HEMANI CHANGED THE GAME—BUT CAN A NEW YORK CANNABIS USER STILL GET A PISTOL PERMIT?

There are few things more frustrating than discovering that two laws can exist at the same time, point in completely different directions, and somehow both be important to you.

New York says cannabis is legal for adults 21 and older.

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

And then there is the complicated world of federal controlled-substance and firearms law sitting right in the middle of those two rights.

But in June 2026, something happened that changed the conversation.

The United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Hemani, a case involving a Texas man who regularly used marijuana and possessed a firearm in his home. The federal government prosecuted him under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3), the federal law that generally prohibits an “unlawful user of or addicted to” a controlled substance from possessing a firearm.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected the government’s attempt to prosecute Hemani based solely on his marijuana use, holding that the government’s application of the law to him violated the Second Amendment. The Court emphasized that the government had not shown that Hemani’s marijuana use made him dangerous or otherwise supplied the individualized justification necessary to disarm him.

That is a BIG deal.

But here’s where New York gets complicated.

Because Hemani did not simply declare that every marijuana consumer in America now automatically qualifies for every firearm license in every state.

And that distinction matters.

THE TEXAS CASE THAT CHANGED THE CONVERSATION

Ali Hemani lived in Texas and admitted that he used marijuana about every other day. Federal agents found marijuana and a firearm at his home during an investigation unrelated to the firearm charge.

The government later prosecuted him under §922(g)(3), relying on his marijuana use.

The Supreme Court’s question wasn’t whether marijuana was legal under Texas law.

It was whether the federal government could take away Hemani’s Second Amendment right and prosecute him merely because he regularly used marijuana, without additional evidence showing that his drug use made him dangerous.

The Court said no.

The decision was an as-applied decision, meaning the Court decided the constitutionality of the federal prohibition as it was applied to Hemani’s circumstances. The Court did not declare every possible application of §922(g)(3) unconstitutional. It specifically left questions involving addiction, present intoxication, other controlled substances, and individualized evidence of dangerousness unresolved.

That is why headlines saying “marijuana users can now own guns” can be misleading if they leave out the details.

The decision opened a door.

It did not erase every law standing behind that door.

SO WHAT ABOUT NEW YORK?

New York has its own pistol-licensing system.

Under New York Penal Law §400.00, an applicant cannot be issued or renewed a pistol license if the applicant is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” as defined by federal law. The statute also requires the licensing officer to investigate the application and make findings concerning the applicant’s eligibility and character.

And the current New York State pistol/revolver license application asks applicants directly:

“Are you an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance as defined in section 21 U.S.C. 802?”

So New York has not simply removed marijuana from the firearm-license equation because cannabis became legal under New York law.

New York legalized adult-use cannabis for adults 21 and older, including possession and consumption within the limits established by state law.

But federal law has historically treated marijuana as a controlled substance.

That creates the collision:

New York cannabis law says lawful.

New York pistol law still uses federal controlled-substance terminology.

The Supreme Court has now said that the federal government cannot automatically disarm a marijuana user based solely on marijuana use in circumstances like Hemani’s.

Welcome to the legal gray area.

WHAT IF YOU USED TO SMOKE BUT DON’T ANYMORE?

This is one of the most important distinctions.

There is a huge difference between saying:

“I used marijuana years ago.”

and:

“I currently use marijuana.”

New York’s statutory disqualification is written in the present tense. It says an applicant must not “be” an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.

That means past marijuana use is not automatically the same thing as current unlawful use.

In fact, the current New York application asks the applicant whether they are an unlawful user or addicted—not simply whether they have ever consumed cannabis.

That doesn’t mean an applicant should hide past drug use.

Quite the opposite.

New York’s application separately asks applicants about arrests, charges and indictments, including matters that may be relevant to their background investigation.

And New York courts have repeatedly emphasized that applicants must provide truthful information and that licensing officers have substantial authority to investigate an applicant’s eligibility based on character.

So if somebody smoked marijuana years ago, stopped, and otherwise meets the requirements, past use by itself is not the same statutory condition as being a current unlawful user.

That is an important distinction.

WHAT IF YOU CURRENTLY USE CANNABIS IN NEW YORK?

This is where the answer becomes much less comfortable.

Under the literal language of New York Penal Law §400.00, a person who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance is disqualified from receiving a pistol license.

Because New York’s statute incorporates the federal controlled-substance definition, marijuana’s continued federal status matters.

That is why New York’s Office of Cannabis Management warned in 2026 that cannabis users should understand the continuing tension between state cannabis legalization and federal firearm rules. Its published guidance specifically described cannabis—including medical cannabis—as remaining federally illegal and warned that disclosure on firearm applications could have licensing consequences.

But then came Hemani.

And Hemani creates a serious constitutional question about whether New York—or anyone acting under federal law—can simply say:

“You use marijuana, therefore you are automatically too dangerous to possess a firearm.”

The Supreme Court rejected that kind of automatic conclusion in Hemani’s case.

The Court found that marijuana use alone, without additional evidence establishing the kind of danger that historically justified disarmament, was insufficient to support the federal prosecution against Hemani.

But—and this is the part people need to understand—the Supreme Court did not issue a ruling specifically ordering New York licensing officers to issue pistol permits to current marijuana users.

That question remains open.

NEW YORK VS. TEXAS: WHAT’S ACTUALLY DIFFERENT?

The biggest misconception is that Texas somehow received a special marijuana-and-guns exemption.

It didn’t.

Hemani happened to be a Texas resident.

The Supreme Court was deciding a federal constitutional question, not creating a Texas-only marijuana firearm law.

The federal constitutional holding therefore matters in New York too.

But New York has its own pistol-license statute and licensing process.

That’s the critical difference.

Think of it as two separate layers:

FEDERAL LAYER:
The Supreme Court has limited the government’s ability to use federal §922(g)(3) to automatically disarm a marijuana user solely because that person uses marijuana, at least under circumstances like Hemani’s.

NEW YORK LAYER:
New York Penal Law §400.00 still contains an eligibility requirement excluding an applicant who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance.

Those two things now have to be reconciled.

And that reconciliation has not yet been definitively answered by the Supreme Court or, as of this writing, by a controlling New York appellate decision specifically holding that ordinary current marijuana use alone can no longer disqualify a New York pistol-permit applicant.

That is the legal question sitting on the table.

marijuana in the past but stopped
Past use alone is not the same as being a current unlawful user. It is not an automatic marijuana-based disqualification under the wording of §400.00.
You currently use cannabis in New York
New York’s statute still contains a controlled-substance disqualification, so current cannabis use can create a pistol-license eligibility problem.

You currently use cannabis and possess a firearm
Hemani significantly changed the federal constitutional analysis, but it did not automatically invalidate every state firearm restriction involving marijuana.
You are addicted to a controlled substance
Hemani expressly did not resolve the constitutionality of every application involving addiction.
There is additional evidence of dangerous conduct connected to drug use
That can present a materially different constitutional and licensing question from marijuana use alone.

You were denied a NY permit because of cannabis
The precise reason for the denial matters. A denial can potentially be challenged through the appropriate legal process, including judicial review under Article 78, depending on the circumstances.

The table is the short version.

The real story is much bigger.

IS THE BATTLE OVER?

No one should honestly tell New York cannabis consumers that the Supreme Court’s decision automatically solved the problem.

It didn’t.

But nobody should honestly tell them that the issue is hopeless, either.

The legal landscape has changed dramatically.

Before Hemani, the federal government had a much stronger argument that regular marijuana use alone could trigger §922(g)(3).

After Hemani, the Supreme Court has said that the government cannot simply assume that a marijuana user is dangerous and strip that person of firearm rights without the constitutionally required justification.

That creates an important foundation for future litigation, legislation and regulatory changes.

And that’s where the next chapter begins.

WHAT CAN PEOPLE DO NOW?

There are several lawful ways citizens can participate in the ongoing legal and policy debate.

First: know exactly what happened if a permit is denied.

A denial based on current cannabis use is different from a denial based on an undisclosed arrest, criminal conviction, false statement, or an independent finding concerning character or eligibility.

New York courts have recently emphasized that applicants must be truthful and that licensing officers have significant discretion in evaluating applications.

Second: talk to an attorney who understands both firearms law and cannabis law.

This is not an area where internet comments should replace individualized legal advice. The interaction between federal constitutional law, New York Penal Law §400.00 and local licensing procedures is complicated.

Third: watch the courts.

If a New York applicant is denied specifically because of marijuana use, that individual may have an opportunity to challenge the determination through the appropriate judicial process. New York law provides for judicial review of adverse licensing determinations, and recent cases demonstrate that firearm-license disputes continue to reach New York.

Fourth: watch Albany.

New York’s firearm laws are made and changed through legislation. Citizens can contact their state legislators, submit testimony, participate in public legislative processes and support or oppose proposed legislation according to their own views.

There are also national organizations on different sides of the Second Amendment and cannabis-law debate that are participating in litigation and public-policy discussions surrounding Hemani. The Supreme Court case itself attracted participation from organizations including the ACLU, NORML, the NRA and others.

And perhaps most importantly:

Pay attention to what the courts actually say—not just what social media says they said.

THE QUESTION NEW YORK HAS TO ANSWER

There is something almost surreal about the current situation.

New York can tell an adult:

“You are legally permitted under New York law to possess and consume cannabis.”

But its pistol-licensing statute still asks whether that same person is an unlawful user of a federally controlled substance.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has now said the federal government cannot automatically treat a marijuana user as someone who can be stripped of Second Amendment rights merely because that person uses marijuana.

That collision was inevitable.

Hemani didn’t finish the conversation.

It made the conversation impossible to ignore.

And now the question is no longer simply:

“Can a person smoke marijuana and own a gun?”

The more precise question is:

“Can the government constitutionally treat marijuana use, by itself, as sufficient evidence that an otherwise eligible person should lose the right to possess a firearm?”

The Supreme Court has already answered that question in one important federal context:

Not automatically.

But New York’s licensing system still contains language that creates a separate legal problem.

So for New Yorkers, the story isn’t finished.

The next chapter could come from the Legislature.

It could come from New York courts.

It could come from another federal case.

It could come from new regulations or guidance.

Or it could come from some combination of all of them.

For now, the most responsible conclusion is also the most intriguing one:

The Hemani decision changed the battlefield, but it did not declare the New York battle over.

For cannabis consumers who also care about their constitutional rights, that distinction matters.

Because when laws collide, knowing exactly where the law stands is the first step toward knowing where the law may go next.

• Seymour Buds