the ban, creating a growing consensus among federal courts that the prohibition lacks sufficient historical grounding.
Despite these consistent judicial challenges, the federal government, particularly the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), has staunchly defended the ban. The ATF has repeatedly issued advisories clarifying that federal law still prohibits cannabis users from possessing firearms, regardless of state legalization. This ongoing federal stance creates a precarious legal situation for millions of state-legal cannabis consumers who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Oregon’s Stance and Broader Implications
The complex interplay between state and federal law is not new, even for states like Oregon, which has a long history of progressive cannabis policies. As far back as 2011, the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed that medical marijuana patients could obtain concealed handgun permits under state law, even while acknowledging federal prohibitions. More recently, Oregon has been at the forefront of its own gun news regarding Measure 114, a voter-approved initiative imposing permit-to-purchase requirements and high-capacity magazine bans, which the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld in March 2025. While distinct, these legal battles underscore the dynamic and often conflicting landscape of firearms and drug laws in the United States.
Looking ahead, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision is likely to intensify pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to definitively address the federal cannabis gun ban. The DOJ has already requested the Supreme Court to consider related cases, including U.S. v. Hemani, in an effort to uphold the federal prohibition. However, with multiple federal appellate courts now rejecting the government’s arguments, the path forward for the federal ban appears increasingly uncertain. This recent ruling is a pivotal development, suggesting that the era of automatically disarming state-legal cannabis users may be drawing to a close, paving the way for a more consistent application of Second Amendment rights.
