GOA Sues Pennsylvania After Veteran Denied Carry License Over 1994 Marijuana Conviction

In light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Hemani, Gun Owners of America (GOA) has filed a lawsuit challenging a Pennsylvania law that permanently bars residents with a minor misdemeanor drug conviction from obtaining a license to carry a firearm.

The case centers on Pennsylvania resident and United States Air Force veteran Craig Phillips. In 1994, Phillips was arrested and convicted for possessing a small amount of marijuana. His offense occurred long before shifting public attitudes led many states to reduce or eliminate penalties for cannabis possession.

The lawsuit, Philips v. Bivens, attacks a Pennsylvania statute that permanently denies a License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) to anyone convicted of an offense under the state’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act—even when the offense was minor, nonviolent, and committed decades ago.

A 1994 Misdemeanor Became a Lifetime Carry Ban

Phillips has not used any drugs since that single incident more than three decades ago. Yet Pennsylvania’s outdated law has stripped him of his constitutionally protected right to bear arms ever since. Despite evolving public opinion and scientific understanding of cannabis, the Commonwealth has refused to modernize its statutes. Now, this law-abiding gun owner and longtime GOA member has teamed up with the organization to sue and restore his God-given Second Amendment rights.

In 2024, Philips applied for a Pennsylvania carry license in Butler County. His application was denied solely because of the 1994 marijuana conviction. That denial does more than prevent Philips from carrying concealed. Without an LTCF, Pennsylvania law substantially restricts his ability to carry a handgun in a vehicle, carry openly or concealed in Philadelphia, or remain armed on public property during a declared emergency.

In other words, Pennsylvania allows Philips to own a handgun but blocks him from practically bearing that handgun for self-defense throughout much of his daily life.

Hemani Puts Pennsylvania on the Defensive

The timing of the lawsuit is no coincidence. Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous 9-0 ruling in Hemani. That case addressed a federal law criminalizing firearm ownership by “unlawful users” of marijuana. Prior to the decision, it was a federal offense for individuals to possess guns while being classified as unlawful marijuana users, even if their use was infrequent or in the distant past.

The Supreme Court took up the case after the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the federal prohibition was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court struck down the restriction.

Under the Bruen test, courts must first examine whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct at issue.

In Hemani, the plaintiff was indisputably a member of “the people”—the class protected by the Amendment—having reached the age of majority. The same holds true for Phillips. The conduct in Hemani involved keeping arms, while Phillips seeks to exercise the right to bear arms. Both are explicitly protected by the Second Amendment’s text.

The second step of the Bruen analysis shifts the burden to the government to demonstrate that the challenged law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This requires the state to identify relevant historical analogues, typically from the Founding era.

In Hemani, the government’s primary analogues were racist “Black Codes” enacted during the Reconstruction era to disarm newly freed Black citizens. The Supreme Court soundly rejected these as improper historical comparators. Instead, the justices noted that many of the Founding Fathers themselves consumed alcohol regularly, sometimes heavily, without forfeiting their right to keep and bear arms. The unanimous decision made clear that only those who are actively intoxicated can have their rights restricted on that basis. Passive or historical drug use does not justify a lifetime ban.

Pennsylvania Must Produce the History

This ruling creates a significant roadblock for Pennsylvania in defending its law. The Commonwealth will struggle to produce Founding-era analogues that support permanently disarming someone for a decades-old minor misdemeanor. Legal experts believe Phillips v. Bivens could become one of the first major cases to apply the Hemani standard to strike down a state-level restriction.

Beyond historical analogues, Pennsylvania faces another glaring inconsistency: the state already deems individuals like Phillips safe enough to own firearms, yet it prohibits them from carrying those same firearms for self-defense. This distinction lacks logical or constitutional support under the Bruen framework, which treats the right to keep and bear arms as a unified whole.

GOA’s involvement underscores the organization’s commitment to defending the rights of veterans and everyday Americans against government overreach. For Phillips, this lawsuit represents more than just legal advocacy—it is a fight to reclaim a fundamental liberty denied for over 30 years because of one youthful mistake.

The outcome of Phillips v. Bivens could have far-reaching implications. A victory would not only restore Phillips’ rights but also set a powerful precedent for challenging similar restrictions across the country. As post-Bruen and post-Hemani litigation continues to reshape the legal landscape, courts are increasingly forcing states to justify their gun control measures with history rather than modern policy preferences.

Gun rights advocates see this as a critical step toward ensuring that the Second Amendment’s protections are not eroded by outdated statutes or selective enforcement. For veterans like Craig Phillips, who served their country honorably, the right to self-defense should not end with a decades-old minor conviction.

The Uncomfortable Truth for Antis as Semi-Auto Rifle Cases Loom at SCOTUS

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.