Could the Feds Strip Gun Rights Based on Politics? 10th Circuit Opens the Door

William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, is sounding the alarm over a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The case, United States v. Harrison, involves the federal prohibition against marijuana users possessing firearms. On the surface, it looks like a narrow case about cannabis and guns. But Kirk warns the three-judge panel’s reasoning could open the door to something much more dangerous: the government disarming entire groups of Americans based not on actions, but on political judgment about who might be “dangerous” in the future.

The Harrison Case Explained

According to Kirk, the case began when Harrison was caught with both marijuana and a firearm. He challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which bars unlawful drug users from possessing guns. The district court initially sided with Harrison, ruling the law unconstitutional as applied to him. That lower court found that Harrison was among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment and that there was no historical tradition supporting a broad ban on non-intoxicated marijuana users owning firearms.

Tenth Circuit Sends It Back

But on appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed course. While the panel acknowledged much of the district court’s reasoning, it disagreed on the history question. The judges sent the case back for further consideration – but not before introducing what Kirk calls “an immensely dangerous rule of law.” The court suggested that legislatures may disarm those “believed to be dangerous,” even if they have not actually committed any violent or unlawful acts.

From Intoxicated to Merely Suspected

Kirk pointed out that American law has long recognized the power to disarm individuals who are actively intoxicated with alcohol or drugs. That principle stretches back before the Second Amendment itself. But in Harrison’s case, there was no allegation he was high at the time he possessed the firearm. Instead, the government argued that mere use of marijuana, legal in many states but illegal under federal law, was enough to treat him like the mentally ill, who can also be prohibited. The district court rejected that analogy. The Tenth Circuit, however, opened the door wider.

“Believed to Be Dangerous”

Here is where the ruling becomes so concerning. The Tenth Circuit cited historical examples where governments disarmed groups like Catholics, loyalists, and Native Americans – not because they had committed crimes, but because legislators thought they might pose future danger. By leaning on those examples, the court essentially endorsed the idea that legislatures today could disarm groups simply based on suspicion. Kirk called this a recipe for “preemptive disarmament,” where rights are stripped not because of what someone did, but because of what politicians fear they might do.

A Standard That Can Be Abused

Kirk warned viewers to think carefully about the phrase “believed to be dangerous.” It doesn’t require evidence, due process, or actual past misconduct. Instead, it allows lawmakers to speculate about future risk and then use that speculation to take away constitutional rights. “That’s a standard ripe for abuse,” Kirk said, pointing out how political winds shift quickly. What one administration deems “dangerous” could easily change when the other party takes power.

Historical Analogies With Dark Roots

The Tenth Circuit justified its approach by pointing to colonial-era laws disarming loyalists during the Revolution. But Kirk noted these examples were rooted in fear and prejudice, not actual violent behavior. Extending those analogies into modern constitutional law, he argued, could mean justifying the disarmament of almost any group a legislature dislikes. The danger, he explained, is that this transforms the Second Amendment from a personal right into a conditional privilege granted at the discretion of those in power.

Kicking It Back to the District Court

The panel’s order directs the lower court to examine whether non-intoxicated marijuana users “pose a risk of danger.” That, Kirk explained, is the heart of the problem. Instead of requiring proof of past criminal activity, the standard invites judges to speculate on hypothetical risks. Kirk compared it to a “Minority Report” scenario, where people lose rights based on what someone predicts they might do.

From Drugs to Politics?

What’s truly fascinating, and chilling, is how easily this reasoning could be extended beyond marijuana. If legislatures can disarm users of cannabis because they might be dangerous, what about members of certain political movements? Or people who post unpopular opinions online? Kirk said one doesn’t need a vivid imagination to see how such logic could be weaponized against gun owners as a class. And history shows that when governments are given vague standards, they rarely apply them narrowly.

Dangerous Precedent for All Sides

Kirk also made a point that should give pause to gun control advocates who might cheer this decision. Today, the rule could be used against marijuana users or conservatives. But tomorrow, a different majority could declare that another group, perhaps activists on the left, are “believed to be dangerous” and therefore should be disarmed. The precedent cuts both ways. In a deeply polarized country, giving the government such broad discretion is playing with fire.

A Departure From Objective Standards

Traditionally, firearm prohibitions have been tied to objective criteria: felony convictions, adjudicated mental illness, or active intoxication. The Tenth Circuit’s new framework departs from that objectivity, replacing it with legislative opinion. Kirk argued that the only legitimate standard should be actual demonstrated conduct. Otherwise, the Second Amendment ceases to be a right for all and becomes conditional on majority approval.

The Reasoning Could Spread Quickly

Although United States v. Harrison comes out of the Tenth Circuit, its reasoning could spread quickly if other courts adopt it. Kirk emphasized that this is not just about marijuana users in one region. It’s about whether the federal government and states can cite “dangerousness” as a blanket reason to strip gun rights from entire groups. That possibility, he warned, makes this one of the most consequential rulings in recent memory for the Second Amendment.

Watching Closely

As Kirk concluded, this case now goes back to the district court, but the principle introduced by the Tenth Circuit will loom large. Can the government take away gun rights not because of what you’ve done, but because of what it fears you might do? If the answer is yes, the Second Amendment’s protection could be hollowed out in practice. Kirk urged viewers to stay educated and engaged because, as he often reminds his audience, knowing the law is part of being a responsible gun owner. For now, United States v. Harrison stands as a warning of how quickly constitutional rights can shift when courts expand the power of suspicion over the rule of law.