United States v. Hemani · ¶54

In many respects, this case is a narrow one. We do not address efforts to ban addicts, see n. 2, supra, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a frearm. We do not address other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing frearms. See n. 6, supra. We do not address 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1)'s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies (often including drug-related ones). Ibid. We do not even address whether the government could bring a prosecution under § 922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant's use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others. Or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous because of its potency or for some other reason. None of those issues is before us and we do not pass on them either way.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.