The government charged Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) for possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of marijuana. The lower courts dismissed the charge as unconstitutional as applied to his possession of a firearm in the home. The Supreme Court affirmed. Applying the historical-tradition methodology governing Second Amendment claims, the Court concluded that the government had not shown a sufficiently analogous tradition of disarming a person solely because of the pattern of marijuana use alleged in this prosecution, apart from proof that he was armed while intoxicated or otherwise dangerous. The decision was limited to the charge and record before the Court.