A Clash of Rights: Federal Judge Upholds Gun Ban for Marijuana Users

In a significant ruling on July 7, 2025, a federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on gun ownership by Marijuana Users, reinforcing the contentious intersection of Second Amendment rights and federal drug policy. The case, Greene v. Bondi, brought by Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), spotlighted the ongoing debate over whether state-legal medical cannabis patients should be barred from exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. The decision, penned by U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon, underscores the complexities of navigating federal law in an era where Marijuana Online markets and Marijuana Wholesale industries are flourishing in states like Pennsylvania.

The Case at the Heart of the Controversy

Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, a registered medical cannabis patient, filed the lawsuit in January 2024, arguing that the federal statute prohibiting Marijuana Users from owning firearms—Section 922(g)(3)—violates the Second Amendment. Greene, who has served as a prosecutor since 2013, asserted his intent to “lawfully purchase, possess, and utilize firearms” for self-defense but was barred due to his medical marijuana use. The SAF, a staunch advocate for gun rights, joined Greene in challenging the ban, claiming it unconstitutionally deprives Marijuana Users of their fundamental rights. The plaintiffs argued that the prohibition lacks historical precedent and fails to align with evolving Second Amendment jurisprudence, particularly following the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), however, moved to dismiss the case in November 2024, defending the ban as constitutional. The DOJ contended that Marijuana Users pose a “clear danger” due to cannabis’s potential to impair judgment, likening the restriction to historical laws disarming intoxicated or mentally ill individuals. Judge Bissoon, an Obama appointee, sided with the DOJ, ruling that the ban is constitutional and that plaintiffs can avoid legal issues “by simply choosing an alternative treatment.” This decision, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, has sparked renewed debate over the balance between drug policy and gun rights.

The Legal Landscape: A Shifting Terrain

The ruling comes amid a patchwork of federal court decisions on the same issue. In recent years, courts in Oklahoma, Texas, and Rhode Island have deemed the gun ban unconstitutional as applied to specific Marijuana Users, particularly those not actively intoxicated. For instance, a 2023 ruling by U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick in Oklahoma found that the ban lacked historical justification, citing the Bruen decision’s requirement that firearm restrictions align with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Similarly, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 ruled in favor of a Texas woman, Paola Connelly, described as a “non-violent, marijuana-smoking gun owner,” declaring the ban unconstitutional for sober individuals with past cannabis use.

These cases contrast sharply with Bissoon’s ruling, which aligns with the Third Circuit’s current legal framework. Bissoon acknowledged the “rapidly evolving” nature of Second Amendment jurisprudence but maintained that the prohibition reflects historical precedents disarming groups deemed dangerous. The DOJ’s argument hinged on cannabis’s federal classification as a Schedule I drug, despite its legal status in Pennsylvania and 39 other states for medical or recreational use. This discrepancy fuels the tension, as Marijuana Online platforms and Marijuana Wholesale markets thrive, serving over 400,000 medical cannabis patients in Pennsylvania alone.

The Second Amendment vs. Federal Drug Policy

At the core of Greene’s challenge is Section 922(g)(3), which prohibits anyone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance from possessing firearms. The statute does not require active intoxication, meaning even occasional Marijuana Users face a lifetime ban. Critics, including Greene’s legal team, argue this is overly broad, especially since medical cannabis patients like Greene use marijuana under state-regulated programs. The plaintiffs’ 41-page brief in November 2024 highlighted that historical restrictions on gun ownership, such as those for the mentally ill or domestic abusers, required due process and were temporary, unlike the blanket prohibition on Marijuana Users.

The DOJ countered that cannabis use, even for medical purposes, remains a federal crime, and Marijuana Users are inherently risky due to potential impairments. A 2019 study cited by opponents, published in The Lancet, suggested frequent cannabis users are nearly five times more likely to develop psychosis, though Greene dismissed such claims as unconvincing. The DOJ also referenced the 2024 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Rahimi, which upheld restrictions on gun ownership for those under domestic violence restraining orders, arguing that similar logic applies to Marijuana Users. However, Greene’s attorneys noted that Rahimi requires a credible threat to public safety, which they argue does not automatically apply to medical cannabis patients.

The Broader Implications for Marijuana Users

The dismissal of Greene’s lawsuit has far-reaching implications for Marijuana Users, particularly in states with robust cannabis markets. Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana program, established in 2016, has grown rapidly, with dispensaries generating significant revenue through Marijuana Online sales and Marijuana Wholesale supply chains. Yet, the federal gun ban creates a Catch-22: patients must choose between their medical treatment and their Second Amendment rights. Gun shop owners, like Jonathan Stark of Legion Arms in West Mifflin, estimate that over half of Pennsylvania’s medical cannabis patients may own firearms, often unaware they are violating federal law.

This issue extends beyond Pennsylvania. In states like Colorado and Maryland, advocates have pushed for legislation to protect Marijuana Users’ gun rights, though efforts like a 2024 Colorado ballot initiative fell short. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has consistently reinforced the ban, issuing warnings in states like Arkansas and Minnesota that medical cannabis patients cannot legally possess firearms. The ATF’s 2020 advisory in Michigan even mandated federal background checks to prevent “habitual marijuana users” from purchasing guns, highlighting the federal government’s firm stance.

Public Sentiment and Political Pushback

Public sentiment, as reflected in posts on X, shows frustration with the ruling. On July 7, 2025, users like @MarijuanaMoment and @tomangell highlighted the dismissal, noting Bissoon’s assertion that Marijuana Users have “no constitutional right” to cannabis. This sentiment echoes broader calls for reform, with Pennsylvania lawmakers like State Sen. Dan Laughlin proposing bills to allow medical cannabis patients to obtain concealed carry permits. Governor Josh Shapiro’s 2025 budget proposal, projecting $188 million in tax revenue by 2028 from a legalized adult-use cannabis market, underscores the economic stakes of reform, driven partly by Marijuana Wholesale markets.

A Path Forward?

The dismissal of Greene’s lawsuit marks a setback for Marijuana Users seeking to reconcile their medical needs with their constitutional rights. While courts in other circuits have chipped away at the gun ban, Bissoon’s ruling reinforces the federal government’s authority to restrict firearm ownership based on cannabis use. As Marijuana Online platforms expand and Marijuana Wholesale industries grow, the disconnect between state and federal law becomes more glaring. Greene, who plans to retire in 2026, has vowed to continue advocating for patient rights, potentially setting the stage for further legal challenges. Until Congress or the Supreme Court clarifies the issue, Marijuana Users will remain caught in a legal limbo, forced to choose between their medicine and their guns.

Discover premium cannabis products with D Squared WorldWide, your trusted source for Marijuana Wholesale excellence! Amid the evolving legal landscape, as highlighted by the recent Pennsylvania federal ruling on Marijuana Users’ rights, our high-quality, state-compliant cannabis offerings cater to dispensaries and retailers nationwide. From top-tier flower to innovative edibles, D Squared WorldWide ensures unmatched quality and reliability through our robust Marijuana Wholesale supply chain. Stay ahead in the booming cannabis market with products designed for success. Schedule a call today to explore our catalog and elevate your business with D Squared WorldWide’s premium solutions!

Reference:

1. Aryan, N., Grigorian, A., Matsushima, K., Schellenberg, M., Nahmias, J., Emigh, B., … & Inaba, K. (2023). Mechanisms of injury in adolescent trauma patients with a positive marijuana screen. The American Surgeon, 89(12), 5565-5569. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348231157807

2. Beltz, L., Mosher, C., & Schwartz, J. (2020). County-level differences in support for recreational cannabis on the ballot. Contemporary Drug Problems, 47(2), 149-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091450920925581

Carney, J., Hwang, A., Heckmann, N., Bernstein, M., & Marecek, G. (2020). Characteristics of marijuana use among orthopedic patients. Orthopedics, 43(2), 108-112. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20191212-07