Debate over cannabis reform often intersects with another fiercely protected American right: firearm ownership. Many consumers assume that legal cannabis use at the state level should shield them from federal gun restrictions. However, the legal reality is far more complicated. This blog post explores whether states can actually override federal firearm laws that apply to cannabis users—and why the answer remains largely “no,” despite ongoing challenges across the country.
Under federal law, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance. This classification triggers the prohibition found in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which bars anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing or purchasing a firearm. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) reinforces this rule through the required Form 4473, which explicitly states that marijuana use—even if legal under state law—makes an individual federally prohibited.
This federal authority stems from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives federal law priority when state and federal rules conflict. Because states cannot nullify federal statutes, no state has the power to “override” the federal firearms ban for cannabis users. States can expand gun rights within their borders, but they cannot negate federal criminal exposure for possessing a firearm while using cannabis.
Even states that strongly support cannabis legalization are bound by this limitation. Colorado, Washington, and California—early adopters of recreational marijuana—have no mechanism to exempt residents from the federal prohibition. A state-issued medical marijuana card or purchase receipt from a licensed dispensary does not change one’s status under federal law.
Still, states have pushed back in subtle ways. Some have passed laws preventing state agencies or law enforcement from using cannabis status alone to deny state-level gun permits. However, these laws only restrict state action. They do not shield individuals from federal enforcement or from lying on ATF Form 4473, which can carry felony penalties.
Recent lawsuits have attempted to weaken federal authority as well. In 2023 and 2024, federal courts questioned whether banning cannabis users from possessing firearms aligns with the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which requires modern gun restrictions to have a historical analogue. A few courts suggested that the federal ban may not survive constitutional scrutiny, while others upheld the restriction. Because these rulings have been inconsistent, the issue is likely headed toward further appellate review.
For now, cannabis consumers should understand that federal law governs firearm eligibility, regardless of how permissive their state may be with cannabis. Until Congress changes marijuana’s federal status—or the Supreme Court delivers a unifying decision—the conflict between state legalization and federal firearms policy will continue. Consumers who hold medical cannabis cards or regularly use marijuana should proceed cautiously, stay informed, and seek legal guidance when necessary.
