This is another Rahimi in the making. In Rahimi, The People didn’t lose, but our win was limited. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, leaving weasel words for the infringers to use against us.
The often quoted statement in the legal business is, “Bad facts make bad law.”
The Fact Pattern
From the indictment:
On or about August 3, 2022, in Denton County, in the Eastern District of Texas Ali Danial Hemani, defendant, knowing that he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance as defined in Title 21 United States Code, Section 802, did knowingly possess a firearm, that is, a Glock 19, 9mm pistol, bearing serial number BRWX640, said firearm having been shipped and transported in interstate and foreign commerce.
In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(8).
— United States v. Hemani, 4:23-cr-00018, (E.D. Tex. Feb 08, 2023) ECF No. 1
This is it. He was arrested and charged under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) because a search of his parents’ home found pot and a handgun in his possession.
The state explained the search this way:
In April and October of 2021, downloads of Hemani’s phone revealed that he was abusing controlled substances including promethazine. Specifically, in one conversation Hemani texted another individual and discussed the purchase and sale of bottles of promethazine from different suppliers. Hemani stated that he had three bottles to sell and needed clients in high end areas around Dallas. In another conversation, Hemani stated that he had purchased five bottles of promethazine and offered to sell one bottle for $120. He further stated that he had started “sipping” from his other source of supply and noted that “this shits too addicting” and “idk if I want to stop.” A search warrant executed on August 3, 2022 at the residence Hemani shared with his parents resulted in the location and seizure of cocaine, marijuana, and two firearms. One of the firearms. a Glock handgun registered to Hemani, was found in Hemani’s bedroom. Hemani confessed that he had purchased the 4.7 grams of cocaine that was found in his mother’s room three to four months earlier. He further admitted that he purchased cocaine one to two times a year and smoked marijuana every other day. He added that he kept a quarter ounce of marijuana in his car or hidden at home and that he purchased large quantities of drugs which he would split with his friends.
At the time of the search and at the time of his arrest, Hemani was not under the influence.
— United States v. Hemani, 4:23-cr-00018, (E.D. Tex. Feb 23, 2023) ECF No. 18
It is important to note that promethazine is not a controlled substance. It is a prescription-only drug. IANAL, I have no idea how that relates to buying and selling controlled substances or things like cocaine.
It looks like his family were mild drug users. Cocaine and marijuana being their drugs of choice.
The statement “Hemani confessed that he had purchased the 4.7 grams of cocaine that was found…” may not be a fact in evidence. As far as I can tell, none of this statement has been determined to be factual, but, again, I am not a lawyer.
The state goes on to say that only “law-abiding” citizens are part of The People protected by the Second Amendment. This is a moronic take on Heller and Bruen. Rahimi had not been decided at the time of this filing. If Rahimi had been decided, the fact that Mr. Rahimi, a bad, bad man, was still considered to be part of The People protected by the Second Amendment would hold in this case.
Even though the state claims that Mr. Hemani is not a part of The People, they then say that the standard litany of “in the terror” and “while intoxicated” and other safety regulations are a match.
Here is the interesting thing: in the state’s entire section on meeting their burden of proving a match to this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, they did not cite a single firearm regulation. They didn’t cite a single regulation.
Instead they cited books of “expert” opinions. This does not count towards meeting their burden.
The Defense
Mr. Hemani filed a motion to dismiss the charges in an as-applied and facial challenge to §922(g)(3) as a violation of his Second Amendment protected rights. He also challenged under the Fifth Amendment on a vagueness claim.
The magistrate judge in the case heard the argument to dismiss and wrote a recommendation to the court.
The magistrate immediately finds that Mr. Hemani is part of The People. He is a U.S. Citizen who has resided in the U.S. his entire life.
This single finding shifts the burden to the state to prove that §922(g)(3) has a match in this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The magistrate continues, finding that intoxication laws are not sufficiently analogous to 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3). He also rejects Reconstruction-era state laws as being too late in time.
It was interesting to me because these historical regulations were used in the Wolford case out of the Third Circuit. I used a less formal presentation to knock the same laws out of contention there as the magistrate does here.
In conclusion, the magistrate recommends that 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) be found unconstitutional after Bruen.
Later the district trial court granted Mr. Hemani’s motion to dismiss on the ground that 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) is unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Hemani.
Because the court found §922(g)(3) didn’t apply to Mr. Hemani, they dismissed his facial challenge as moot. In other words, Mr. Hemani won, but The People did not get a piece of that cake.
The state appealed.
The Fifth Circuit merits panel affirmed (agreed with) the district court.
In my opinion, this was an easy out. No inferior court really wants to say that any part of §922(g) is unconstitutional on its face. To do so would be to break so much of the gun control legislation in this country.
On Petition For Certiorari
Interestingly, the state didn’t immediately appeal to the Supreme Court. Instead they requested an extension while they considered the appeal.
In the end, the DOJ petitioned The Court for an answer to the question:
Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.
—
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234 (U.S. filed June 2, 2025),
Most of the DOJ’s argument is a repeat of out-of-time-frame regulations, intentionally conflating “temporary” with “lifetime” prohibitions. As Mr. Hemani pointed out, being found guilty under §922(g)(3) means that you are now prohibited under §922(g)(1). Thus, (g)(3) is a lifetime prohibition.
The state then brings up §925(c). This is the method by which a person can get their Second Amendment protected rights back.
There are more than a few issues with this. Until very recently, and it still might be the case, the U.S. Congress had not allocated any funding towards implementing §925(c). You can request your rights back, but there is nobody to process your request. Therefore, no getting your rights back.
I believe that this might have been addressed in the current budget. If so, this allows this argument to stand. Actually, if I had read the next paragraph, the DOJ says just this, That program was effectively disabled from 1992 until 2025…
Unfortunately, to use §925(c), you have to admit to a violation of §922(g). That doesn’t sound like a wise thing. If the government decides you don’t get your rights back, you’ve admitted to a crime, for which you can be punished.
Certiorari
- Petitioner’s Brief on the Merits: Due December 4, 2025
- Amicus Curiae Briefs in Support of Petitioner or Neither Party: Due December 11, 2025
- Respondent’s Brief on the Merits: Due January 3, 2026
- Amicus Curiae Briefs in Support of Respondent: Due January 10, 2026
- Petitioner’s Reply Brief: Due February 2, 2026
- Oral Arguments: Expected in March 2026 (not yet scheduled)
This will be a big case.
IANAL Analysis
There are some serious problems with this case. Mrs. Hemani, the mother of Ali, is an active Muslim. A real little Satan, big Satan, martyr-loving barbarian. She was interviewed in Iran, telling the world that she wanted her sons to become martyrs. She made Facebook posts saying the same thing. All in all, she is a piece of garbage, exactly the sort of person I wish we could deport.
There does not seem to be any facts in evidence that Ali Hemani is a drug-dealing piece of garbage, but the district court detained him for the duration of his trial. He’s not a good person.
This Supreme Court is a law and order court. This administration is a law and order administration. This means that Mr. Hemani deserves to be imprisoned for being a despicable lowlife human.
This does not mean that it is constitutional to do so.
By stating the question as an “as-applied”, the DOJ is giving The Court an opportunity to find a way to throw Mr. Hemani in prison for up to 15 years while not messing up the progress we’ve made in Second Amendment jurisprudence.
We want Justice Thomas to write the opinion for Wolford v. Lopez. We don’t want Chief Justice Roberts writing another one of his easily twisted opinions here. Justice Alito would be a good choice.
Regardless, I expect a splitting of the baby. I expect we will hear more about “temporary” and “non-violent”, building on Rahimi.
I’m also hoping that we see another clear statement that “the plain text” is a simple test; the inferior courts got it right.
We might even see more on what time period is the correct time period for analogous regulations.
In short, I’m hopeful but not expecting this to be a total win for The People.
Truth hurts.