United States v. Erik Harris, 144 F.4th 154

Erik Harris, a frequent marijuana user, purchased three guns in early 2019, each time attesting he was not an illegal drug user on federal forms.
Harris was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing firearms as an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance, and under § 922(a)(6) for lying on the purchase forms.
He moved to dismiss, arguing § 922(g)(3) violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague.
The district court denied his motion relying on pre-Bruen precedent and Harris pleaded guilty, preserving his right to appeal on constitutional grounds.
On appeal, the Third Circuit considered the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) in light of Supreme Court decisions emphasizing historical tradition in Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under 2nd Amendment	Law impermissibly disarms non-dangerous drug users, violating the Second Amendment.	Law is justified by tradition of disarming dangerous individuals (historical analogues: drunks, mentally ill).	§ 922(g)(3) is justified for individuals whose drug use likely poses a risk of physical danger to others; remand for individualized findings on Harris.
Vagueness of "unlawful user" under § 922(g)(3)	Term is undefined and does not give fair notice of prohibited conduct.	Prior case law and statutory text make frequent, proximate use clear; statute is sufficiently definite.	Statute is not vague as applied to Harris's habitual marijuana use; fair warning was provided.
Standard for Disarmament under the Second Amendment	Disarmament must be based on a "clear threat" of physical danger, not merely increased risk.	Predictive assessment of likelihood of danger is sufficient, based on history of dealing with drunks/lunatics.	Majority: Disarmament permissible for those likely to pose a risk; dissent: threshold too low, must require clear, credible threat.
Convictions under § 922(a)(6) (false statement)	Invalid if the underlying § 922(g)(3) conviction is unconstitutional.	Stand independently unless the Second Amendment claim prevails.	Convictions stand as the court did not reach the issue and because it was raised for the first time in reply.

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (anchors the test for Second Amendment challenges in text and history)
United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (upholds gun bans for those found to pose a credible threat via historical tradition)
Range v. Att’y Gen., 124 F.4th 218 (3d Cir. 2024) (Second Amendment covers non-violent felon; historical tradition required for disarmament)
United States v. Moore, 111 F.4th 266 (3d Cir. 2024) (possession of a handgun is core Second Amendment conduct)
United States v. Connelly, 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024) (dangerousness to justify disarming drug users)