The gun control lobby is not happy with today's decision in U.S. v. Hemani, though some groups are more vocal than others. As of mid-day Thursday, Everytown for Gun Safety had yet to post anything about the unanimous decision holding the federal government cannot prosecute someone for possessing a firearm just because they use marijuana, even on a regular basis. Brady and Giffords, however, issued a joint (no pun intended) statement, which makes sense since they jointly filed an amicus brief arguing in favor of the keeping the categorical ban in place.
In their statement, the anti-gun groups ignored most of what the Supreme Court opinion said, and focused instead on the narrowness of the ruling.
First, Brady's Kris Brown's statement:
For nearly 250 years, our country has allowed legislatures to exercise their power to protect public safety by restricting certain categories of people from accessing firearms. Courts have routinely upheld these restrictions, recognizing that the Second Amendment is not absolute and that common-sense prohibitions protect Americans' freedom from gun violence. Today’s Supreme Court decision does not change that. Although the Court said that the particular law at issue in this case cannot be upheld specifically as to the person challenging it, it reaffirmed the ability of legislatures to restrict firearms access by certain categories of people. Over 90% of Americans support strengthening the Brady Background Check system that uses these categories. We will continue to fight to protect common-sense gun laws and the right of every person in America to live free of gun violence.
I love how vaguely worded this statement is. My guess is that a fair number of Brady supporters are opposed to putting people in prison simply for smoking marijuana, even if they own a gun while doing so. And while it's true that the Supreme Court issued a decision in as-applied challenge and didn't strike down Section 922(g)(3) in its entirety, the Court made it abundantly clear that today's decision applies to anyone who might be prosecuted for possessing a gun solely for using marijuana, without any evidence of dangerousness involved.
Leigh Rome, Giffords Law Center senior litigation attorney, had an even pithier statement.
Since our nation’s founding, commonsense restrictions for owning firearms have been a part of our laws. Today’s opinion continues to allow the government to enact and enforce reasonable categorical prohibitions on firearms ownership. Clear restrictions are critical for our background check system to be successful. GIFFORDS will continue to ensure commonsense restrictions are in place to keep Americans safe.
Again, no mention of what the law in question actually does, and no indication that the Court unanimously rejected the position of Brady and Giffords, who wanted to see Mr. Hemani go to prison for possessing a gun while regularly using marijuana because they believe pot smokers are categorically a threat to public safety.
Anti-gun academics are also doing their best to cope with today's verdict.
This is cope pic.twitter.com/FaKIhZXxOx
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) June 18, 2026
Megan Walsh runs the University of Minnesota Law School's anti-gun clinic, and she too is myopically focused on what the ruling doesn't do instead of what it does say about enforcing Section 922(g)(3).
Law professor Jake Charles, who used to run Duke University's Center for Firearms Law, also stressed the "narrowness" of the ruling (even though I think it will eventually impact millions of Americans). But Charles at least admitted his frustration with the "further retrenchment" of the Bruen decision and Rahimi's caveat that a finding of dangerousness is likely necessary to strip someone of their Second Amendment rights, even temporarily.
Jake is disappointed that Kagan didn't join Jackson's call for Bruen to be overturned: pic.twitter.com/TH7BpTsOSv
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) June 18, 2026
Other anti-gun academics, including the Duke University Center for Firearms Law itself, have yet to issue any kind of substantive response at all as of this writing, though the center promises that a deep dive into Hemani is forthcoming. What do you want to be that when it's released, most of the analysis will be centered around the fact that the Court didn't throw out 922(g)(3) in its entirety... even though that was never going to be the case.
Gun control activists David Hogg and Fred Gutenberg have posted about anti-gun candidates they're backing, but have said nothing about the Hemani decision. Shannon Watts has reposted a critique of a liberal podcaster who voted for Jill Stein instead of Kamala Harris, but has maintained radio silence on Hemani.
Make no mistake, today's decision, narrow as it might be, is still a loss for the gun control lobby. They want the government to be able to deny you the exercise of your Second Amendment rights for any reason at all, and SCOTUS just slammed the door on marijuana use alone serving as a disqualification. I think the decision will prove to be broadly popular, even among those who want more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, but it's not the outcome that folks like Gabby Giffords and Michael Bloomberg were looking for.
