Colorado Governor Is ‘Pushing Back’ Against His Own State’s Position Supporting Federal Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers

The governor of Colorado says his state should not have joined a lawsuit supporting the federal ban on gun ownership by people who use marijuana that’s now before the U.S. Supreme Court—and he personally opposes the state attorney general’s “legal position on this.”

It took some by surprise when Colorado’s top prosecutor, as well as the attorneys general of other states that have legalized cannabis, signed on to a December filing with the court backing the Trump administration Justice Department’s argument that current federal statute barring cannabis consumers from buying or possessing firearms is constitutional and warranted.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D), a longtime advocate for marijuana reform as well as gun rights, posted on X on Monday that there’s “no reason that someone should be banned from exercising their Second Amendment right simply because they use marijuana, especially when that logic is not being applied in the same way to other substances such as alcohol.”

X added context to the post, pointing out that Polis’s comment contradicted his own state’s official position in the federal case, U.S. vs. Hemani, that could decide the fate of the statute known as 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

There is no reason that someone should be banned from exercising their Second Amendment right simply because they use marijuana, especially when that logic is not being applied in the same way to other substances such as alcohol

— Governor Jared Polis (@GovofCO) February 2, 2026

“Colorado has filed in opposition of any reform or relief. It is the official position of the Colorado executive to strip marijuana users of their 2A rights,” the added context states.

The governor on Thursday shared a screenshot of the updated post, expressing thanks for the clarification and adding that “Colorado should not have joined this lawsuit, and that’s why I am pushing back.”

“The reason my position is noteworthy is that I oppose Colorado’s legal position on this and filing,” he said. “I have repeatedly called for the rescheduling of marijuana and continue to urge the federal administration to stop dragging its feet, and I will always fight to ensure that responsible recreational or medicinal use of marijuana does not interfere with our Second Amendment rights.”

Thanks for the added context. Colorado should not have joined this lawsuit, and that’s why I am pushing back. The reason my position is noteworthy is that I oppose Colorado’s legal position on this and filing. I have repeatedly called for the rescheduling of marijuana and… pic.twitter.com/dEVYPyzhR7

— Governor Jared Polis (@GovofCO) February 5, 2026

It’s unclear how Polis is “pushing back” against his state’s position supporting the constitutionality of the gun ban, beyond sharing his personal opposition to that stance on social media. But at this stage in the legal process, it’s also unclear what more he could do as a practical matter.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association (NRA)–arguably the most influential gun rights lobbying group in the U.S.—recently joined top drug policy reform organizations and other interests in urging the Supreme Court to declare the federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana consumers unconstitutional.

Central to the arguments from NRA and the drug policy organizations is that, based on separate Supreme Court precedent on gun restrictions, barring marijuana users from buying or possessing firearms lacks historical analogues consistent with the nation’s founding and is inconsistent with the increasing social acceptance of marijuana as states continue to legalize if for medical or recreational purposes.

Multiple amicus briefs were filed days after ACLU attorneys representing Hemani made the case that the federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana consumers is nonsensical and unconstitutional—and that it’s made all the more confounding by the fact that President Donald Trump directed the expeditious finalization of a rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the Hermani proceedings on March 2.

In December, Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and 21 other prohibitionist groups filed a brief urging justices to uphold the constitutionality of the federal gun ban for people who use cannabis—which they claim is associated with violence and psychosis.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, for his part, told the Supreme Court that people who use illegal drugs “pose a greater danger” than those who drink alcohol.

— Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments. Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access. —

Meanwhile, the Biden administration was evidently concerned about potential legal liability in federal cases for people convicted of violating gun laws simply by being a cannabis consumer who possessed a firearm, documents recently obtained by Marijuana Moment show.

The previously unpublished 2024 guidance from former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department generally cautioned U.S. attorneys to use discretion in prosecuting federal cannabis cases, particularly for offenses that qualified people for pardons during his term. But one section seems especially relevant as the Supreme Court takes on a case challenging the constitutionality of the current federal gun statute.

With respect to Hemani, in a separate August filing for the case, the Justice Department also emphasized that “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.” In seeking the court’s grant of cert, the solicitor general also noted that the defendant is a joint American and Pakistani citizen with alleged ties to Iranian entities hostile to the U.S., putting him the FBI’s radar.

If justices declare 922(g)(3) constitutional, such a ruling could could mean government wins in the remaining cases. The high court recently denied a petition for cert in U.S. v. Cooper, while leaving pending decisions on U.S. v. Daniels and U.S. v. Sam.

The court also recently denied a petition for cert in another gun and marijuana case, U.S. v. Baxter, but that wasn’t especially surprising as both DOJ and the defendants advised against further pursing the matter after a lower court reinstated his conviction for being an unlawful user of a controlled substance in possession of a firearm.

Meanwhile, in recent interviews with Marijuana Moment, several Republican senators shared their views on the federal ban on gun possession by people who use marijuana—with one saying that if alcohol drinkers can lawfully buy and use firearms, the same standard should apply to cannabis consumers.

Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit last year sided with a federal district court that dismissed an indictment against Jared Michael Harrison, who was charged in Oklahoma in 2022 after police discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic stop.

The case has now been remanded to that lower court, which determined that the current statute banning “unlawful” users of marijuana from possessing firearms violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

The lower court largely based his initial decision on an interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices generally created a higher standard for policies that seek to impose restrictions on gun rights.

In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh District, judges recently ruled in favor of medical cannabis patients who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms.

As a recent report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) explained the current legal landscape, a growing number of federal courts are now “finding constitutional problems in the application of at least some parts” of the firearms prohibition.

In another ruling, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated a defendant’s conviction and remanded the case back to a district court, noting that a retrial before a jury may be necessary to determine whether cannabis in fact caused the defendant to be dangerous or pose a credible threat to others.

The Third Circuit separately said in a published opinion that district courts must make “individualized judgments” to determine whether 922(g)(3) is constitutional as applied to particular defendants.

A federal court in October agreed to delay proceedings in a years-long Florida-based case challenging the constitutionality of the ban on gun ownership by people who use medical marijuana, with the Justice Department arguing that the Supreme Court’s recent decision to take up Hemani warrants a stay in the lower court.

In the background, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) recently moved to loosen rules that bar people who consume marijuana and other illegal drugs from being able to lawfully purchase and possess guns by making it so fewer people would be affected.

The interim final rule from ATF seeks to update the definition of “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” under an existing policy that has been interpreted to deny Second Amendment rights to people who have used illegal substances a single time within the past year.

Back in Colorado, meanwhile, activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state—but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short.