Guns And Your Medical Marijuana Card in PA

The first is a draft change to ATF form 4473 that subtly alters the language about unlawful use of marijuana from "The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside," to "You can be an unlawful user under federal law, even if your possession is legal under state law. Federal law does not permit the use or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes." One possible interpretation of this proposal to remove medical marijuana from the warning while explicitly making clear that recreational marijuana is illegal is that the government is preparing to distinguish medical use from recreational when determining gun ownership rights. 

This draft remains a proposal only however, and has not yet been approved and implemented. Furthermore, it still asks someone to attest that they are not an unlawful user or addict of marijuana without language that specifically excludes medical marijuana use. False statements on this form can be charged with a felony, so without further guidance from the ATF about the change and what their intent is down the road, this proposal is just a hint; the public comment period on this proposal is set to end later this summer so there should be more details at that time. (https://www.atf.gov/media/29576/download)

The second is a much more substantial development. On June 18th, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously in United States v. Hemani that prosecution in this case under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for the possession of a firearm while unlawfully using marijuana is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Hemani, an American citizen, had freely admitted to being a regular, non-medical user of marijuana and also surrendered a firearm he owned during an investigation. The government later prosecuted Hemani for ‘knowingly possessing a gun in his home while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance’. 

Specifically, the Court rejected the theory that the government may ban a class of citizens from gun ownership only on the basis that they use a substance without any pre-deprivation process or individualized proof that a person's substance use actually renders them dangerous or incompetent in a way that would justify limiting their rights (United States v. Hemani, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf). 

Demonstrating the important downstream effects that can occur with a change in drug scheduling, the Court's decision also explicitly names the rescheduling of qualifying medical marijuana products from Schedule I to III as an example of the government taking regulatory action that is at odds with its own position that users of marijuana are 'categorically and unusually dangerous'.

It's important to note that the Court considers its decision here to be narrow and shouldn't be applied broadly: It does not address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm or other laws aimed at preventing special risk. The government may also still bring prosecution if it can demonstrate that a defendant's drug use makes them dangerous or if a particular drug always renders a user dangerous.

While this ruling strongly suggests that the federal government may not restrict someone’s right to own a firearm relying solely on unlawful marijuana use as justification, it can still take agencies some time to revise policies and retrain personnel. Until enforcement agencies develop and implement new policies in accordance with this Supreme Court decision, such as specific guidance for MMJ patients filling out Form 4473, there are unresolved questions about the risks someone may face if attempting to purchase a firearm while an MMJ patient or seeking to get a medical card as a gun owner. No one wants to accidentally commit a felony because they didn’t know how to answer a question on a form.

This article was last updated on July 22th, 2026. 

This is not legal advice; it is meant to be informational and to offer reasonable interpretation of complex issues.