153 F.4th 998
10th Cir.2025Background
- Police stop Jared Harrison, smell marijuana, search his car and find a loaded revolver and marijuana-related items; federal indictment charges violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) (unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm).
- Harrison moved to dismiss under Bruen, arguing § 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to non-intoxicated marijuana users; the district court granted the motion before the Supreme Court decided Rahimi.
- The district court held Bruen step one covered Harrison and concluded history permitted disarming only those who had acted dangerously in the past, so § 922(g)(3) as applied to non-intoxicated marijuana users was inconsistent with tradition.
- On appeal, the government argued (among other things) that the historical tradition allows disarmament of categories believed dangerous (including mentally ill, intoxicated, Catholics, loyalists) and that Harrison falls outside the Amendment’s coverage.
- The Tenth Circuit (applying Bruen and Rahimi) agreed Bruen step one is satisfied (Harrison is among “the People”), rejected the view that history limits disarmament to only those with past violent acts, and held history supports a principle permitting legislatures to disarm groups believed to pose future danger.
- Because the government must demonstrate that non-intoxicated marijuana users pose such a risk (a factual inquiry possibly requiring factfinding), the court reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether § 922(g)(3) is consistent with historical principles as applied to Harrison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harrison) | Defendant's Argument (U.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Second Amendment's text cover Harrison (Bruen step one)? | Harrison: yes — he is among “the People” and possessed a commonly used firearm. | Government: scope may exclude unlawful drug users (argues only "law-abiding" citizens). | Held: Yes. “The People” includes at least all Americans; Harrison is covered. |
| Is lack of a founding-era "distinctly similar" analogue dispositive at Bruen step two? | Harrison: absence of a historical twin is dispositive that § 922(g)(3) is inconsistent. | Government: absence is relevant but not dispositive; analogical reasoning still controls. | Held: Absence is relevant evidence but not dispositive; courts must apply analogical reasoning per Rahimi. |
| Are historical laws disarming the mentally ill analogous to § 922(g)(3) applied to non-intoxicated marijuana users? | Harrison: No — mentally ill analogies do not support disarming non-intoxicated users. | Government: mentally ill precedent shows legislatures could disarm those lacking responsibility/self-control. | Held: No. The government failed to show analogues disarming the mentally ill justify disarming non-intoxicated marijuana users. |
| Can legislatures disarm groups believed to pose future danger, and does § 922(g)(3) fit that principle? | Harrison: Historical tradition limited disarmament to those with past dangerous conduct; not to groups like non-intoxicated marijuana users. | Government: Founding and colonial laws (e.g., disarming Catholics, loyalists, going-armed statutes) show legislatures historically disarmed categories believed dangerous. | Held: History supports a principle that legislatures may disarm groups believed to pose future danger; but government must show non-intoxicated marijuana users pose such a risk — district court must decide on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (establishes the two-step/text-then-history framework and analogical reasoning for Second Amendment challenges)
- United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) (clarifies Bruen analogical method: courts must assess whether a modern regulation is consistent with the principles underpinning historical practice)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense and focuses historical meaning)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial-challenge standard: to succeed a plaintiff must show no set of circumstances under which the statute is valid)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporation of the Second Amendment against the states)
- United States v. Connelly, 117 F.4th 269 (5th Cir. 2024) (examined § 922(g)(3) as applied to non-intoxicated marijuana users and reached a different historical conclusion)
- United States v. Jackson, 138 F.4th 1244 (10th Cir. 2025) (discusses disarmament consistent with history where past dangerous conduct demonstrates risk)