First, in United States v. Hemani, the Court held that marijuana use alone is not sufficient to bar someone from possessing a firearm. An individual had been prosecuted for violating the federal statute prohibiting habitual users of unlawful drugs from possessing firearms. The Court held that this prosecution violated the Second Amendment because there was no evidence that his marijuana use posed a danger. The Court specifically provided that a prosecution could be lawful under other facts, such as the use of a firearm by an addict or while actively intoxicated, or if there was other evidence of dangerousness.

Next, in Wolford v. Lopez, the Court struck down the portion of a Hawaii law that prohibited anyone, including those with concealed carry permits, from carrying firearms on private property held open to the public, such as a restaurant or retail store, without first receiving permission. Importantly, the Court did not limit the right of property owners to bar guns on their property: property owners remain free to set policies and post signs that guns are not permitted on the premises. Nor did it address the law on private property that is not held open to the public, such as private residences; individuals must still obtain permission before carrying firearms there.

Finally, and potentially most significantly, yesterday the Supreme Court took up two cases concerning laws that restrict access to assault weapons:

Viramontes v. Cook County, concerning a local law applying to Chicago, and Grant v. Higgins, a Connecticut state law enacted after the Sandy Hook shooting. The cases will be heard together in the Court’s next term, which begins in October.