Category: Courts

Why do you think I call them ‘bureaucraps’?

Why is ATF Still Leaving Its Options Open for Prosecuting Owners of Braced Pistols?

The saga of ATF’s enforcement of the National Firearm Act’s “short barreled rifle” provisions against braced pistols has been a roller coaster ride of shifting interpretations. NRA-ILA has been keeping up with, reporting on, and advocating for reform the entire time. It seemed we had reached a low point with the publication of the rule Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces” during the Biden-Harris administration. Yet NRA, along with other pro-Second Amendment groups, successfully challenged that rule in court, and its enforcement was enjoined against NRA members, as well as other plaintiff groups in similar suits. Eventually, the rule was vacated in its entirety. Unfortunately, that did not provide the lasting relief many had hoped.

Last year, we reported on ATF audaciously claiming, in the waning days of the Biden-Harris administration, that all braced pistols were subject to the NFA. It then quickly walked backed that position as “overbroad.”

But then NRA exposed the ongoing prosecution of Taylor Taranto for possession of an unregistered SBR, based on allegations concerning a CZ Scorpion EVO 3 S1 pistol with an attached SB Tactical stabilizing brace. Taranto moved to have the charge dismissed. In its opposition to the motion, filed during the Biden-Harris administration, the government claimed:

Although the rule is stayed (and, now, vacated), ATF is not barred from continuing to enforce the underlying statute as it always has: by making case-by-case determinations about whether particular braced firearms constitute “rifles” under the statute. And of course, because the rule reflects ATF’s best understanding of the statute, those determinations will naturally tend to look substantially like the determinations that would follow from applying the clear framework outline in the rule.

We reported on that case in February of 2025, and the SBR charged against Taranto was dismissed, “in the interest of justice,” under the Trump administration that April. The dismissal of Taranto’s NFA charge followed an April 7, 2025, announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice and ATF of a “comprehensive review of [the] stabilizing brace regulations.” This was supposed to include “consultations with stakeholders, including gun rights organizations, industry leaders and legal experts,” with the goal of ensuring the resulting policies are “constitutional and protective of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

In the meantime, though, ATF continued to resist attempts by litigants in cases remaining against the rule to obtain final judgments on the rule’s illegality, claiming the issue was rendered moot by the final judgement in the case vacating the rule. This, the agency claimed, rendered the rule “formally nullified and revoked[.]”

A March 16 government filing in the ongoing case of Texas v. ATF has now renewed concerns that the agency reserves the right to continue bringing felony prosecutions under the NFA for possession of unregistered braced pistols. The passage in question is meant to rebut the plaintiffs’ claims that there are still live issues in the case that deserve a final judgment on the merits, rather than dismissal on mootness.

Continue reading “”

ATF Says Brace Rule Case Is Moot, Warns Some Braced Pistols Still Face NFA Enforcement

In a blunt court filing from Monday, March 16, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) urged a federal judge to dismiss a high-profile challenge to its now-defunct pistol stabilizing brace rule, arguing the case has become completely moot. At the same time, the agency made clear it has no intention of abandoning enforcement against certain braced pistols under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).

The 6-page reply brief, filed in State of Texas et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al., marks the latest twist in a legal saga that began three years ago. The plaintiffs, led by the State of Texas and joined by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and several Texas citizens, had sued to block the ATF’s January 31, 2023, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” rule (88 Fed. Reg. 6478). That rule used a complex points-based system to reclassify many popular braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs), subjecting owners to NFA registration, a $200 tax stamp, and potential felony charges for non-compliance.

But the landscape changed dramatically when another federal court issued a universal vacatur of the entire rule, a decision that became final in mid-2025. With the rule formally nullified and revoked nationwide, the ATF now argues that nothing remains for this Texas court to enjoin or declare unlawful.

“The case became moot,” the ATF’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiffs appear to accept that the Court can no longer grant them meaningful relief in relation to the Rule, which has already been formally nullified and revoked through universal vacatur.”

The agency’s earlier motion to dismiss cited Fifth Circuit precedents holding that, once an agency rule is vacated, APA challenges lose their live controversy. Plaintiffs’ opposition brief sought to keep the case alive by insisting the court could still block the “legal theories” that underpinned the rule, specifically the ATF’s position that at least some pistols equipped with stabilizing braces qualify as NFA-regulated short-barreled rifles.

Continue reading “”

Missouri court considers if cities can regulate how guns are stored in parked cars

The city of St. Louis was a state appeals courtroom on Thursday arguing for the right to require gun owners who want to leave their firearms in unattended vehicles to put them in a lock box.

Last July, a judge struck down a 2017 St. Louis ordinance that required gun owners to use lock boxes if they wanted to leave firearms in unattended vehicles, saying that it violated Missouri’s law banning local gun regulations. The city of St. Louis appealed.

A Missouri appeals court is weighing whether the city of St. Louis can require gun owners to lock up their firearms if they want to leave them in an unattended parked vehicle.

The city passed its lock-up requirement in 2017, in response to a rash of cases in which guns stolen from cars were later used in crimes. In 2024, St. Louis resident Michael Roth had his gun stolen from the middle console of his locked car while he attended Mass at the Cathedral Basilica in the Central West End. When he reported the theft to police, he was cited for failing to keep the weapon in a locked box.

Though city prosecutors dropped the case, Roth sued. He argued they could issue the charges again and had also filed similar cases against other gun owners, in violation of a state law that strips cities of most of their power to regulate firearms.

Circuit Judge Joseph Whyte ruled in favor of Roth last July. The city appealed. Oral arguments were Thursday.

Attorneys for the city and for Roth agree that state law places limits on local gun regulations. But they disagree about the extent of those limits.

The state law in question has two key subsections. The first says the General Assembly “occupies and pre-empts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state.”

A second subsection says local political subdivisions cannot pass any regulations on “the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies.”

Roth’s attorney, Matt Vianello, told the court it was the broader first subsection that set the limits on what’s legally known as preemption — where a higher level of government sets limits on a lower level of government. Judges, he said, have to look at the plain language of the law to determine how far the General Assembly intended it to go.

“Their intent is clear: uniform firearm legislation throughout the state, so that you don’t have a hodgepodge of regulation just because you cross Skinker Boulevard coming into the city of St Louis,” Vianello said.

Nathan Puckett, an attorney for the city, told the court that the second subsection — which lists specific categories — was where the judges should look to decide the validity of the ordinance.

“The problem with looking to subsection one is that legislation ‘touching in any way firearms’ is not a specific area of legislation at all,” he said. “It is so general as to be nearly unlimited,” he said. Therefore, the court needs to look to subsection 2, which outlines specific areas like transportation and taxation.”

The city’s ordinance, Puckett said, dealt solely with the storage of firearms, which is not something on the list. Therefore, he said, it remains valid and the city should be allowed to enforce it.

Vianello disagreed with that analysis. Requiring someone to lock up a gun if they want to leave it in their car in the city, he said, regulates the transportation and possession of guns by making a person choose whether or not they bring their gun into the city if they don’t have a lock box.

The court will rule at a later date.

Judge Denies DOJ Request to Limit Injunction on Post Office Carry Ban

In June, 2024 the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on firearms in U.S. postal facilities. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled in favor of the plaintiffs last September, but the DOJ has tried to keep that ruling on hold while it appeals to the Fifth Circuit.

The appellate court denied the DOJ’s request back in January, but at that point the DOJ had also settled on a secondary strategy; asking O’Connor to limit the scope of the injunction so that it would only cover those who were FPC and SAF members at the time the lawsuit was filed. Since late October, the two sides have been filing back-and-forth briefs on the DOJ’s request, and today O’Connor handed down his decision.

O’Connor’s decision covers present and future members of Second Amendment Foundation as well. From today’s order:

The Government asserts that the Court’s injunctive relief should be limited only to individuals who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”) and the Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”) as of June 18, 2024—the date Plaintiffs filed their complaint—because FPC and SAF “did not have standing to represent and obtain relief for members who did not yet exist.”

The Government argues that to obtain relief for members who join after June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs should have sought class certification. Otherwise, the Government argues, nearly any organization could evade the Supreme Court’s prohibition of nationwide injunctions in Trump v.CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 861 (2025) by using associational standing as a “backdoor way” to grant universal injunctions.

But despite its arguments, the Government has not provided, and the Court has not found, a case limiting injunctive relief to only those members of an association at the time a lawsuit is filed. And while Plaintiffs could have sought class certification, they apparently also relied instead on associational standing—which the Government seemingly agrees they have in some form.

The DOJ’s attempt to limit the scope of the injunction has less to do with the 2A issues involved in the case and much more to do with its concern about nationwide injunctions in non-2A cases dealing with, say, immigration efforts. The DOJ can’t really argue that some broad injunctions are okay but others are not, so this is at least a consistent position on the part of the Trump administration.

Of course, there’s nothing requiring DOJ to continue to defend the carry ban in postal facilities either. The administration could simply drop its appeal and let O’Connor’s decision stand. It could also voluntarily rescind the ban of its own accord… and I’d argue that’s exactly what the Trump administration should do now.

So what are the real world implications here? It sounds to me like all current FPC and SAF members are covered by the injunction, which means that they should be allowed to carry in postal facilities (as customers, not as employees). I would suggest having something identifying you as a member if you do so, though, and be prepared to explain the contours of the lawsuit and Judge O’Connor’s decisions to those public-facing employees who have no idea that the injunction is in place.

New Court Split Could Force Supreme Court to Decide Magazine and AR-15 Ban Cases

The legal fight over so-called “large capacity” magazine bans and semi-automatic rifle restrictions may be heading straight toward the U.S. Supreme Court. A new round of filings from some of the nation’s most experienced constitutional litigators has added serious momentum to that possibility.

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner explains the significance of newly filed supplemental briefs in two major Second Amendment cases. Those filings argue that a fresh appellate court ruling has created the kind of legal conflict the Supreme Court typically requires before stepping in.

Attorneys representing gun owners in Duncan v. Bonta and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz have now filed supplemental briefs at the Supreme Court pointing to a critical development.

The filings cite the recent decision in Benson v. United States, where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that the District’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.

That decision directly conflicts with rulings from other courts that have upheld similar bans. In particular, the federal Ninth Circuit previously allowed California’s magazine ban to stand in Duncan v. Bonta, while the Washington Supreme Court upheld its state’s restrictions in Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz.

This disagreement between courts is known as a “split of authority,” and it is one of the primary triggers that pushes the Supreme Court to grant review. When different courts interpret the Constitution in conflicting ways, the justices often step in to settle the matter once and for all.

According to the new briefs, that moment may have arrived.

The ruling in Benson did more than simply strike down Washington D.C.’s magazine restrictions. The court issued a detailed opinion explaining that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are commonly owned and widely used for lawful purposes.

Under the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The D.C. court concluded that bans on commonly owned magazines do not meet that test.

In other words, the court found that these magazines fall squarely within the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

“blast radius”

D.C. Claims Chaos Will Ensue if Magazine Ban Disappears

Last week a three-judge panel on the D.C. Court of Appeals (which is the highest local court in the District) ruled the District of Columbia’s ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment. These magazines are “arms”, the court concluded, and they are unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes, which means that they’re protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Now the District of Columbia is hoping to reverse that decision through an en banc review, and is asking the Court of Appeals to keep the ruling from taking affect while it appeals.

In its request, the District claims that the panel’s decision “has created uncertainty and chaos” and that the “blast radius of the decision is potentially massive”, arguing that the opinion also impacts “exceedingly common charges governing unlicensed and unregistered firearms.”

I think D.C.’s licensing and registration requirements are equally unsound from a constitutional perspective, but there’s nothing in the panel’s decision that impacts those statutes. The opinion released by the court deals exclusively with the District’s prohibition on commonly owned magazines, and the only uncertainty resulting from the decision is whether or not the ban is still actively being enforced.

The U.S. Attorney’s office has already declined to pursue charges against any legal gun owner caught with a “large capacity” magazine, though the D.C. Attorney General’s office has continued prosecuting possession cases.

The D.C. Court of Appeals hasn’t granted the District’s request, but the opinion will likely remain on hold while the en banc review is being considered. The court has set an expedited briefing schedule that will conclude next Wednesday, and a decision on granting or denying the en banc request could come by the end of next week.

There’s an easy way to ensure there’s no confusion over the panel’s decision: let it stand and take effect.

Continue reading “”

Gun Control Groups Mum After Hemani Oral Arguments

The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Hemani is likely to have major implications for millions of Americans who own firearms, use marijuana, or both (in violation of current federal law). And it’s not like the gun control lobby has completely ignored the case. Both Brady and Everytown for Gun Safety submitted amicus briefs supporting the Trump administration’s position that Section 922(g)(3) can be used to prohibit any and all “unlawful” drug users, regardless of what drug it is, how much of it is taken, or whether that individual drug user has ever shown themselves to be a danger while under the influence.

Yet, at least as of mid-afternoon on Monday, none of the anti-gun groups have made a peep about today’s oral arguments, which doesn’t seem to have gone well for the government. The closest commentary that I’ve been able to find comes from Duke Center for Firearms Law, which is run by an attorney who has worked extensively with groups like Everytown in the past. At least Duke’s willing to acknowledge what happened.

Pepperdine University law professor Jake Charles, who helped author a brief in support of the government’s decision, was also following along to the oral arguments, and he too struggled to find a positive takeaway from the “MOAR GUN LAWZ” point of view.

I think the Chief & Alito are very skeptical of the challenger here; they seem to think Congress can of course disarm drug users. But…it’s hard for me to see many other justices clearly on that side. I’m sure the govt will get more than 2 votes, but not sure it’ll be a majority.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s 7-2, though I could also see Justice Clarence Thomas joining Alito and Roberts in voting to uphold 922(g)(3) as it applies to Ali Danial Hemani.

I don’t think Charles fairly describes the challenger’s position, though. Hemani’s attorney Erin Murphy repeatedly stated that Congress could categorically deny firearm possession to some drug users, so long as it its rationale was grounded in the national tradition of firearm regulation and was based on a factual finding of a particular drug’s dangerousness. What it can’t do, however, is look at historical statutes that regulated the behavior of “habitual drunkards” and assume it has the power to treat all “unlawful users” of drugs in roughly the same fashion.

Murphy did an excellent job of pointing out that “drunkards” weren’t just people who regularly imbibed alcohol. If that was the definition, then most American adults could have been stripped of their Second Amendment rights. It was the fact that their alcohol use rendered them a danger to themselves or others that gave the state the authority to step in and impose sanctions on their individual liberties. That argument can and does certainly apply to some habitual drug users, but it’s hard to argue with a straight face that it applies to every one of them.

I was a little nervous about where a majority of the justices would come down before oral arguments began, but I feel much more confident after listening to two hours of questioning. It may be 7-2, 6-3, or even 5-4 if Kavanaugh or Barrett throws us a curveball, but I believe there’ll be a majority ruling in Hemani’s favor. How broad or narrow it is I’d say is still very much undecided, and we will likely see some of the justices in the majority use very different arguments and rationales before they end up in the same place.

Which brings us back to today’s silence of the gun control groups. Yes, Everytown and Brady submitted briefs in favor of the DOJ’s position, but no anti-2A group has really been talking heavily about Hemani, because they know that as much as most Democrats despite our right to keep and bear arms, they’re also not generally fans of putting people behind bars… even for serious, violent offenses. Moreover, most Democrats support legalizing marijuana, and aren’t really keen on using its federal status as a Schedule 1 drug as an excuse to go after people, gun owners or not.

If I’d been advising Everytown or Brady I would have told them to side with Murphy and her client. Even if they had argued that yes, the statute is confusing, vague, and unconstitutional as it applies to this individual, but it still has merit in other criminal cases, that would be a defensible position (at least depending on where they drew the line). By declaring that the law is valid in all applications, though, the anti-gun groups have positioned themselves on the wrong side of history and a large number of the Democrats they depend on as their base of support.

BFA joins federal lawsuit challenging ATF tax stamp requirement on suppressors, short-barreled rifles

On Feb. 26, 2026, Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA) joined plaintiffs in filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

The case, Roberts v. ATF (2:26-CV-91-SCM), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Until the passage of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, the NFA had imposed a $200 excise tax (“tax stamp”) on suppressors and on short-barreled rifles and required a tax-enforcement registration requirement on those items.

Trump’s bill included both the SHORT Act and the Hearing Protection Act and would have eliminated the NFA tax and registration. At the time, BFA joined a long list of organizations nationwide in signing an open letter to two U.S. House of Representatives committees, insisting that Congress eliminate unjust restrictions imposed by the NFA.

The bill passed the House, but Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, a Democrat appointed during the Harry Reid era, on July 3 stripped both pro-gun measures from the legislation, asserting that they exceeded the provisions of the Byrd rule, which governs reconciliation measures, because they weren’t directly tax related. All that remained was a reduction of the tax stamp from $200 to $0, effective Jan. 1, 2026.

The good news is that MacDonough’s actions have resulted in lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements for the affected arms under the NFA as unconstitutional because Congress passed the NFA in 1934, specifically premised on its enumerated power to “lay and collect taxes.”

This Roberts complaint, which BFA has signed onto as a plaintiff, argues that because the tax has been eliminated, the NFA’s tax-stamp requirement is no longer justified under Congress’ taxing power or under any other authority granted under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

The complaint also asserts that the NFA registration requirement for suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has established that any regulation on arms-bearing conduct must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. As the complaint argues, there is no tradition that supports the NFA’s registration requirement for protected arms such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

The plaintiffs in the case include Buckeye Firearms Association, American Suppressor Association Foundation, Center for Human Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Meridian Ordnance, and two individuals. The case represents the third lawsuit supported by the NRA, ASA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation challenging the NFA since the Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the tax for NFA items.

Dean Rieck, BFA executive director, said, “This has the potential to be another landmark case for Buckeye Firearms Association.

“BFA has been directly involved in a variety of crucial Second Amendment cases,” said Rieck, “including Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Bruen (2022), all game-changing decisions for gun rights in America. If we win the Roberts case, it will yet another major victory, not just for Ohioans, but for all U.S. citizens who value and respect the Constitution.”

Roberts builds upon Brown v. ATF, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in August 2025, and Jensen v. ATF, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in October 2025.

‘minor threats’. Phlogistonic propaganda

Missouri Supreme Court opens door to using deadly force in self-defense, even over minor threats

Missouri’s “stand your ground” law allows a person to use physical force “to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself.”

[no it doesn’t. SYG means you are not required to flee from where you’re at. An idiot and biased take from whoever wrote this at NPR]

An earlier appellate decision said deadly force, like using a firearm or a knife, can be used to protect yourself against death, injury or assault, if the force is reasonable. Prosecutors fear the ruling will affect victims of violent crimes and could make meaningless the state’s Castle Doctrine, a version of “stand your ground” laws.

[where the NPR news writer came up with that idiot take, I haven’t a clue either, as the ‘Castle Doctrine’ also isn’t implicated in the case. This is a pure Use of Force in Self Defense case]

An appellate court ruling that critics say will broaden when people can use deadly force as a self-defense will now remain in effect after the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

With the Tuesday refusal of Danielle Lechocki’s case, a November ruling by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, will stand. The decision was decried by a state prosecutors group as greatly expanding the state’s self-defense law so far that people could justify using deadly force even over a minor threat.

The case involved Lechocki’s use of a knife when she felt “extremely threatened” by another woman during an altercation outside a veterans’ homeless shelter in 2022. A Warren County judge denied Lechocki’s request to use self-defense to justify her actions, agreeing with the prosecutor who argued that deadly force cannot be used to repel a simple assault and battery.

The jury ultimately found Lechocki guilty of attempted unlawful use of a weapon but acquitted her of fourth-degree assault. Lechocki was sentenced to two days in jail and a fine of $1,000.

With the high court’s ruling, Lechocki’s conviction was overturned and the case may return to the county, said Christian Lehmberg, Lechocki’s public defender on the appeal. The judge unfairly prevented the jury from hearing her defense, Lehmberg said.

Continue reading “”

So, what else is new

SCOTUS Kicks 2A Can Down Road Again

By Dave Workman

Editor-in-Chief

Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has kicked the proverbial can down the road when it comes to important Second Amendment cases which have been submitted for high court review, leaving another conference session this coming Friday, Feb. 27, to possibly take up one or more of these cases.

As noted by SCOTUSBlog, several high-profile cases are waiting for a decision, one way or the other, on whether they will be accepted. This delay has become a familiar problem with the John Roberts Court, which seems content to not take some cases dealing with semi-auto rifles, original capacity magazines and restoration of rights for years-old non-violent felony convictions.

Continue reading “”

SAF, FPC,  NRA Jump Into Case In Which Court Ordered SIG To Divulge Customer Names

Two large gun-rights groups are siding with gunmaker Sig Sauer in a court case in which plaintiffs seek to force disclosure of gun owners’ identities without their consent.

On February 17, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and National Rifle Association (NRA) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in support of defendant SIG SAUER’s motion for reconsideration in the case Hall v. Sig Sauer, Inc.

At issue is the court ordering Sig to divulge the identities of some of its customers to the plaintiffs in the case as part of the discovery process. The brief seeks reconsideration of that order, which FPC and NRA deem inappropriate.

Trump Wins Big as 5th Circuit Upholds Indefinite Detention Without Bond for Illegal Immigrants

A divided federal appeals court handed the Trump administration a major victory Friday, ruling that immigration authorities can detain undocumented immigrants indefinitely without bond hearings during deportation proceedings, even if they’ve lived in the United States for decades.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 decision marks the first time an appellate court has upheld the administration’s mandatory detention policy, reversing two district court rulings and contradicting hundreds of similar cases nationwide where federal judges found the policy unlawful.

What the Court Ruled
The decision immediately affects thousands of immigrants in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—states that house the nation’s largest concentration of immigration detention facilities. Immigrants who were previously eligible for release on bond while their deportation cases proceeded through the courts now face mandatory detention until their cases conclude, which can take months or years.

According to CNN, the ruling allows authorities to deny bond hearings to immigrants who had been living in the country unlawfully, including those previously allowed to remain free while their immigration cases moved through the system.

The two plaintiffs at the center of Friday’s ruling, Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias (both Mexican nationals) entered the United States illegally in 2009 and 2001, respectively. When Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained them in 2025, both men requested bond hearings before immigration judges. ICE denied those requests, citing a September 2025 Board of Immigration Appeals decision that adopted a new interpretation of decades-old immigration law.

Both men had initially won their cases before district court judges, who ordered them released or granted bond hearings. Friday’s appellate ruling reversed those decisions.

Overwhelming Lower Court Opposition
The ruling contradicts a wave of district court decisions. According to Politico, at least 360 federal judges rejected the Trump administration’s expanded detention policy across more than 3,000 cases, while only 27 judges backed it in approximately 130 cases.

The policy shift triggered what one government lawyer recently described as a “tsunami” of habeas corpus petitions flooding federal courts nationwide. In Minneapolis, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz recently accused ICE of violating nearly 100 court orders directing the release of detainees.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi called Friday’s decision “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn,” according to Reuters.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote that “activist judges have ordered the release of alien after alien based on the false claim that DHS was breaking the law. Today, the first court of appeals to address the question ruled that @DHSGov was right all along.”

What Happens Next
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling applies only within its jurisdiction—Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Other federal appeals courts are considering similar challenges, including the Seventh Circuit, which issued a preliminary ruling last year rejecting the administration’s interpretation.

Legal experts say the issue will reach the Supreme Court given the nationwide importance and the circuit split that may emerge.

“The Fifth Circuit isn’t just the most right-leaning appeals court in the country; the government drew on this panel two of that right-leaning court’s most right-leaning judges,” CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck said. “It’s hard to imagine they’re going to get the last word.”

Major 2A Win: Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Lifetime Gun Ban for Non-Violent Felon

A unanimous decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just delivered one of the most important Second Amendment wins in years—and it did so quietly, methodically, and on solid constitutional ground.

In United States v. Charles Hembree, the Fifth Circuit ruled 3–0 that the federal government cannot permanently disarm a person based solely on a single, non-violent drug possession conviction. Applying the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment framework, the court held that enforcing the federal “felon-in-possession” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), against Hembree violated the Constitution.

For gun owners, this ruling matters far beyond one defendant in Mississippi.

United States v. Hembree

Charles Hembree had one felony on his record—a 2018 Mississippi conviction for possession of methamphetamine. Hembree was not accused of trafficking drugs, committing violence, or using a firearm in connection with the offense. Years later, federal prosecutors charged him under § 922(g)(1) after he possessed a firearm, arguing that any felony conviction automatically justifies a lifetime gun ban.

A federal district court agreed. The Fifth Circuit did not.

On appeal, a three-judge panel vacated Hembree’s conviction, holding that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. The court concluded that permanently disarming someone for a single, non-violent possession offense has no grounding in the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

That historical grounding is not optional. It is now the law.

Continue reading “”

The Perversity of Citing The Black Codes To Defend Gun-Control Laws.

Neal Katyal and Justice Jackson were placed in the uncomfortable spot of having to explain why racist legislation to disarm the freedman was actually relevant.

One of the most bizarre aspects of modern Second Amendment litigation is how supporters of gun control are forced to favorably cite Jim Crow laws. In all other contexts, these sort of anti-canonical statutes would be untouchable. Yet, when it comes to guns, all the usual rules go out the window. In Wolford v. Lopez, one of the leading authorities for Hawaii’s law is an 1865 Louisiana statute. Neal Katyal described it as a “dead ringer” for the Hawaii statute.

During the oral argument, Justice Gorsuch was incredulous that Hawaii was relying on this shameful precedent. He asked Wolford’s counsel if it was appropriate to rely on such a law to inform the nation’s traditions.

Continue reading “”

RESPONSE BRIEF FILED IN SAF’S SECOND NFA CHALLENGE

BELLEVUE, Wash. — Jan. 21, 2026 — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a response brief in the second of the organization’s two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA) registration scheme.

Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the brief voices the organization’s opposition to the Government’s motion for summary judgment in Brown v. ATF.

Until President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the NFA established a $200 tax and registration regime on certain classes of firearms including silencers, short-barreled firearms and “any other weapons” (AOWs), drawing from Congressional authority to levy taxes. SAF and its partners filed lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements because without the tax, Congress’ reliance on their taxing authority is no longer justifiable.

“The passage of the Big Beautiful Bill kicked the already questionable constitutional authority for the NFA right out from under the ATF,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “With its actual purported authority now eliminated, the government has resorted to borrowing taxation authority from elsewhere in the statute, or entirely different constitutional authority rarely asserted to justify the NFA. Today’s brief explains exactly why neither tactic is persuasive.”

SAF is joined in Brown v. ATF by the American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique and two private citizens.

“For the second time this week SAF and its partners have filed opposition briefs in response to the government’s insistence on defending the NFA,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re better situated now than we have been in almost 90 years to relegate significant chunks of the unconstitutional NFA to the dustbin of history. Today’s brief is a major step toward that goal.”

Supreme Court Seems Skeptical Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’ Comports With Second Amendment

A majority of Supreme Court justices appear ready to strike down Hawaii’s “vampire rule” that prohibits lawful concealed carry on all private property unless the property owner expressly gives their consent, though during oral arguments today the three liberal justices seem inclined to uphold the law.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, for instance, repeatedly questioned plaintiffs’ attorney Alan Beck and Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris (who participated in the oral arguments alongside the plaintiffs) about why this case wasn’t simply about property rights, without any Second Amendment implication whatsoever.

When Jackson asked whether this was really a case about property rights, not the Second Amendment, Beck rightfully responded that the law directly implicates their Second Amendment rights, but Jackson argued that while their rights might be “affected,” they’re not necessarily “implicated.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s line of questioning pushed back against Jackson’s contention, noting that the courts don’t allow property rights to be defined in a way that infringes on other constitutional rights.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor, meanwhile, appeared ready to completely disregard the Supreme Court’s “text, history, and tradition” test by suggesting that Hawaii’s “culture” of not carrying firearms in public trumps the national tradition of bearing arms in publicly accessible places. Both Beck and the Harris rebuked that suggestion, pointing out that the Court has specifically discussed a national tradition.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh buttressed that argument in his own question to Harris, wondering if the government wasn’t making the issue too complicated by raising questions about pre-textual laws instead of simply looking to see whether Hawaii’s “vampire rule” is part of a “deeply rooted tradition,” which he defined, in part, as laws that were widely adopted among a number of states.

Several conservative justices raised questions about the level of generality that can be used when looking for historical analogues, which indicates that, whatever SCOTUS ultimately decides about Hawaii’s law in question, the opinion will address, to one degree or another, how close any law from the past must be to a current regulation in order to be useful history for judges.

Given the discussion and debate about Hawaii’s use of the 1865 Louisiana law that prohibited bringing guns onto plantations without the plantation owner’s permission (a law that was part of the state’s infamous Black Codes designed to restrict the rights of newly-freed slaves), I’m cautiously optimistic that the Court will not only address the level of generality for historical analogues, but also the relevance of statutes found in history that are unquestionably unconstitutional today.

Justice Jackson argued that those laws must be considered a part of the national tradition, but Harris pushed back on that. In her view, unconstitutional laws are, by their very nature, outliers. And under the Supreme Court’s test, outlier laws are not a part of the national tradition of keeping and bearing arms.

Neal Katyal, arguing for Hawaii, echoed Sotomayor’s contention that local laws and customs matter more than a national tradition of gun ownership, while still arguing that the national tradition of gun ownership includes the ability of states to flip the default rules.

Gorsuch asked Katyal about relying heavily on the “outlier” Black Code law in defending Hawaii’s statute. Katyal called them a shameful part of American history, but argued that the law was presumptively constitutional because Louisiana was re-admitted to the Union with that law still in place. Katyal, however, never really explained why the Louisiana law shouldn’t be considered an outlier.

Katyal also got pushback for asserting that the Bruen test requires looking at history when trying to figure out if the Second Amendment is being implicated, as opposed to looking at history when determining whether a law fits within a national tradition. To do otherwise, he said, would be to put the government in the position of having to defend the history of all laws regarding firearms. Kavanaugh and Barrett both disagreed with Katyal, arguing that’s exactly what the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence dictates.

Both Beck and Harris did a great job in tearing apart Hawaii’s statute, and while Neal Katyal did his utmost to defend the law I don’t see him getting support from any of the more conservative justices. I predict the Court will drive a stake through the heart of Hawaii’s “vampire rule” when the Wolford opinion is released, though I’m sure anti-gun lawmakers in the Aloha state are already working on their next scheme to infringe on our right to bear arms.