The article discusses reactions from legal commentators Michael Popok and Lisa Graves to a unanimous U.S.Supreme Court decision in United States v.Hemani.

The case involved a Texas gun owner who admitted to regularly using marijuana and was prosecuted under a federal law that restricts firearm possession by unlawful drug users.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the government could not automatically disarm the individual based solely on the circumstances presented in the case, concluding that the prosecution violated protections under the Second Amendment.During an episode of the Legal AF podcast, Popok and Graves focused their criticism on the opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch.They argued that part of Gorsuch's reasoning relied heavily on historical discussions about alcohol consumption in early American history.

According to the commentators, the opinion examined how common drunkenness was among earlier generations and whether historical regulations on intoxicated individuals provided guidance for modern firearm restrictions.

Popok mocked the historical analysis, suggesting that the opinion devoted excessive attention to the drinking habits of people in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Graves similarly described the reasoning as selective and questioned whether such historical comparisons provide a sound basis for evaluating modern laws involving firearms and controlled substances.

Both commentators characterized the decision and the supporting rationale as problematic, particularly because it addressed firearm rights in the context of ongoing drug use.

The article primarily highlights the criticism leveled at Gorsuch's opinion rather than providing a detailed legal analysis of the Court's ruling itself.