Here's some good news for gun rights: Gun Owners of America is taking Pennsylvania to court over a ridiculous law that permanently bars people from getting their concealed carry license based on old, non-violent drug convictions.
The case centers on Craig Phillips, an honorably discharged Air Force and Gulf War veteran who was convicted of a minor misdemeanor marijuana possession charge back in 1994. That's it—one conviction over 30 years ago. The man's never been charged with anything else, he's completely legal to purchase and own firearms under both state and federal law, and yet Pennsylvania says he can't carry a gun in public. That's not just backwards, it's unconstitutional.
GOA and the Gun Owners Foundation are arguing this law directly conflicts with the Supreme Court's recent *Hemani* decision, which established that simple "unlawful" drug use isn't enough to strip someone of their Second Amendment rights. Pennsylvania's statute is even more restrictive than the federal law that got struck down in *Hemani*.
Here's what gets me: the state will sell Phillips a gun but won't let him carry it. Make that make sense. If someone's trustworthy enough to possess firearms in their home, they're trustworthy enough to exercise their full constitutional rights.
This lawsuit isn't challenging Pennsylvania's drug laws—it's saying the carry ban goes too far when applied to low-level, non-violent offenses from decades ago. History doesn't support permanently stripping someone of their carry rights for a joint.
I'd rather see Harrisburg fix this themselves, but if they won't, I'm confident the courts will. GOA is building a solid case using *Hemani*, and I wouldn't be surprised to see similar challenges in other states with comparable laws.
For my customers: if you've got an old minor drug conviction and have been wondering about your carry rights, this case is worth watching. Your Second Amendment rights shouldn't be held hostage by a mistake from 30 years ago.