So, here's a very 21st-century question for the highest court in the land: if you use marijuana, can the government stop you from owning a gun?

The U.S. Supreme Court spent Monday chewing on exactly that, applying its relatively new "history and tradition" test for Second Amendment cases to a federal law from 1968. The case involves Ali Hemani, a Texas man who got into trouble after FBI agents raided his home in 2022 and found a Glock handgun and some marijuana.

Prosecutors hit him with a charge under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which makes it illegal for an "unlawful user" of a controlled substance to possess a firearm. Lower courts looked at that charge and threw it out, saying it violated Hemani's constitutional right to bear arms. Now the government is asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision.

The government's argument is pretty straightforward: this law fits with a long tradition of disarming people society has deemed dangerous. They point to historical laws that targeted habitual drunkards, for instance. The idea is that if you're regularly using a substance that impairs judgment, you might not be the safest person to have a gun.

But the justices had some... questions. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for one, called the whole case "odd," noting the weird tension at play. The federal government is actively considering reclassifying marijuana, potentially making it less illegal, while simultaneously using its current illegal status to strip people of a fundamental right. He posed a specific hypothetical: what about someone who takes a marijuana "gummy bear" every night to help them sleep? Could that person be barred from owning a gun?

The government's lawyer said yes, that person could indeed fall under the law.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wanted to see the receipts. She asked what evidence actually exists to show that marijuana use makes someone dangerous with a firearm. It's a good question—is this law based on proven risk, or just an assumption?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed worried about the test itself. She criticized applying the "history and tradition" standard in a way that could lead to "arbitrary" outcomes, where the line between who gets to have a gun and who doesn't gets drawn in strange places.

On the other side, Hemani's attorneys argue that the historical laws the government is talking about were focused on disarming people who were actually intoxicated and dangerous in the moment, not people who simply use a substance regularly. The National Rifle Association has filed a brief backing Hemani, flatly stating that the government has failed to prove marijuana users are inherently dangerous.

This legal debate is happening against a noisy backdrop of gun policy controversy. Earlier this year, former President Donald Trump commented on the fatal shooting of a licensed gun owner named Alex Pretti during a federal operation, saying the man should not have been armed. That drew immediate fire from gun rights groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America, who defended Pretti's right and demanded an investigation, creating a rare rift within conservative circles.

And just last year, the political winds shifted on another front. The Trump administration rolled back Biden-era restrictions on exporting civilian firearms. The move restored broader export rules and made it easier to ship certain guns to U.S. allies, with officials promising safeguards to keep weapons out of criminal hands. A side effect, of course, was opening up more revenue for U.S. gun manufacturers.

So, while the Supreme Court justices try to figure out what the founders would have thought about a guy with a Glock and some weed, the political world continues to wrestle with where to draw the line on gun rights in modern America. The outcome of this "odd" case could draw a very new line indeed.