TRENTON, NJ – A federal judge has just ruled that prohibitions against marijuana users owning guns, such as one enacted by New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy are unconstitutional.

According to, “As such, being a medical or recreational marijuana user disqualifies you from buying, having, or owning a gun or ammunition. You are part of a prohibited class by law. Overall, when it comes to prohibiting medical marijuana users from owning guns, New Jersey follows federal law on that issue.”

“And so here we are, with the federal government now arguing that Harrison’s mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm. For all the reasons given above, this is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison,” Wyrick wrote.

The landmark SCOTUS case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (NYSRPA v. Bruen), established a precedent for gun laws in June, saying all gun laws must fit within the historical tradition of firearm regulation. Defendant Jared Harrison argued that the ban on marijuana users did not fit the historical tradition and infringed on his constitutional rights, according to the ruling.

On Feb. 3, a federal appeals court issued a similar ruling, choosing to strike down a decades-old gun law that blocked people under domestic violence protection orders from possessing firearms. The three-judge panel argued that the law was unconstitutional under precedent set in the NYSRPA v. Bruen case.

Related News:   Police seeking illegal dumping suspects in Rye

The law, which blocked the transfer of a firearm to anyone who was placed under a court protective order, was ruled unconstitutional, as it did not fit “within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the judges wrote in the ruling.

Many gun laws were challenged and changed following the NYSRPA v. Bruen ruling, with laws in New York, California, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and Illinois receiving scrutiny from legislators and activists, as many said they were unconstitutional under the new precedent.