For gun owners who use state-legal cannabis, the conflict is simple and stark. Under federal law, anyone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance—including marijuana—cannot possess a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reinforces that ban on Form 4473, which prospective buyers must complete at gun stores.

Yet most states now allow medical marijuana and many permit adult-use sales. That mismatch has pushed gun-rights organizations—alongside cannabis reform groups—into a new, uneasy coalition aimed not at expanding cannabis markets, but at protecting gun rights for people who follow state law.

Historically, the National Rifle Association (NRA) kept cannabis at arm’s length. The Marijuana Policy Project even described the NRA as “silent” on marijuana and gun rights. That posture has shifted. In 2025, the NRA’s lobbying arm, NRA-ILA, published a detailed analysis of the Fifth Circuit’s U.S. v. Daniels decision, which limited use of § 922(g)(3) against marijuana users who were not actually impaired when they possessed a firearm. The group argued that the federal approach has created a “confusing regulatory landscape” for otherwise law-abiding cannabis consumers who want to keep their guns.

NRA-ILA has not called for marijuana legalization. Instead, its focus is on constitutional consistency: gun laws, the group says, should align with the Supreme Court’s “text, history and tradition” standard from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and should be clearly and fairly applied to state-legal cannabis users.

Other gun-rights groups are going further. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and its litigation arm have filed briefs directly arguing that the ban on gun ownership by “unlawful users” of substances such as marijuana is unconstitutional. Their Fifth Circuit brief in Daniels emphasized that in over 150 years of colonial history, lawmakers disarmed people who were actually intoxicated or dangerous—not those who merely used intoxicants at some point in the past.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) has taken a similarly aggressive stance as the Supreme Court prepares to hear United States v. Hemani, a case that will decide whether § 922(g)(3) passes the Bruen test. GOA warns that bad facts—a defendant with alleged terrorism ties who also used marijuana—could produce bad law and is urging members to pressure the Department of Justice and Congress to narrow or scrap the ban as applied to cannabis.

These efforts intersect with broader litigation brought by medical marijuana patients and state officials, including Florida’s former agriculture commissioner Nikki Fried. In 2025, the Eleventh Circuit held that medical marijuana patients had plausibly alleged that the federal gun ban was unconstitutional as applied to them, aligning with an earlier pro-gun ruling from the Fifth Circuit.

Cannabis advocacy groups, for their part, are actively encouraging gun organizations to fully engage. The Marijuana Policy Project urges reform that would end “unjustified discrimination” against state-legal cannabis consumers and explicitly calls on the NRA and other Second Amendment advocates to defend those users’ rights.

For consumers and gun owners, the takeaway is that the legal landscape is moving—but not settled. Federal law still treats any marijuana use as disqualifying for new firearm purchases, even where state law says that same conduct is legal. Until Congress or the courts clearly resolve the conflict, anyone navigating both worlds should stay informed, follow state and federal rules carefully, and, when in doubt, seek qualified legal advice before making decisions that affect their rights.

Read More: The DEA, Federal Agencies, and the Future of Marijuana Rescheduling