Guns and Ganja: What Rescheduling Means for Firearm Purchases

We are going to white knuckle our way through a blog post about lawyers and guns without doing the obligatory Warren Zevon plug, but we want you to understand how hard this is for us.

Loyal readers of Budding Trends are well aware of marijuana rescheduling, but we offer the following for those who may be coming to this page with an interest more in the Second Amendment than the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In April, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed a final order moving FDA-approved marijuana products and state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA. To be very clear, marijuana was not legalized generally, and adult-use marijuana remains Schedule I pending further proceedings. This is the most significant federal cannabis policy shift in the United States since at least 1970, if not ever.

For millions of Americans who hold state medical marijuana patient certifications — and for industry employees, security professionals, and others whose lives intersect with the state-licensed marijuana industry — the right to purchase and possess a firearm has been in a state of legal tension with federal drug law for decades. The rescheduling order has now changed at least part of that picture, and a pending Supreme Court decision could change much more of it by the end of June.

This post explains where things stand, what the ATF’s draft revised Form 4473 does and does not accomplish, and what patients should know before they step up to a gun counter.

The Problem: How the Old Form 4473 Treated All Marijuana Equally

ATF Form 4473 is the Firearms Transaction Record that must be completed by any person purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. For years, question 21(e) on the form has asked: “Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?” The form accompanies that question with a warning stating that marijuana possession and use remains unlawful under federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where the buyer resides.

The practical effect was categorical: Any marijuana user — medical or recreational, whether acting in full compliance with state law or not — faced a choice between honesty and the ability to complete a federally licensed firearm purchase. An honest “yes” answer terminated the transaction. A dishonest “no” answer exposed the buyer to a felony charge for making a false statement on a federal form, carrying potential penalties of up to 10 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

That framework made no distinction between a cancer patient using state-licensed medical marijuana under a physician’s certification and a recreational user in a state with no legal program. Federal law treated both the same. The old Form 4473 reflected that uniform treatment.

The ATF’s Draft Revised Form 4473: What Changed

On May 8, 2026, the ATF published a draft revised Form 4473 in the Federal Register as document 2026-09182. The draft is open for public comment through August 6, 2026, and is not yet final. But its revised controlled substance question and “warning” signal a meaningful shift in how the federal government intends to treat state-licensed medical marijuana patients at the gun counter going forward.

The key change is the removal of explicit language treating medical marijuana use as categorically disqualifying. The current form’s warning that marijuana “remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes” would be gone. In its place, the draft form revises the question to focus specifically on recreational marijuana use, removing the reference to medical marijuana and acknowledging that the prohibition no longer applies to those who exclusively consume state-licensed medical marijuana products reclassified to Schedule III under the April 2026 rescheduling order.

One gun industry advocate told Marijuana Moment that the group is “happy to see that the ATF’s new draft form 4473 already takes into account its recently announced rescheduling of cannabis, and thus the form no longer includes medical marijuana use or possession as disqualifying.” For the millions of Americans who hold valid state medical marijuana patient certifications and have been effectively barred from federally licensed firearm purchases, this is a significant development — if and when it is finalized.

What the Draft Form Does Not Fix: The Underlying Statute

The draft Form 4473 revision is a practical and welcome step, but it is important to understand what it is and what it is not. A revised form is not a statutory change. The underlying prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) — barring possession of firearms by any “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” — is still on the books. The form reflects how ATF intends to implement that statute in light of the rescheduling order, but it does not repeal or amend the statute itself.

More importantly, the revised form is not yet final. It remains in the public comment period until August 6, 2026. Until a final revised form is in use at gun counters across the country, the existing form governs. State-licensed medical marijuana patients should not rely on media coverage of the draft revision to answer the current form’s questions differently than they would have before the draft was published.

There is also a gap even in the draft’s intended scope. The draft revision addresses users of state-licensed medical marijuana — whose use is tied to the Schedule III products covered by the rescheduling order. Recreational marijuana users and users in states without a state-licensed medical marijuana program remain subject to the existing prohibition and would still face the same binary choice at the gun counter that existed before rescheduling.

The Supreme Court’s Pending Decision in United States v. Hemani

Running parallel to the ATF’s form revision is a major Second Amendment case at the Supreme Court that could reshape the entire landscape of firearms restrictions for marijuana users, medical and recreational alike. The case is United States v. Hemani, and a decision is expected within the next couple months.

The facts are straightforward. Ali Hemani, a Texas man who used marijuana regularly, was found in possession of a firearm during a search of his home. He was charged under § 922(g)(3). Hemani moved to dismiss the indictment, challenging the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) as applied to him under the Second Amendment. The district court entered an agreed order, the Fifth Circuit summarily affirmed with a two-page opinion (following its precedent in Connelly and Daniels), and the government petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted review in October 2025 and heard oral arguments on March 2, 2026.

The constitutional question is whether § 922(g)(3) is consistent with the Second Amendment under the historical-tradition test the Court established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Under Bruen, a firearms regulation that implicates the Second Amendment’s plain text is constitutional only if the government can show that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Bruen requires the government to present historical analogues that match the regulatory mechanism and purpose (the “how and why”) of the challenged law. And when performing the Bruen analysis, courts must ensure the modern law does not burden Second Amendment rights beyond what was done during the Founding Era, especially when the modern law addresses a general societal problem (like the use of firearms while intoxicated) that has persisted since the 18th century.

The government’s chosen historical analogues included:

• Anti-vagrancy laws passed from the colonial era through the late-19th century that allowed for the detention of “disorderly persons” — a class of individuals that included “palm-readers and fiddlers,” as well as habitual or “common” drunkards (i.e., people whose alcohol abuse was so severe as to render them dangerous or incapable of managing their own affairs);
• Civil-commitment laws that treated habitual drunkards as mentally ill and allowed them to be detained in asylums or placed under the watch of a guardian (although it is not clear whether the appointment of a guardian allowed for disarmament under any of these laws); and
• Surety laws, which required potential lawbreakers to post a bond, and a person who failed to post bond faced imprisonment or who posted bond and then “broke the peace” would forfeit their bond.

At oral argument, the Court was notably skeptical of both the government’s analogues and its analogy comparing marijuana users to habitual drunkards. Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed on the vagueness of the “unlawful user” standard, noting that the government had not been able to define what it means to be a “user,” and asked whether it was really an apt case to test the principle given that the government is simultaneously in the process of downgrading marijuana’s federal schedule. Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out that the same statute could apply to someone who takes a sleeping pill for which their spouse holds a prescription — a result that seems unmoored from any coherent theory of dangerousness. Justices across the spectrum questioned whether the historical habitual drunkard laws were aimed at anyone who occasionally drank rather than at those whose impairment was so severe as to constitute a genuine danger. They appeared ill at ease with the thought of applying those laws in a case involving a person who used marijuana “approximately every other day.”

The Court could resolve Hemani in several different ways; we will highlight a few potential outcomes here. The most unlikely outcome (in light of the Rahimi opinion and the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Daniels) is that the Court strikes down § 922(g)(3) in its entirety. It is possible, albeit not probable, that the Court finds that the government simply did not meet its burden under Bruen. If the Court decides that the proffered analogues simply don’t match § 922(g)(3)’s “how” and “why,” it could strike down the law entirely and force Congress to go back to the drawing board.

Alternatively, the Court may issue a slightly narrower opinion striking down § 922(g)(3) as applied to all marijuana users who are not shown to be presently intoxicated while in possession of a firearm is theoretically possible. Doing so would effectively turn § 922(g)(3) into an intoxicated-possession law like those that exist in many states (e.g., Colorado’s is located at Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-12-106(1)(d)). It would treat gun owners who use marijuana (whether medically or recreationally) the same way many states treat gun owners who drink.

The Court could instead decide to severely limit its holding, as Solicitor General D. John Sauer requested in his April 23rd letter to the Court. This would leave the existing prohibition intact and kick the can down the road while rescheduling continues to run its course. The ATF’s Form 4473 revision, if finalized, would still provide some relief for state-licensed medical patients at the point of purchase.

Although we want to avoid pure speculation, the questions posed during oral argument tend to suggest that the Court is unlikely to issue a broad ruling either striking down or fully upholding the statute as written. A more textured, as-applied analysis (in line with the narrowness of the issue presented) seems most probable, especially given the clearly unresolved stature of rescheduling. But given the composition of the current Court and the requirements of the Bruen framework, there is real possibility that the decision substantially narrows the government’s ability to enforce § 922(g)(3) against marijuana users.

What This Means for State-Licensed Medical Marijuana Patients and Industry Workers

The practical guidance for state-licensed medical marijuana patients who wish to purchase a firearm is the same as it has been: Answer the question on Form 4473 honestly. That advice has not changed. What has changed is the landscape around it.

Once the revised Form 4473 is finalized, state-licensed medical marijuana patients who use exclusively Schedule III products under a valid state certification should be able to answer the marijuana question in a way that does not disqualify them from the purchase. Patients and their counsel should monitor ATF’s finalization of the revised form and should not assume that the draft’s language governs current transactions.

For marijuana industry employees and security personnel — a population particularly affected by the firearms prohibition because it has historically prevented dispensary workers from being licensed as armed security — the picture is more complex. The revised form addresses the purchase question, but it does not by itself alter the underlying § 922(g)(3) possession prohibition. Carrying a firearm as a licensed security officer while also being a user of state-licensed medical marijuana involves a separate set of state licensing and federal legal questions that the Form 4473 revision alone does not resolve.

The Hemani decision, expected in the coming weeks, will likely provide more definitive answers than anything that has happened so far. We will cover that decision as soon as it is issued.

A Note on Recreational Marijuana Users

Nothing in the April 2026 rescheduling order, the draft Form 4473, or the Hemani litigation directly addresses the firearms prohibition as it applies to recreational marijuana users. Recreational marijuana remains Schedule I. Users of recreational marijuana in the 24 states where it is legal under state law remain “unlawful users” of a controlled substance under federal firearms law, regardless of their state law compliance. The draft Form 4473 does not change that analysis. The Hemani decision might — depending on how it is written — but that outcome is not certain.

Recreational marijuana users who own or wish to purchase firearms are in a different legal position than state-licensed medical patients, and they should not read the current wave of news about the Form 4473 revision as applying to their situation.

Conclusion: A Fast-Moving Area of Law

The intersection of marijuana law and Second Amendment rights is moving faster right now than at any prior point in history. Within the span of a few weeks, the federal government has rescheduled state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III, the ATF has proposed a revised Form 4473 that would remove the categorical disqualification for medical patients, the Trump administration has signaled it may stop aggressively defending § 922(g)(3), and the Supreme Court is days or weeks away from issuing a major decision on the constitutional limits of the firearms prohibition for marijuana users.

We will continue tracking all of these developments at Budding Trends. Thanks for stopping by.