A recent ruling in Texas has brought attention to the balance between gun ownership and the use of mind-altering substances. A Texas judge dismissed charges against Adrian Gil, II, who had been accused of owning firearms while being a user of marijuana. While Texas Gun Rights does not support the use of any mind-altering substances while handling firearms, this case underscores a larger issue—whether such personal choices should strip Americans of their constitutional right to self-defense and the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
Gil’s arrest in 2021 came after a police search of his home revealed marijuana and several firearms. He faced charges under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)), which prohibits gun ownership for marijuana users. Despite knowing that his actions conflicted with federal law, Gil argued that he still had the right to own firearms while using marijuana. He was initially convicted, but the 2022 Bruen decision brought a change to the legal landscape.
The Bruen decision, which emphasized the need for firearm laws to align with the text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment, has had a significant influence on shaping future legal rulings. It established the precedent that any law restricting gun rights must have a historical foundation, one that dates back to the early days of the United States.
In this case, the judge ruled that the law barring marijuana users from possessing firearms lacked historical support and did not align with the Second Amendment’s traditions. The government failed to prove that the law was consistent with the text and history of the Constitution. This ruling is a reminder that the Second Amendment is a fundamental right and not a privilege, and any law that seeks to restrict it must be carefully scrutinized.
For Texas Gun Rights, this decision is important not only for Adrian Gil but for all law-abiding citizens who value their right to self-defense. It emphasizes that government overreach, particularly in cases where no historical analogy exists for such laws, is unconstitutional. While we do not endorse the use of marijuana or any substance that impairs one’s ability to safely use a firearm, we believe that such personal choices should not disqualify someone from exercising their rights under the Second Amendment. This principle should also apply to other victimless crimes where individuals’ actions do not harm others.
The dismissal of Gil’s case also sends a message to federal lawmakers and agencies like the ATF. Gun rights are fundamental, and any law that infringes on these rights without a solid historical basis should not stand. The Bruen decision has equipped the courts with a framework to challenge unconstitutional gun laws, ensuring that any attempt to restrict law-abiding citizens’ rights must meet a high standard of scrutiny.
While this ruling represents progress, it also serves as a reminder that the fight to protect our rights is ongoing. We must remain vigilant against any future efforts—whether from the federal government, state-level officials, or anti-gun groups—that seek to erode our constitutional freedoms.
Ultimately, this case highlights the importance of preserving the rights of all Americans to bear arms, grounded in the historical and constitutional principles that protect them. Texas Gun Rights will continue advocating for the protection of these rights, ensuring that no law unjustly limits the freedoms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
As we move forward, we will remain committed to defending the rights of Texans—and all Americans—to self-defense and firearm ownership, as long as we stay true to the principles of liberty that have guided our nation.
