Category: Courts

The Hidden Question for SCOTUS in Its Newest 2A Case

On the surface, the Hemani case the Supreme Court recently agreed to take up is about one thing: whether Section 922(g)(3) is constitutional as it applies to Ali Danial Hemani, who was convicted of possessing guns as an “unlawful” user of marijuana.

In answering that question, though, the justices are almost certainly going to have to answer another: whether the DOJ’s proposed rule allowing prohibited persons to apply to the Attorney General to have their Second Amendment rights resolved should bar prohibited persons from using the courts to regain their right to keep and bear arms.

Solicitor General D. John Saeur made the case for the Court to throw out the Hemani case on those grounds in his cert petition to the Supreme Court, and if the court adopts Sauer’s flawed reasoning it would have a impact well beyond Ali Danial Hemani’s conviction.

To the extent Section 922(g)(3) raises constitutional concerns in marginal cases, 18 U.S.C. 925(c) provides the appropriate mechanism for addressing those concerns. Under that statute, a person may apply to the Attorney General for relief from federal firearms disabilities. The Attorney General may grant relief if the applicant shows that “the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety” and if “the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.”  If the Attorney General denies relief, the applicant may seek judicial review in district court.

That program was effectively disabled from 1992 until 2025 because the authority to grant relief had been delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and appropriations statutes have included provisos barring ATF from using funds to act on Section 925(c) applications. Recognizing that the appropriations bar applies only to ATF, however, the Attorney General recently withdrew the delegation of authority to ATF and revitalized the Section 925(c) process. An individual who seeks an exception to one of Section922(g)’s categorical restrictions could invoke that process and, if the Attorney General denies his application, seek judicial review. That process provides a more workable mechanism for granting exceptions than a court-administered regime of as-applied challenges brought by those engaged in criminal conduct.

Section 925(c), to be sure, was not operative at the time of respondent’s offense conduct. But respondent has not argued that he would have satisfied Section925(c)’s standard—i.e., that his record and reputation show that he is unlikely to “act in a manner dangerous to public safety” and that granting relief “would not be contrary to the public interest.” 18 U.S.C. 925(c). Nor did respondent file a civil suit seeking “protection from prosecution under [Section 922(g)(3)] for any future possession of a firearm.” He instead “violated the law in secret,” “tried to avoid detection, ”and raised an as-applied challenge as a defense to a criminal charge after he was caught. Section 922(g)(3) raises no constitutional concerns as applied to him.

The biggest problem with Sauer’s argument is that Section 925(c) is still not operative and available to Hemani. If you look up “federal firearms rights restoration Attorney General” you’ll find this DOJ page that says “The Department is developing a 925(c) program web-based application for those seeking to restore their federal firearms rights” and “An initial version of the application will be available online soon after the final rule is released”.

There is, however, no way for Mr. Hemani or anyone else to actually start the application process. That could change by the time oral arguments are held, but the fact that this supposed remedy has been unavailable to anyone for more than 30 years should give the justices enough reason to reject the DOJ’s position.

Another huge issue with Sauer’s suggestion is that Ali Hemani isn’t just appealing the loss of his gun rights. He’s appealing his conviction for violating a law that the Fifth Circuit has said is unconstitutional as it applies to him. Relief from firearm disabilities is one thing, but Hemani is also trying to void the conviction that led to the loss of his right to keep and bear arms in the first place, and Section 925(c) doesn’t help him in the slightest.

If the Supreme Court agrees with Sauer, then Section 922(g)(3) will still be actively enforced against all “unlawful” drug users; not only guys like Ali Hemani, but the grandmother in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma eating a THC gummy to help with the effects of chemotherapy, or the former district attorney in Pennsylvania who can’t buy or possess a gun because he uses medical cannabis.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m glad the DOJ is restarting the 925(c) process after more than 30 years. It does nothing, though, to address the constitutionality of these statutes and whether or not people should be charged and convicted for violating them going forward. That’s why it’s so disappointing, and frankly disturbing, to see Sauer’s disingenuous argument deployed here, and SCOTUS will hopefully make it clear that they reject his flawed reasoning when oral arguments take place.

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation Successful in Overturning Virginia’s Universal Background Check Law; Judge Halts Enforcement

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation Successful in Overturning Virginia’s Universal Background Check Law; Judge Halts Enforcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 30, 2025

LYNCHBURG, VA – In a landmark decision affirming Second Amendment protections, a Virginia circuit court struck down the state’s universal background check law for private firearm sales, granting a permanent injunction that bars the law’s enforcement statewide. The ruling in Wilson, et al. v. Colonel Matthew D. Hanley, highlights fatal constitutional flaws in the statute, rendering it completely unenforceable.

The Court declared Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:5 unconstitutional, particularly due to its discriminatory impact on law-abiding adults aged 18-20. The Court then granted our request to enjoin the administration and enforcement of the law across the entire Commonwealth of Virginia.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement:

“This decision vindicates the rights of all Virginians to engage in lawful private firearm transfers without unconstitutional barriers. The Act’s enforcement mechanism was fatally flawed from the start—criminalizing everyday citizens while ignoring basic constitutional principles. We’re grateful the court recognized that patchwork fixes can’t save a broken law.”

John Velleco, Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation, issued the following statement:

“We are thrilled the judge struck down Virginia’s universal background check law because it was unconstitutionally blocking young adults from exercising their Second Amendment rights. This ruling upholds the true meaning of the Constitution by ensuring all law-abiding citizens can acquire firearms without arbitrary government barriers.”

The Virginia Citizens Defense League was also a plaintiff in this lawsuit, along with GOA and GOF.

GOA spokesmen are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

-GOA-

TPTB in Massachusetts need their faces rubbed in McDonald v Chicago where the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment was incorporated to also be a restriction on State’s powers via the 14th amendment.

Massachusetts Says Its ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Immune to Federal Challenge

Back in August, the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners Action League filed a lawsuit challenging the new “Assault Style Firearms” law adopted as part of the broader gun control package known as Chapter 135. Though the state has banned so-called assault weapons for several decades now, the new law offers a new opportunity to challenge the ban of commonly-owned arms.

Now the state of Masschusetts has responded to the complaint filed in Hanlon v. Campbell, and as GOAL reports, the state is making the audacious argument that its gun laws are essentially immune to challenge in federal court.

Continue reading “”

OR High Court to Finally Hear Measure 114 Arguments Nov. 6

By Dave Workman

Almost exactly three years after Oregon voters narrowly adopted gun control Measure 114, which bans so-called “large-capacity magazines” and requires permits-to-purchase firearms from police, the Oregon State Supreme Court will hear oral arguments challenging the measure’s constitutionality next week.

The hearing is scheduled Thursday, Nov. 6, just two days short of the third anniversary of the controversial initiative’s passage in November 2022. The measure squeaked by with 50.65 percent approval and 49.35 percent opposed, just 1.3 percent different on a gun control question which attracted 1,926,753 votes.

But before anyone gets too excited, the Oregon Capital Chronicle is reporting the three-year battle “may not be over.”

Measure 114 was supported by gun prohibitionists and many in the faith community, while opposition involved virtually every Second Amendment organization in the country including the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Oregon Firearms Federation, Oregon State Shooting Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition. Lawsuits were filed in both state and federal courts, with U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ultimately ruling against the federal plaintiffs, while Harney County Circuit Judge Robert Raschio ruled the measure violates the Oregon State Constitution. Both rulings were appealed by opposing parties, and it is the state case which will now come before the Oregon court, after the state appeals court reversed Raschio’s ruling.

Much has happened in the interim, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen setting the tone. Some, including the Capital Chronicle, assert the Supreme Court has been “expanding” gun rights. By contrast, gun advocates argue the high court is restoring Second Amendment rights that have been eroded over the course of decades.

Much is riding on this case, particularly whether the Oregon justices rule permits-to-purchase mandates violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

Second Amendment advocates maintain that citizens do not need permission from law enforcement to exercise a constitutionally-protected right.

Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]”

This case has the potential of winding up before the U.S. Supreme Court, some gun rights advocates have suggested.

The ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban That SCOTUS Could Strike Down This Term

Last June, when the Supreme Court denied cert to a lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines called Snope v. Brown, Justice Brett Kavanaugh predicted that the court would take up the issue “in a term or two.” There are pending decisions in the Third and Seventh Circuits addressing similar bans in Illinois and New Jersey, but by the time the opinions are released and cert petitions are filed, it’s almost impossible that SCOTUS could accept either case and issue a decision before their summer recess in June, 2026.

There is, however, a challenge to California’s magazine ban that is already pending review by the Supreme Court. Duncan v. Bonta is slated to be considered in the Court’s November 21 conference, so that would be one vehicle for the justices to address these bans sooner rather than later. And, waiting in the wings, there’s another case out of the Seventh Circuit dealing with bans on “assault weapons” that the Court could also take this term.

Viramontes v. Cook County is a Firearms Policy Coalition/Second Amendment Foundation challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, and it’s been fully briefed and decided on the merits at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ban in question. FPC and SAF filed its cert petition with the Supreme Court in late August, and Cook County’s reply is due on Wednesday, October 29.

The plaintiffs will have to file a reply brief, but that shouldn’t take too long, and it’s entirely possible that the Court could start its debate over granting cert before the end of year. If they accept the case, oral arguments would take place in the spring, and a decision could come down by the end of this term.

In their cert petition, the plaintiffs argue that SCOTUS “has frequently been solicitous of circuit court judges who are in apparent need of help in parsing this Court’s precedents,” noting that last term the Court granted cert to a case called Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, in response to “calls for clarification” and concern from circuit judges that they “continued to lack the guidance” to implement this Court’s precedents regarding the enforceability of certain federal statutes.

Lower courts, the plaintiffs contend, are equally in need of clarification on what constitutes “arms in common use for lawful purposes” and “dangerous and unusual” weapons that fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.

After this Court repudiated the courts of appeals’ interest-balancing regime in Bruen, courts, like the Seventh Circuit here, have expressed confusion and consternation at “what exactly falls within the scope of ‘bearable’ Arms” as a matter of plain text.

The Seventh Circuit’s reading of the Amendment to exclude arms that the court judges “can be dedicated exclusively to military use” from the scope of the term “arms” at all is just one manifestation of the confusion.

The Second Circuit very recently joined the chorus. In fact, it declined to decide whether “assault weapons” were “arms” at all, “prefer[ring] not to venture into an area in which such uncertainty abounds” when, it concluded, it could resolve the case (it thought) through application of the historical analysis.

The scope of that “uncertainty” for the Second Circuit was remarkable. It noted that it viewed “common use” as part of the plain text analysis, but it complained “the Supreme Court has not made clear how and at what point in the analysis we are to consider whether weapons are unusually dangerous.

Nor has the Court clarified how we are to evaluate a weapon’s‘ common use.’” In its view, “[t]he Court’s opinions may reasonably be read” in contradictory ways, and this “lack of clarity has led to disagreement among the parties in this case and confusion among courts generally.”

The plaintiffs go on to argue that under the Seventh Circuit’s opinion, the Second Amendment permits “anything short of a complete ban on all firearms,” except for the handguns that the Court explicitly stated are protected in Heller.

The Seventh Circuit’s test is even more toothless in this regard than the old interest balancing regime. Before Bruen, courts would at least purport to scrutinize modern laws to ensure there was some relationship between a ban and the aims of public safety. Not so here.

Under the decision below—and the circuit precedent on which it relies—“the plaintiffs” in a Second Amendment case, “have the burden of showing that the weapons addressed in the pertinent legislation are Arms that ordinary people would keep at home for purposes of self-defense, not weapons that are exclusively or predominantly useful in military service, or weapons that are not possessed for lawful purposes.” If they cannot make that showing—perhaps because precisely what is “predominantly useful in military service” is a malleable and ill-defined standard—then the restriction challenged gets no scrutiny whatsoever.

Now, I have no idea if the Court will grant cert to Duncan and Viramontes  or pass them over while the justices wait for other gun and magazine ban cases to reach their doorstep. There’s anticipation that the Third Circuit will strike down New Jersey’s ban on “assault weapons,” which would create a circuit court split that, theoretically anyway, would make the issue more compelling to SCOTUS. But the justices don’t have to wait until there’s split to take up an issue, and if the Court grants cert to both Duncan and Viramontes it can address both semi-auto and magazine bans this term instead of kicking the can down the road for another term or two.

17 Anti-Gun AGs Side With Hawaii On Purchase Permits, Inspection Requirement

A coalition of anti-gun attorneys general from 17 states has filed an amicus brief with the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of two restrictive Hawaii laws being challenged as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The lawsuit revolves around two provisions of Hawaii’s permitting regime— a 30-day time limit to purchase a firearm after receiving a permit and a requirement that police inspect legally purchased firearms within five days.

The brief argues that not only do the laws directly violate the Second Amendment, but they also lack historical support and impose undue burdens on law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights. In March, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court struck down the two provisions, but the state government appealed to the full 9th Circuit.

However, the brief from the 17 anti-gun AGs urges the 9th Circuit’s en banc panel to reverse the decision striking down the provisions. The brief claims that states’ interests in implementing “appropriate, reasonable regulations tailored to their specific circumstances” is more important than the protections afforded by the Second Amendment.

Heading up the AGs’ efforts is California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the most anti-gun attorney generals in the country.

Florida judge strikes down under-21 concealed carry ban as unconstitutional

Siding with a 19-year-old man who was spotted with a gun in his waistband, a Broward County circuit judge Friday ruled that a state law barring people under age 21 from carrying concealed weapons violates Second Amendment rights.

Judge cites lack of historical precedent for age restriction 

Judge Frank Ledee issued a nine-page ruling that said Florida’s “prohibition on the concealed carry of firearms by eighteen-to-twenty year olds strips a class of legal adults of their ability to exercise the very right the Constitution guarantees.”

Ledee cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings in recent years that required analyzing the “historical tradition” of firearm regulation when determining whether laws violate the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Litigation Highlight: Plaintiffs File Second Amendment Challenge to Federal Ban on Mailing Firearms

In mid-July, two gun-rights groups and an individual plaintiff wishing to mail a handgun to her father filed suit in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that the federal ban on mailing firearms through the U.S. Postal Service violates the Second Amendment.  This federal restriction dates to 1927—as the complaint notes, it was the first federal gun control law[1] and pre-dates the National Firearms Act by almost a decade.  The lawsuit, which is still in its early stages, implicates tricky questions surrounding legislative intent and how historical tests can account for technological innovation.

Filed on July 14, the Pennsylvania case is captioned Shreve v. United States Postal Service.  The plaintiffs ask the court to strike down 18 U.S.C. § 1715, which provides that “[p]istols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person are nonmailable and shall not be deposited in or carried by the mails or delivered by any officer or employee of the Postal Service.”  The law contains exceptions for guns mailed in connection with military or law enforcement service and for “customary trade shipments” in which firearms are conveyed from manufacturers to dealers.  The statute only applies to the United States Postal Service.  Knowing violations of the ban constitute a federal crime.

Shreve, a Pennsylvania citizen, would like to mail a handgun to her father as a gift and is permitted to do so under state law. The two organizational plaintiffs, Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, each assert standing because “some of the[ir] members . . .  also wish to use the U.S. Postal Service to mail their lawfully owned handguns and other concealable weapons for private, lawful purpose.”  The plaintiffs assert that they cannot use private courier services—such as UPS or FedEx—because “private common carriers have prohibited the practice [of mailing guns] for several years.”

The plaintiffs in Shreve argue that the conduct of mailing firearms is protected because, “if the Second Amendment’s plain text did not cover such ancillary acts as shipment or receipt, the government could ban these acts outright, crippling Americans’ access to firearms.”  They emphasize that, while “the U.S. Postal Service traces its lineage to 1775, . . . at no point did the Founders ever criminalize the mailing of handguns as the challenged statute does now.”  The complaint further argues that exceptions to the federal ban—including for official weapons shipped by government agencies, commercial transactions, and long guns—belie any purported public safety objective.  Plaintiffs frame the 1927 statute largely as a response to “anti-gun media sensationalism” that “did little – if anything – to curb violent crime.”  Thus, the complaint concludes, the law “is inconsistent with Founding-era historical tradition [and] violates the Second Amendment.”

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Grants Cert to Case Involving Gun Prohibition for ‘Unlawful’ Drug Users

The Supreme Court has granted cert to a second case dealing with Second Amendment issues this term; this one dealing with the federal prohibition on gun ownership for “unlawful” users of drugs.

The justices have been considering five cases involving Section 922(g)(3) in conference, but only granted cert in Hemani v. United States, which was the case the Department of Justice and Solicitor General D. John Sauer had been pressing the Court to take as a vehicle to decide the constitutionality of the federal statute.

Unlike other cases like Daniels v. United States, which revolve around someone’s conviction for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of marijuana, Hemani involves someone who was alleged to have used and sold promethazine, as well as using both cocaine and cannabis. Ali Hemani is also a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan whose actions “have drawn the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” according to Sauer’s cert petition.

In 2019, a search of his phone at a border crossing revealed communications suggesting that he was poised to commit fraud at the direction of suspected affiliates of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

In 2020, respondent and his parents traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before. Respondent’s mother was captured on video telling an Iranian news agency that she prayed that her two sons, including respondent, would become martyrs like Soleimani.

Respondent also maintains weekly contact with his brother, who attends an Iranian university that the U.S. government has designated as having ties to terrorism. And respondent has told law-enforcement officials that, if he knew about an imminent terrorist attack by “a Shia brother” that would kill innocent people, he would not report it to the authorities.

Of the five cases dealing with Section 922(g)(3), Hemani is by far the least sympathetic individual convicted of violating the statute, which helps to explain why the DOJ was eager for SCOTUS to use his case as the testing ground for the constitutionality of the law.

Still, the Court will likely consider the multiple splits in appellate courts over the statute, which includes a finding by the Fifth Circuit that laws prohibiting users of intoxicating substances do not comport with the national tradition of firearms ownership, and a Third Circuit opinion that suggests an individualized finding of dangerousness is necessary before depriving an “unlawful” drug user of their Second Amendment rights.

The DOJ’s position is that Section 922(g)(3) only disqualifies “habitual users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms,” though the statute doesn’t use the term “habitual” at all.” The DOJ also asserts that “the statute imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction—one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use.”

Continue reading “”

Virginia Judge Tosses State’s ‘Universal’ Background Check Law

Five years ago Virginia Democrats enacted a “universal” background check law (along with several other gun control measures) after the took complete control of state government for the first time in several decades.

Now Gun Owners of America has won an injunction barring enforcement of that statute.

Twenty-Fourth Judicial Circuit Judge F. Patrick Yeatts issued his opinion on Thursday afternoon, declaring that there was no need to “embark on an analysis as to whether Virginia’s background check requirements comport with the “\’historical tradition of firearm regulation’ in the United States.

In exercising judicial restraint, the Court finds it improper to resolve the question of firearm regulation through the lens of Bruen. Instead, the inherent as-applied constitutional deficiencies of the Act require that the court strike the statute in its entirety.

Not to get too into the weeds here, but the statute in question originally imposed background check requirements on all gun purchasers over the age of 18. There’s a conflict, however: Virginia law allows 18-year-olds to purchase and possess handguns, while federal law does not. So, any 18-to-20-year-old attempting to buy a handgun, even from a private party, still had to go through a NICS check and would be denied.

Yeatts previously granted an injunction as it applied to those young adults, but today he ruled that the law must be thrown out in its entirety based on a prior case know as Ayotte. If you want to geek out on the legal underpinnings behind Yeatts’ decision you can read his opinion here, but the short version is that at the moment the background check requirement on private transfers seems to be null and void.

A note of caution, though. Because this wasn’t decided on Second Amendment grounds, Yeatts left open the door for lawmakers to remedy the technical deficiencies that led to him striking down the statute.

The Court also observes that it is feasible to create a system where all individuals are treated equally in obtaining a background check. For example, Nevada law requires all firearm sales and transfers, with limited exceptions, to go through a background check conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL). The FFL conducts the background check through the Nevada Department of Public Safety’s (DPS)Point of Contact system. This system interfaces with the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) to determine the eligibility of the buyer to possess a firearm-regardless of age. While Virginia has not adopted such a system, whether due to cost or other reasons, Nevada demonstrates that it is possible to implement a uniform approach.

The statute as it stands, cannot remain intact. If the legislature wishes to rewrite the law to create a system that does not impose disparate treatment based on age, it may do so. At that time, a court might rightly address the question of whether it is constitutional to require a background check to obtain a handgun through a private sale. Now is not that time.

Nevada’s law prohibits sales of handguns to adults younger than 21, so running NICS checks on private party sales involving under-21s doesn’t create a conflict with state law. I don’t know if this was his intention or not, but it seems to me that Yeatts is essentially inviting the Virginia legislature to institute a ban on handgun sales to under-21s, although I’d argue that would absolutely create a system that imposes disparate treatment based on age.

If Democrats once again regain a governing trifecta in next month’s elections we may very well have to deal with an attempt to raise the age to purchase handguns, along with a host of other anti-2A actions. For now though, Gun Owners of America has succeeded in taking down Virginia’s “universal” background check law, and that’s good news for Second Amendment advocates across the Old Dominion.

SAF Files Lawsuit to Protect Fourth Amendment Rights of High School Gun Owner

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a new lawsuit in New Hampshire challenging the unconstitutional search of an 18-year-old high school senior’s vehicle, based solely on the knowledge that he is a legal gun owner.

The case, Harrington v. Crawford, stems from the search of Hillsboro-Deering High School student Jack Harrington’s vehicle while it was parked on school grounds. Harrington lawfully owns a handgun and sometimes kept his firearm in his truck – in full compliance with all federal and state laws – but always removed the gun from his vehicle before going to school. When school authorities became aware of Harrington’s gun ownership, he was subjected to aggressive interrogation by district employees which culminated in his vehicle being searched without consent. The school had no reason to believe Harrington brought his firearm to school, and no firearm was found during the invasive and unconstitutional search.

“Being public about exercising your private rights cannot be grounds for being harassed and searched on campus,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The apparent position of the school district here is ‘choose to exercise one right, give away another.’ That’s just not how it works. If simply being a gun owner is legal justification to be harassed and searched by authorities, what would stop them from submitting gun owners like Jack to searches every day? And what’s their proposed solution to avoid that abuse, that he sells his privately owned firearm?”

As noted in the complaint, “…after the Interrogation in which Jack repeatedly refused to consent to a search and after Jack’s parents were contacted by phone and similarly refused to consent to a search, Defendants searched the Subject Vehicle anyway, finding no firearm.”

“This is the type of fearmongering response we’d expect elsewhere around the country, but not in a state that allows its adult residents to legally own and possess firearms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This case is about as cut and dry as it gets when it comes to infringing on the rights of a citizen, and we look forward to vindicating Jack’s rights in court.”

Judge Vacates Decision Requiring 2A Groups to Identify Members

A federal judge in Louisiana has rescinded his order for the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association to provide a list of its membership to the Department of Justice as part of his judgment in a case dealing with the federal ban on handgun sales to adults under the age of 21.

The new order by U.S. District Judge Robert R. Summerhays comes after both the plaintiffs and defendants asked him to reconsider that requirement. While the DOJ did originally ask Summerhays to limit relief only to the named plaintiffs in Reese v. ATF and those SAF, FPC, and LSA members who were members when the lawsuit was filed back in 220 and “have been identified and verified by respective Plaintiff organizations during the course of this litigation,” Summerhays went even further by demanding the groups turn over lists of every member as of 2020.

That move was reported by some Second Amendment groups as Summerhays simply granting DOJ’s request, when that was not the case. It’s true, though, that the Justice Department’s proposed relief was still far narrower than what was offered by the plaintiffs. In fact, the plaintiffs stated that the DOJ’s position was even though the Plaintiffs won, they “should be entitled only to illusory relief and the Government should be free to continue to enforce these unconstitutional restrictions against Plaintiffs’ affected members as though they never brought and won this suit.”

In a press release responding to the judge’s order vacating his previous judgment, SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said the group “had no intention of releasing any private membership data and were prepared to take all necessary steps to ensure our member list was not disclosed to the government,” but added that “Luckily, the court responded to our joint motion promptly and vacated its original order.

With that order vacated and a phone conference forthcoming as to the proper scope of relief, it appears we will have more updates on the Reese order in the near future.”

While the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that Summerhays demand the DOJ receive membership lists was the wrong step, the two sides still very much disagree on the scope of the relief that should be provided now that the Fifth Circuit has held the law banning retail gun sales to adults under the age of 21 is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs would like to see the law enjoined for all 18-to-20-year-old members of the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association, regardless of when they signed up, while the DOJ, as mentioned above, wants to limit the injunction to only a handful of young adults residing in the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

FPC’s Brandon Combs told Bearing Arms last week that Summerhays’ order was likely going to be appealed to the Fifth Circuit, but now that the judge has vacated that order in its entirety we’ll have to see what his amended judgment looks like before we know what the plaintiffs’ next step will be. DOJ has already declined to appeal the underlying decision by the Fifth Circuit regarding the constitutionality of the law, which is good, but depending on how limited the scope of the injunctive relief is, this case (or at least the remedy provided to plaintiffs) could still end up before the Supreme Court before all is said and done.

NRA Puts Gavin Newsom on Notice: Lawsuit Coming over ‘Glock Ban’

The NRA put California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on notice that a lawsuit is coming over AB 1127, the bill Newsom signed to enact a ban on new sales of Glock handguns.

AB 1127, the “Glock ban” bill, takes effect July 1, 2026.

Breitbart News reported that the “Glock ban” bill accomplishes its prohibition by labeling Glocks a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”

Such a definition sets the stage for other language in the bill, which says, “This bill would expand the above definition of ‘machinegun’ to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.”

The NRA pounced on the new ban, with NRA-ILA executive director John Commerford saying, “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights.”

He continued, “Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

Commerford concluded, “This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”

NRA-Backed Plaintiffs Seek Full 3rd Circuit Review of New Jersey’s Sweeping Gun Permit Restrictions

Trenton, NJ – The National Rifle Association announced that plaintiffs in Siegel v. Platkin have filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the full court to overturn a panel decision that upheld large portions of New Jersey’s post-Bruen carry law.

The challenge—brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and seven individual plaintiffs—targets the state’s near-total list of “sensitive places” and its requirement that applicants for a carry permit produce written references from four “reputable” non-relatives.

Background: From Bruen to Trenton’s Response
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self-defense, Governor Phil Murphy condemned the ruling as “dreadful” and promised to take “actions” to limit its impact. The legislature quickly passed Chapter 131, a sweeping law that made it a crime to carry in 26 broad categories and 115 subcategories of locations—ranging from beaches and parks to museums, bars, and even libraries.

The law also imposed new hurdles for permit holders: a $50 “victims-fund” tax, a $150 application fee, a $300,000 mandatory insurance requirement, and the four-reference rule that forces applicants to find non-relatives willing to vouch for their “reputation.”

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Foundation Challenges Constitutionality of National Firearms Act

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act.

The groups Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three people: John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, and David Lynn Smith filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Since 1934, the NFA required anyone who wished to purchase a silencer, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or “Any Other Weapon” to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The One Big Beautiful Bill removed the tax on these arms but kept the registration requirement.

The newly filed suit seeks to completely remove the affected arms from the NFA, eliminating the remaining registration requirements for gun silencers, short-barreled rifles, or barreled shotguns.

“With the tax now set to $0, the remaining registration requirements for these arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Completely removing them from the NFA is now a must, and this suit aims to eradicate the barriers to the exercise of the Second Amendment. SAF is already a plaintiff in its own lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these elements of the NFA, and now our sister organization the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is joining the fight as a plaintiff with our financial backing in this companion case.”

Continue reading “”

GOA, Partners Request Summary Judgement on NFA Provisions

We’re kind of in a special time right now. While the Hearing Protection Act and SHORT Act didn’t land quite like we wanted, with the new fiscal year, we can buy short-barreled rifles and suppressors without the $200 tax stamp.

The problem, though, is that we still need NFA paperwork, and those products will still be entered into the NFA database.

That’s a database whose stated existence isn’t about registering scary devices to keep them out of naughty hands. It’s about making sure whoever has them has paid the tax.

And the fact that there’s not a tax on these items anymore means there shouldn’t be a registration requirement.

While Congress insisted on leaving that in, unfortunately, Gun Owners of America and its partners have filed a lawsuit to try and fix the issue. Now, they’ve just filed a motion for summary judgment in the case.

From a press release:

Yesterday [October 7th], Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, together with a coalition of plaintiffs including Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., Silencer Shop Foundation, B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC, Brady Wetz, and fifteen states led by Texas, filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The motion seeks both a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional and an injunction to halt their enforcement as applied to newly “untaxed” firearms—including short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and so-called “any other weapons” (AOWs).

GOA’s coalition of plaintiffs challenged the NFA’s making, transfer, and possession restrictions on these “untaxed” firearms, arguing they are unconstitutional following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. No. 119-21) (“OBBB”), which President Donald J. Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.

Effective January 1, 2026, the OBBB eliminates the NFA’s taxation requirements for these categories of firearms, leaving behind vestigial registration requirements that no longer serve as proof of payment of any tax. As a result, we argued that these excessive regulatory burdens go beyond Congress’s taxing power, cannot be defended under the Commerce Clause, and violate the Second Amendment.

With the filing of this motion for summary judgment, GOA and GOF now expect the Trump Administration to take an official position on untaxed firearm registration and file a response on or before November 6, 2025.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“The National Firearms Act’s onerous registration requirements for untaxed firearms are a relic of a taxing scheme that no longer exists.  These provisions violate the Constitution by exceeding Congress’s authority and infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.  We urge the Court to strike down these unconstitutional restrictions and protect the rights of our members, supporters, and millions of gun owners nationwide.”

John Velleco, GOF’s Executive Vice President, issued the following statement: 

“The NFA is the strictest federal gun control law in the nation’s history. Even so, NFA-regulated weapons have proliferated in recent years, quickly becoming favored tools of the home defender, hunter, and hobbyist alike.  This lawsuit takes aim at FDR-era restrictions that never should have been passed in the first place. We look forward to taking a big step towards restoring the Founders’ original vision for American gun owners.”

This is a bit of a test for the Trump administration.

They’ve already done more for the Second Amendment than any previous administration in my lifetime, but there have also been some cracks that I don’t like seeing. The DOJ has defended a few questionable gun control laws, for example. Here, they can make a clear position on the matter, and one that should make perfect sense in the long run. The registration is about a tax that no longer applies to suppressors and short-barreled firearms.

If the DOJ does the right thing here and agrees with GOA and its allies, then what we’ll see is a world where you can walk into a gun store, buy a suppressor with just a NICS check, then take it home without any further paperwork than you would buying a single-shot .22.

I’d say that’s how it should be, but it’s not. We shouldn’t even have to go through that, but it would at least be far more acceptable than the current status quo, where you go to the ATF with hat in hand and ask, “Mother, may I?”

That’s not how our rights should work. We should be able to buy what we want, when we want.

But this is just the first step in a process of getting to that point. The Department of Justice can help with that, but even if they don’t, there’s a long road ahead, and we can and should follow the process to the very end. We need this killed throughout the country and done so in a way that leaves no ambiguity, so states figure they can do their own registries on these devices.

Good luck to the plaintiffs on this one.

I wonder why their Supreme Court didn’t simp0ly throw the whole case out of court and dismiss the charge. Of course, we have to remember that lawyers live on ‘billable hours’ and judges are mostly lawyers too.

Self-defense law applies to bedrooms, Arizona Supreme Court says

Arizona law allows anyone to protect themselves from an uninvited person entering their home, and according to the Arizona Supreme Court, that also includes bedrooms.

A Pima County jury found John Brown guilty of attacking a neighbor with a microphone stand after the neighbor and his girlfriend entered his room. Though Brown lived with his girlfriend, the two had separate rooms. His girlfriend had invited the neighbor, someone Brown had previously gotten into a fight with. Brown left the two of them alone and locked himself in his bedroom. His girlfriend broke open the lock, and the neighbor tried to enter the room when Brown attacked him.

At trial, Brown asked that the jury be educated on state law that allows a person to claim self-defense if they attack someone entering their residential structure uninvited. The judge denied the request, ruling that his bedroom was not a “residential structure” and that the neighbor had been invited over to the home by another person living in the home.

After being found guilty, the judge sentenced Brown to five years in prison. Brown appealed the ruling, and after losing the appeal, he asked the Arizona Supreme Court to review the case.

Five out of six justices disagreed with the Pima County court’s decision not to let the jury consider the residential self-defense argument.

In an opinion written by Justice James Beene, the court decided that the way the state law is written, Brown’s bedroom should have been considered a residential structure.

Three things make any space a legally recognized residential structure, according to the justices:

The space must be a structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, and adapted for human residence. It should be enclosed and have sides and a floor.
The structure also must be a place for lodging, meaning that it is a place where someone can rest or sleep.
The structure also needs to be separately securable, meaning that the entry point can be locked or secured.

Beene explained that Brown’s room fit all these points, and because he locked the room, it could be said that any person breaking into the room was uninvited.

The Arizona Supreme Court vacated Brown’s verdict and sent the case back to Pima County Superior Court for a new trial.

If it was never clear you, by now it should be that government, as a whole and no matter the fundamentals of how and why it was formed (cf. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights), has always been really hesitant to give free and unfettered access to the implements that make it so much easier for the unwashed masses to do away with a tyrant goobermint that sees them as mere peons.

Federal Judge Says Gun Law Unconstitutional, But Allows Feds to Largely Keep Enforcing It

Five years ago, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Louisiana Shooting Association, and several individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on handgun sales to adults between the ages of 18 and 20. In late 2022, U.S. District Judge Robert R. Summerhays dismissed the complaint, ruling that young adults have no Second Amendment right to purchase the most common firearm for self-defense, but that decision was overturned by a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in January of this year.

Since then, the plaintiffs and the DOJ have been arguing over the scope of the relief that should be granted, given that the appellate court found the law in question is unconstitutional. That alone should have favored a judgment from Summerhays that covered as many 18-to-20-year-olds as possible. Instead, on Tuesday, Summerhays rendered a judgment that leaves the unconstitutional law in place for almost everyone.

In a press release, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the “practical effect of this order is almost laughable if it wasn’t so frustrating and didn’t impact the Second Amendment rights of thousands of individuals.”

“What the court has done here is say that this law is unconstitutional, but in order for an 18-year-old to avoid having their constitutional rights trounced by it today they must live in one of only three states in the nation and have been the member of SAF at age 13. And even then, they’re only covered if SAF discloses their membership to the government under duress. We’re currently examining our options in relation to the relief granted and will vigorously defend our members’ right to free association and privacy of such.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition is similarly incensed, stating in a release:

Rather than uphold the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court regurgitated the Trump Administration’s self-serving demand to wipe away the Fifth Circuit’s ruling against the government’s unconstitutional ban and continue denying millions of peaceable adults their right to keep and bear arms.

To be clear: FPC has never provided a list of its members to the government—and never will.

Our legal team is already taking action to urgently address this appalling order. We will commence appellate proceedings as necessary to protect our members and effectuate the Fifth Circuit’s decision in our favor. Further updates will be provided as the case proceeds.

The descriptions of Summerhays’ judgment aren’t hyperbolic. Here’s the text of the order so you can see for yourself.

The Court enters declaratory judgment, as described in paragraph 3 below, with respect to (a) Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, Emily Naquin, and (b) individuals and federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers or collectors who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, or Louisiana Shooting Association at the time this action was filed on November 6, 2020.

The Court hereby declares that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and their attendant regulations, are unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, its Director, the Attorney General of the United States, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert with them and who have actual notice of this Judgment are hereby enjoined, within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (i.e., Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), from enforcing the provisions referenced in paragraph 3, to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

Within twenty-one (21) days of issuance of this Judgment, those Plaintiffs identified at paragraph 2(b) shall provide to Defendants a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020.

Summerhays’ order basically parrots the judgment proposed by the DOJ, which is another problem. President Donald Trump’s executive action to protect the Second Amendment states, in part, that:

… the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
     (b)  In developing such proposed plan of action, the Attorney General shall review, at a minimum:
…
(v)    The positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights;

The judgment proposed by the DOJ (and accepted by Summerhays) is completely contrary to Trump’s order for the DOJ to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

Donald Trump wasn’t in office when oral arguments in Reese v. ATF took place before the Fifth Circuit last fall, and had only been in office for ten days when the Fifth Circuit overturned Summerhays’s original decision and declared the ban on handgun sales unconstitutional.

Trump issued his executive order on protecting the Second Amendment in early February, and DOJ decided not long after that it would not appeal the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. That was in accordance with the president’s order, but at some point between February and July, when the DOJ submitted its proposed judgment to the court, the agency adopted a position that runs counter to Trump’s executive action.

What makes this even more frustrating is that the proposed judgment was written, at least in part, by attorneys within the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which has been taking historic actions to protect the right to keep and bear arms. In just the past couple of months the division has weighed in against “assault weapon” and “large capacity” magazine bans and sued the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department over delays in issuing concealed carry permits. It’s bizarre, then, to see the DOJ take the position that, even though this law is unconstitutional, it can continue to enforce it against virtually everyone except the named plaintiffs in Reese.

We’ll be talking more about this case with FPC”s Brandon Combs on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co, and I encourage you to tune in and check out what he has to say. Thankfully, this isn’t the only case dealing with young adults and their 2A rights in the legal pipeline, and the Supreme Court has the opportunity to grant cert to similar challenges coming out of the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits later this fall. There’s a clear split in the appellate courts on the issue, and hopefully SCOTUS will soon provide young adults the relief denied to them by Summerhays.

Supreme Court turns away Missouri’s bid to revive gun law

The Supreme Court turned away Missouri’s bid to revive its law purporting to declare various federal gun restrictions unconstitutional in the state, the justices announced Monday.

It has become a major battle over state versus federal authority. The Biden administration launched a lawsuit and convinced lower courts that Missouri’s statute violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

After the change in administration, Trump’s Justice Department maintains that some provisions are unconstitutional.

But it agreed the lower judge went too far in blocking the act’s entirety at the onset. The administration urged the Supreme Court to turn away Missouri’s appeal and send the case back so the injunction can be narrowed.

“That is all the more reason why review by this Court is unwarranted at this juncture,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court filings.

Monday’s announcement came on the first day of the Supreme Court’s new term, a year already filled with major battles over race, LGBTQ rights and Trump’s second-term agenda.

The justices considered Missouri’s petition at a closed-door conference last week alongside hundreds of other cases that had piled up over the summer. On Friday, the court announced it will hear a Second Amendment challenge to a Hawaii gun law, which bans concealed carry on private property without the owner’s express permission.

Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature passed the Second Amendment Preservation Act in 2021, declaring certain federal gun laws unconstitutional and prohibits using state resources to enforce them.

Missouri agencies and law enforcement also cannot hire anyone who has attempted to enforce those laws as a federal employee. Private parties can sue over violations and seek up to $50,000 penalties.

The Biden administration challenged the law and won in the lower courts.

The Supreme Court at an earlier stage of the case declined Missouri’s request for an emergency intervention that would enable the law’s enforcement as litigation proceeds. Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the court’s conservatives, publicly dissented.

Back at the high court, Missouri’s petition insisted the law is constitutional and the federal government lacks the right to sue Missouri because the law is enforced by private citizens, not state actors.

Missouri told the justices they should still take up the case to definitively reject the legal challenge, despite the Trump administration’s urging to turn away the appeal.

“The Eighth Circuit’s reasoning is a Pandora’s Box that will misguide lower courts and impose a straitjacket on States,” the state wrote in court filings.

“No wonder the Government refuses to defend it.”