06/23/2026
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/186q7xj1zt/
The Supreme Court just said the government can’t treat an occasional ma*****na user like a violent criminal and strip his gun rights… and one justice STILL used the case to attack Bruen.
In U.S. v. Hemani, all nine justices agreed: the feds went too far trying to turn a Texas man who used ma*****na “a few times a week” into a prohibited person just for owning a handgun at home. That’s a clear defeat for the idea that Washington can slap a label on millions of peaceful gun owners and call them “dangerous” with no real historical or constitutional support.
But if you read Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s concurring opinion, you see a very different agenda peeking through. She joins the result because Bruen and Rahimi force her to, then turns around and calls Bruen a “failed experiment” and asks the Court to go back to the old “means‑end” balancing test – the exact test lower courts used for years to rubber‑stamp almost every gun restriction that landed in front of them. In other words: “I’ll take the pro‑gun outcome this time, but please let us go back to weighing your rights against whatever ‘important government interest’ we dream up.”
The gun‑control commentariat is already cheering that part of her opinion, not because Hemani lost (he didn’t), but because they see an opening to scrap the history‑and‑tradition standard that Bruen restored. Why does that matter? Because Bruen is the reason bad laws keep falling. It’s why the government had to actually dig through history in Hemani and couldn’t find any real tradition of disarming people just for using a disfavored substance occasionally. It’s why we’re seeing age‑based carry bans, blanket “status” prohibitions, and other lazy restrictions finally get serious pushback in court.
So yes, celebrate the win: Hemani is another reminder that the Second Amendment isn’t a second‑class right, and the government doesn’t get a blank check to declare entire groups right‑less by label. But don’t miss the warning flare. When a Supreme Court justice uses a unanimous pro‑gun decision to say “Bruen is broken, let’s retire it,” that’s a direct shot at the very framework that’s been saving your rights. The fight now isn’t just about what the Second Amendment protects – it’s about what test the courts are allowed to use when they judge your rights at all.
