The United States Supreme Court has unanimously determined that the federal government cannot categorically prohibit individuals from possessing firearms based solely on the occasional use of marijuana.

美國最高法院一致裁定，聯邦政府不能僅因個人偶爾使用大麻，就全面禁止其擁有槍械。

In United States v. Hemani, the Court addressed the constitutionality of a 1968 federal statute that forbids 'unlawful users' of controlled substances from possessing firearms. The litigation originated from the prosecution of Ali Hemani, a Texas resident who admitted to regular marijuana consumption but was not alleged to be intoxicated or dangerous at the time of his arrest. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, asserted that the statute is overbroad, potentially encompassing individuals whose drug use is innocuous and does not impair their capacity for self-control.

在「美國訴 Hemani 案」中，法院審視了一項 1968 年聯邦法令的憲法合法性，該法令禁止受管制物質的「非法使用者」擁有槍械。此訴訟源於對德州居民 Ali Hemani 的起訴，他承認有定期使用大麻，但被捕時並未被指控處於醉藥狀態或具有危險性。由大法官 Neil Gorsuch 撰寫的多數意見指出，該法令範圍過廣，可能將藥物使用情況輕微且不影響自我控制能力的人員一併納入禁令。

Central to the Court's analysis was the application of the historical analogue test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). The Justice Department attempted to justify the ban by citing founding-era restrictions on 'habitual drunkards.' However, the Court found this comparison insufficient, noting that historical laws targeted individuals whose substance abuse rendered them incapable of managing their affairs, whereas the modern statute applies to a broad category of users regardless of their actual threat level. Furthermore, the Court observed a contradiction in the government's position, noting that federal and state regulatory trends have increasingly tolerated or facilitated marijuana use, thereby undermining the claim that such users are categorically dangerous.

法院分析的核心在於應用「紐約州步槍與手槍協會訴 Bruen 案 (2022)」中所確立的歷史類比測試。司法部試圖引用建國時期對「慣性酗酒者」的限制來證明禁令合理。然而，法院認為此比較並不充分，指出歷史法律針對的是因物質濫用而無法處理自身事務的人員，而現代法令則適用於廣泛的使用者類別，且不論其實際威脅程度。此外，法院觀察到政府立場存在矛盾，指出聯邦與州政府的監管趨勢日益容忍或便利大麻使用，從而削弱了「此類使用者具有絕對危險性」的說法。

Despite the unanimous outcome, the Court's internal cohesion regarding Second Amendment methodology remains fragmented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor advocated for the reversal of the Bruen framework, characterizing it as unworkable due to its reliance on contested historical evidence. Conversely, the ruling maintains a narrow scope; it does not invalidate the prohibition of firearms for addicts, individuals currently intoxicated, or those with felony convictions. The decision suggests that the government may still disarm drug users if individualized proof of dangerousness is provided or if procedural due process is observed prior to the deprivation of liberties.

儘管結果一致通過，但法院內部對於第二修正法修正案的方法論仍存在分歧。大法官 Ketanji Brown Jackson 與 Sonia Sotomayor 主張廢除 Bruen 框架，將其定性為因依賴有爭議的歷史證據而無法操作。相反，此裁決範圍較窄；它並未廢除對成癮者、目前處於醉藥狀態者或被判重罪者的槍械禁令。該決定暗示，若能提供危險性的個案證明，或在剝奪自由前遵守正當法律程序，政府仍可解除藥物使用者的武裝。

The ruling restricts the government's ability to disarm casual marijuana users while preserving the authority to regulate addicts and those posing a demonstrable risk to public safety.

此次裁決限制了政府解除偶爾使用大麻者武裝的能力，同時保留了監管成癮者以及對公共安全構成明顯風險者的權限。