Category: Courts

I love it when activist judge with a political agenda get slapped by SCOTUS and have to publicly reverse themselves.

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Blaming Gun Company for Mass Shooting

A Brady-backed lawsuit against Century Arms blaming a Romanian gun company and a U.S. firearms distributor for the 2019 mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California has finally been dismissed by a federal judge, almost a year after he ruled the case could move forward.

U.S. District Judge William Sessions refused to dismiss the suit in late 2024, arguing that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act didn’t shield Romarm S.A. and Century Arms because the plaintiffs had “plausibly pled an aiding and abetting theory that satisfied the predicate exception to PLCAA’s liability bar.”

The predicate exception, according to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Smith & Wesson v. Mexcio, requires that defendants “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms, and the violation “was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”

The plaintiffs in the case stemming from the Garlic Festival shooting had argued that Romarm and Century Arms had aided and abetted the shooter’s illegal gun possession in California by selling the WASR-10 that was used in the attack in states where the arm is perfectly legal to own.

Sessions originally accepted that claim under the dubious reasoning that the defendants “knew that California-based criminals were buying guns in Nevada with the illegal intent of transporting them into California,” yet “flooded the Nevada market with guns and employed marketing and pricing strategies with the intent of encouraging or facilitating such transport, not merely with indifference that such transport occurs,” which in turn “aided the commission of illegal gun possession in California.”

But in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, the Supreme Court stated that any aiding-and-abetting claims that aren’t based on a specific violation of state or federal law “must be backed by plausible allegations of pervasive, systemic, and culpable assistance.” After that decision was handed down Romarm and Century Arms asked Sessions to reconsider his decision, and now the judge has reversed himself and dismissed the case.

The issue for reconsideration, in light of Smith and Wesson, is that none of those findings are particular to the specific incident in this case. The shooter was a Nevada resident at the time of purchase, so his purchase was presumptively legal. Plaintiffs have not alleged with any specificity that Defendants advertised or marketed their products in any way that encouraged the shooter to take his legally purchased firearm across the border to California where it would be illegally possessed.

The oversupply argument similarly fails, as applied to the shooter, because he was a Nevada resident. No matter how many surplus guns were distributed in Nevada beyond what the Nevada market could bear, the fact that the Plaintiff was a part of the Nevada market who was not engaged in some sort of broader trafficking scheme is a flaw in that reasoning.

Put another way, the firearm at the center of this case was not part of an excess supply allegedly flooded into Nevada with the goal of attracting California residents for the simple reason that the shooter was a Nevada resident. So, while Defendants’ act in manufacturing the firearm and marketing it in Nevada may have aided the commission of some illegal gun possession in California, it does not follow, on the facts pled, that they aided the shooter’s illegal gun possession in California “beyond providing the good on the open market.”

It seems to me that Sessions could and should have dismissed the case even before SCOTUS handed down its unanimous decision throwing out Mexico’s lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and other U.S. gunmakers, but the fact that he allowed the case to move forward under such specious claims just demonstrates the importance of the Supreme Court’s decision that helped lay out the scope of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s protections.

Sessions, a Clinton appointee who’s served on the bench since 1995, still argued in dismissing the case that “it may well be true” that “Defendants’ acts aided the commission of illegal gun possession in California” in other instances, but the plaintiffs haven’t plausibly proved that to be the case here. That statement was completely superfluous and unnecessary, and appears to telegraph Session’s willingness to punish companies in the firearms industry for the third-party actions of criminals whenever possible. 

In this case, thankfully, Sessions couldn’t get around the plain language of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico. If it weren’t for that unanimous decision penned by Justice Elena Kagan, though, Brady’s junk lawsuit would still be an ongoing threat to the lawful commerce in arms.

The Supreme Court has grated certiorari and will consider overturning a Hawaii law that imposes strict regulations on where people can carry guns.

The Trump administration had urged the justices to take the case, arguing the law violates the court’s 2022 ruling that found people have a right to carry firearms in public under the Second Amendment.

The Hawaii law bans guns on private property unless the owner has specifically allowed them.

24-1046 WOLFORD, JASON, ET AL. V. LOPEZ, ATT’Y GEN. OF HI

Wolford v. Lopez

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.

I wish the Trump administration would be more consistent in pro-RKBA moves like this.

DOJ Sues LA Sheriff Over Gun Permit Delays, Says 2A Violation Scope ‘Staggering’

The Department of Justice on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, alleging deliberate foot-dragging by the department in processing applications for California concealed carry licenses.

If this is the first high-profile move fulfilling the mission of the DOJ’s “Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force” announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi in April, it’s a major offensive. The nine-page federal complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, does not mince words.

“The scope of this constitutional violation is staggering,” the complaint says. “Between January 2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two—a mere 0.05% approval rate that cannot be explained by legitimate disqualifying factors alone. This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.”

The complaint, submitted by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, Acting U.S. Attorney Bilal A. Essayli for the Central District of California and other DOJ officials in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles, declares, “The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.”

Named as defendants are the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Robert Luna, in his official capacity. The department did not immediately offer a response.

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge: Biden ATF Rule on Firearms Sales Cannot Be Used Against NRA Members

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Corey L. Maze “permanently [blocked] federal authorities from enforcing multiple provisions of the ATF’s [‘engaged in the business’ rule],” according to Rocket City Now.

Maze’s ruling applies to two plaintiffs — “Don Butler of Talladega and David Glidewell of Ragland” — and to members of the NRA.

ATF’s engaged in the business rule became final on April 10, 2024. The rule is designed to expand the occurrences of point-of-sale background checks by counting certain private sales as business sales, thereby requiring the transfer to be handled via a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check.

As the rule prepared to be finalized, Breitbart News noted that then-ATF director Steven Dettelbach could not could not define a precise threshold for when private citizens are considered “engaged in the business” of selling guns. The ambiguity put law-abiding gun owners on edge, as they could not ascertain when they might be in violation of the rule and when they might not.

A lawsuit, Butler v. Garland, resulted, later to be augmented to Butler v. Bondi.

In the case, “Plaintiffs argue that Congress requires a person buy or sell multiple firearms before he can be deemed to be engaged the firearms’ business, and ATF exceeded its authority by roping in persons who sell or offer to sell only one firearm.”

Maze agreed with the plaintiffs, noting that the “ATF exceeded its authority when it interpreted the [the Gun Control Act of 1968] to possibly prohibit a single purchase or sale or a single offer to purchase or sell a firearm.”

Maze pointed to case law, summarizing: “Congress decided that a person is not engaged in the business of dealing in firearms unless he deals firearms ‘as a regular course of trade or business’… Regular means repeated or often. So regular business requires more than one firearm transaction involving a single firearm. Because the Final Rule says single transactions involving one firearm may be prohibited in some cases, it exceeds ATF’s statutory authority.”

He continued to examine phrases in the ATF’s final engaged in the business rule, showing again and again how the “ATF exceeded its authority,” ruling: “The court will enter a separate order that PERMANENTLY ENJOINS the Department of Justice, ATF, Acting ATF Director Daniel Driscoll, and Attorney General Pamela Bondi from enforcing these aspects of the ‘Engaged in the Business’ Final Rule against Plaintiffs Don Butler, David Glidewell, and any member of the NRA.”

Federal Court Says Post Office Carry Prohibition Unconstitutional
A federal court ruled that prohibitions on carrying firearms in post offices are unconstitutional. This ruling comes out of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On September 30, 2025, Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor delivered an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC is joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and two citizens —  Gavin Pate and George Mandry —  in challenging the federal law.

O’Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.” There’s nothing in the order limiting it to Texas and applies to all members of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

The complaint was originally filed in June 2024 and the named defendant was then-Attorney General Garland. “So if the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a ‘sensitive place,’ it must prove that its current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue,’” the complaint said.

This order in Texas comes at the heels of the Department of Justice dropping a bid for an appeal in a criminal matter involving carriage on U.S. Postal Service property. U.S. v. Ayala in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida involved defendant Ayala’s possession of a firearm on postal grounds. District Court Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote that: “The United States fails to meet its burden of pointing to a historical tradition of firearms regulation justifying Ayala’s indictment under § 930(a).”

In Ayala, the Department of Justice dismissed their motion for an appeal in August. That move allowed Judge Mizelle’s order to stand.

“Millions of people across the country visit the U.S. Post Office as part of their daily routine,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a statement. “As we’ve stated throughout this case, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms at post offices, and peaceable Americans all over the country should not be forced to choose between using basic postal services and the exercise of their fundamental rights. Today’s ruling is an encouraging step towards restoring these rights.”

The order applies to “ordinary post offices,” and explains, “Because Plaintiffs have agreed to limit their relief to ordinary post offices not located in restricted areas like military bases or where the Government provides armed security, the Court likewise limits its remedies to ordinary post offices.”

“This is a huge win for SAF and its members,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “There is no historical analogue to justify a ban on carrying a firearm on postal property, and we are pleased the court rightly saw through this thinly veiled attempt at preventing citizens from fully exercising their constitutional rights.”

Named plaintiff FPC observed in their statement that “Judge O’Connor explained, ‘it is hard to envision that the Founders would countenance banning firearms in the post office — particularly because they did not do so themselves. Thus, the Government has not carried its burden’ to justify its ban on carry in and around post offices. The Court thus held that the prohibition is ‘unconstitutional as-applied to carrying firearms’ inside a post office or on post office property.”

Speaking on behalf of FPC, Foundation President Brandon Combs noted that governments can’t ban weapons in “unsecured public spaces.” He further stated that governments also can’t “invent new so-called ‘gun-free zones’ whenever they please.”

“For too long, peaceable people have been threatened with prosecution simply for carrying weapons for self-defense while mailing a package or buying stamps,” Combs said. “That ends here.”

The victory in FPC v. Bondi is another step towards fully repatriating the people with a whole Second Amendment. Rather than turn into contortions of Cirque du Soleil proportions to find an analogue, the federal court found the government failed to meet the appropriate burden of proof — because there isn’t one.

Considering the Department of Justice’s recent withdrawal in the Ayala criminal possession case, it’s not likely they’ll seek an appeal in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But you never know. We’ll be keeping up with this case and will be reporting back with any future findings.

As almost always, the expense of the process was the punishment.

Second Amendment Foundation declares ‘vindication’ as Attorney General ends investigation

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced this week that it has reached an agreement with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office. This concludes a three-year investigation that found no misconduct by SAF or its personnel.

As part of the settlement, SAF will withdraw its federal civil rights lawsuit against the Attorney General’s Office, former Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and other named defendants. This agreement includes the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) canceling its request for public records from the Washington Attorney General’s Office.

In return, the AG’s Consumer Protection will end its investigation into SAF and the other parties involved.

Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb stated the agreement represents a “vindication of our position that SAF, its partners and personnel did nothing wrong.”

Gottlieb says Ferguson’s investigation was political retaliation, not justice.
Gottlieb expressed his dissatisfaction with the investigation initiated by Bob Ferguson, describing it as an effort to “discredit our work on behalf of gun owners and the Second Amendment.”

“Ferguson’s witch hunt wasted three years of our time and cost us thousands of man hours and more than $200,000. We’re convinced this happened because he is a devoted anti-gun rights politician and we are a national organization whose mission is to protect and defend the Second Amendment,” he added.

All of SAF’s sister companies were targeted as well, including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Merril Mail Marketing, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, the Service Bureau Association, and Liberty Park Press, where Gottlieb currently serves as publisher.

Gottlieb expressed relief that the ordeal is over, though he added, “we’re not happy that Ferguson is not held responsible for the damage he did. It is our sincere hope that no future attorney general in Washington state will conduct a politically motivated attack under color of law against any non-profit organization with which he or she has a fundamental philosophical disagreement.”

As parts of the agreement, the Washington State Attorney General has decided not to pursue any legal action stemming from the investigation.

This outcome comes as no surprise to Gottlieb, “since they couldn’t find any wrongdoing.”

Appeal Brief Filed in Knife Rights’ Second Amendment Federal Switchblade Act Lawsuit

Knife Rights and its fellow appellants have filed their Appeal Brief in our Federal Second Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Switchblade Act.

Download the Opening Brief

Download the Full Excerpts (159MB)

The essence of the case is that the Supreme Court has made clear that the “Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms…” Further, in Heller, the Supreme Court stated the Second Amendment protects weapons that are “‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and that weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” are within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Despite this, the Federal Switchblade Act broadly restricts, or outright bans in over one-third of the U.S., a huge category of such bearable arms that are in common use, in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

The District Court ignored its commands from the Supreme Court with another absurd stretch to avoid ruling in favor of the Second Amendment.We are asking the Appeals Court to reverse this ridiculous decision.

We also hope that with the Department of Justice’s recent amicus briefs in the 7th and 3rd Circuits opposing bans on AR-style rifles (“assault weapons”) and magazines-more-than-10 round capacity as “flagrantly violat[ing] the Second Amendment,” that they will revisit their irrational opposition in our case and stipulate, like in these others, that switchblades are commonly possessed arms under the Second Amendment and that the Federal Switchblade Act (excepting the import ban) also flagrantly violates the Second Amendment.

Knife Rights’ Attorney John Dillon said, “this is a very strong appeal from a district court decision that has no legitimate legal support. There is no question that switchblades are “arms” under every conceivable definition of the term. Because the FSA clearly prohibits the manufacture, transportation, and purchase of these arms in all interstate commerce, as well as possession of switchblades on all federal lands and Indian Country, Heller and Bruen demand that the government bear the burden of justifying the FSA’s prohibitions. The government has entirely failed to meet this burden, and we will prove that on appeal.”

Since 2010 Knife Rights’ efforts have resulted in 58 bills & court decisions repealing knife bans & protecting knife owners in 36 states and over 200 cities and towns! Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America™ and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans™.

NRA files brief in challenge to federal suppressor registration mandate

The National Rifle Association, American Suppressor Association, and Independence Institute filed an amicus brief Sept. 17, urging the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant rehearing en banc (in full court) in a challenge to the National Firearms Act’s registration requirement for suppressors.

George Peterson was indicted for possessing an unregistered suppressor under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871, and alleges that the NFA’s prohibition on unregistered suppressors violates the Second Amendment.

Here in Ohio: House bill would let certain officials carry concealed firearms in government facilities
On Aug. 27, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld the prohibition. The court reasoned that registration requirements are the equivalent of licensing schemes, and because the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that shall-issue carry licensing schemes can be constitutional, registration requirements for individual arms are also constitutional. The court declined to apply the test for Second Amendment challenges set forth in the NRA’s landmark Supreme Court victory, NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Our brief urges the Fifth Circuit to rehear the case en banc because the panel decision contradicts Supreme Court case law and sets a troubling precedent. The brief warns that by upholding the registration requirement for suppressors while assuming they are protected arms, the decision implies that the government may require the registration of all arms — and without needing to satisfy the Supreme Court’s test for Second Amendment challenges. The brief then provides various examples throughout history, including from England, Germany, France, Australia, and New York City, to prove that registration often leads to confiscation, and confiscation often leads to tyranny. A regulation with such serious constitutional implications, our brief concludes, must be subject to the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment test.

The brief was filed in United States v. Peterson.

DOJ Takes Troubling Position in Second Amendment Case

The case Reese v. ATF challenges the prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns. Victorious at the Fifth Circuit, they’re now working towards a final judgment at the district court level, but the Department of Justice has taken a position that’s not sitting well with Second Amendment advocates.

After the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered an opinion on Reese v. ATF, the case was remanded for final judgment to the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The circuit court concluded that “the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.” The plaintiffs filed an important brief on Friday in support of their proposed judgment.

The government ended up exhausting their timeline to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. When remanded back to district court, both the plaintiffs and the government filed proposed judgments because “a good faith attempt to reach agreement with Government” failed.

The plaintiffs are proposing the government be enjoined from enforcing prohibitions on the sale of handguns to all eighteen-to-twenty-year-old members. The government is requesting that the law be enjoined only “with respect to the identified and verified persons described” in the proposed judgment. In short, the government essentially wants the order to apply only to the individual plaintiffs, not every member of the associations who are part of the lawsuit, which include the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association.

“The laws challenged in this case prevent 18-to-20-year-old adult Americans from acquiring handguns or handgun ammunition in the ordinary commercial market. The Fifth Circuit has held that those laws and their supporting regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” the filing states. “And now the Government has taken the position that even so, Plaintiffs 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.”

The 19-page brief goes on to explain why the final judgment should not give deference to the government by delivering what would amount to an as-applied opinion. Given the amount of time it takes to bring such cases to completion, many plaintiffs are mooted out by coming of age before there are any final judgments—something the government incorporated in their proposed order.

“What’s at stake now is the scope of the injunction–meaning, which young adults will be able to exercise their rights,” said Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Although it chose not to appeal the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, it is now the ATF’s position that the scope of relief should be so narrow as to cover literally no one. That position is contrary to well-settled law. SAF sued on behalf of its members, and the relief SAF won in the Fifth Circuit flows to those very members. All SAF members should be covered by this injunction.”

“SAF’s victory in this case rightly applies to all of our members, and that is precisely what this brief makes clear,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The government cannot continue to trounce on the Second Amendment rights of young adults by trying to avoid the practical effectiveness of an injunction mandated by a federal circuit court.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition had some harsh words for the Department of Justice. FPC said the government’s brief was full of “brazen arguments” and that “the DOJ is working to push all effective, cause-driven organizations … out of court altogether, and force people to pursue their rights through slow, complex, and expensive class-action lawsuits.” FPC alleges that these moves are all part of a new government ploy.

“The DOJ’s cynical scheme to undermine associational standing and relief for our members is nothing but an attempt to put constitutional accountability out of the reach of ordinary Americans,” Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs said in a statement. “The federal government, having lost on the merits, is now trying to rig the process. But we will not be deterred. While the government has placed FPC and our members in its crosshairs, we are proud to expose and oppose this dangerous strategy as we pursue a world of maximal liberty for all peaceable people.”

We’re allegedly living at a time when the most pro-Second Amendment administration is in power. The government yielding by allowing the clock to run out on appealing to the High Court certainly was a win, but not if in the next breath they’re saying that the relief the plaintiffs are seeking should be grossly limited. The Fifth Circuit was clear when it said that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the people,” there should be no further argument—yet here we are.

TPTB in Florida state that the state will not appeal, so as I have been told, on the 25th, the ruling will become permanent case law.

Florida Court Strikes Down Open Carry Ban

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeals struck down the state’s 37-year-old open carry ban Wednesday, declaring the prohibition unconstitutional and delivering a significant victory for gun rights advocates.

The three-judge panel ruled unanimously that Florida’s 1987 law violates the Second Amendment, overturning decades of precedent that made the state one of only four nationwide to ban open carry.

“No historical tradition supports Florida’s open carry ban,” Judge Stephanie Ray wrote in the 20-page opinion. “To the contrary, history confirms that the right to bear arms in public necessarily includes the right to do so openly.”

The decision stems from Stanley Victor McDaniels’ July 4, 2022, arrest in downtown Pensacola, where the Republican activist openly carried a loaded handgun while waving a copy of the U.S. Constitution, according to the court document. Police arrested McDaniels despite his concealed carry permit, leading to his conviction. A violation of the 1987 law was previously a second-degree misdemeanor.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier praised the ruling.

“This is a big win for the Second Amendment rights of Floridians,” Uthmeier said in a post.

“As we’ve all witnessed over the last few days, our God-given right to self-defense is indispensable,” he continued.

Representative Byron Donalds, a Republican gubernatorial contender, echoed support on social media: “Shall not be infringed, means shall not be infringed!”

Former Florida State Rep. Anthony Sabatini criticized Republican lawmakers who previously blocked open carry legislation, calling them “fake Republicans” for failing to repeal the ban through legislative action.

The ruling overturns McDaniels’ conviction and establishes statewide precedent.

Wonder how that affects being able to enlist at 17?

DC Appeals Court: Adults Under 21 Are Covered by Second Amendment, But Can’t Have Guns

Do adults under the age of 21 have the right to keep and bear arms?

Since they’re adults, they should. After all, it’s one thing to say children can’t buy firearms, but people who are responsible for themselves in pretty much every other aspect of their lives are a different matter.

Yet many places restrict those under 21 from actually enjoying the full benefits of their Second Amendment rights.

In the District of Columbia, which is a microcosm of how little gun control actually does to stop crime, they have a total gun ban for those under 21. That ban has been challenged and was recently ruled constitutional. The local DC appeals court–not the federal appeals court in DC, just for clarification–just upheld the ruling with an…interesting argument.

So, by operating under the assumption that adults under 21 are, in fact, part of “the people” covered by the Second Amendment, they still find a gun ban constitutional?

How does that make sense?

As the FPC put it later:

Right?

The sad part is that I see the so-called logic being employed. If the right to own guns implies the right to purchase them, which many of us have argued more than once, as have the courts, then the inverse would seem to be true. If you don’t have a right to buy them, as was ruled previously, then the implication is that you don’t have a right to own them.

Hence, the DC restrictions being upheld.

But NRA v Bondi, which is the case cited, was an 11th Circuit decision, not a Supreme Court decision, so I’m not sure about the wisdom of basing everything on that, especially as the DC Circuit Court of Appeals covers the DC area. Of course, it’s not like that court would rule differently.

Personally, I think the 11th Circuit blew it.

While there is a legitimate case for the constitutionality of age limits, the argument that people who are old enough to enlist, sign contracts, and vote in our nation’s elections is bizarre to me. Especially as some want to lower the voting age still further, all while saying younger people are too reckless and irresponsible to exercise a fundamental, constitutionally protected right.

And then to extrapolate it out to justifying a ban on even the possession of firearms by people in that age group is absolutely horrifying to me. Especially as the age limits are often defended as saying these folks still have their Second Amendment rights, they just can’t buy a gun. This, however, makes it very clear where that argument can and will lead.

Here’s hoping someone steps in and lowers a much-needed smackdown on this absolute BS.

Tennessee of all places…

Skrmetti appealing gun law decision

(The Center Square) – Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is appealing a ruling by a Gibson County Chancery Court that said two Tennessee gun laws were unconstitutional.
The laws prohibited carrying firearms in state parks and carrying a gun or club with the “intent to go armed” and use it for violence or aggression.

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and three Tennessee residents sued the state, saying the laws violated their right to bear arms.
Skrmetti said his office was asking the chancery court for a stay pending appeal because the court’s ruling was broad and went too far.

“It entirely invalidates two gun laws, even though those laws are constitutional in some situations,” Skrmetti said. “For example, it’s obviously constitutional to prohibit a 10-year-old from bringing a semiautomatic rifle to a rec league basketball game or a drunk with a shotgun from staggering down Broadway or through Market Square or across Shelby Farms. But the Court’s ruling appears to legalize this in Tennessee.”

The ruling by the Chancery Court is causing confusion, Skrmetti said in the appeal.

“Plaintiffs’ counsel has already advised the public that ‘the entire law enforcement network in Tennessee [is] on notice’ and ‘attempts to enforce these two statutes’ by any official ‘should give rise to claims of federal civil rights violations,’” Skrmetti said. “Law enforcement is rightly loath to choose between tempting ruinous civil rights lawsuits and carrying out their duty to protect the public. And there is no doubt: because of its refusal to adhere to its own judicial limits, this Court’s order would leave large gaps in the General Assembly’s efforts to protect the public.”

Rep. Chris Todd, R-Madison County, said he wanted Skrmetti to appeal the decision but not because Todd opposes it. He called the opinion “one of the most thorough, well-reasoned, and well-written decisions we’ve seen.”

Sen. London Lamar, chairwoman of the Tennessee Senate Democratic Caucus, said she supports the decision to appeal the decision.

“These long-standing gun safety laws are constitutional and they exist for a reason: to give law enforcement the tools they need to protect the public,” Lamar said. “If the lower court’s ruling is allowed to stand, it will tie the hands of police officers — even when they encounter someone with a loaded assault rifle parked outside a children’s park. Officers wouldn’t even be allowed to question that person’s intent until it’s too late. That’s not freedom. That’s a recipe for tragedy.”

FPC Blasts Fifth Circuit’s Flawed Suppressor Ruling

NEW ORLEANS (August 27, 2025) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today condemned a badly flawed decision issued by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. George Peterson, an FPC-backed criminal appeal challenging the federal government’s unconstitutional National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm suppressor rules:

Once again, the Fifth Circuit has wrongly upheld the National Firearms Act in a dangerously flawed opinion that tramples the Constitution and disregards our nation’s history. Suppressors are unquestionably “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment. Nothing in our nation’s history of arms regulation supports the government’s unconstitutional taxation and registration mandates. Indeed, the federal government’s NFA scheme is not just dangerous to liberty, it is blatantly unconstitutional. FPC will continue to stand with Mr. Peterson and his counsel as they weigh every option in the fight ahead to put an end to the NFA and its unconstitutional regulations on suppressors and other protected arms. Individuals who would like to support Mr. Peterson’s appeal, our Brown v. ATF NFA challenge, and dozens of important cases to eliminate unconstitutional federal, state, and local laws should join our FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

Tennessee’s “intent to go armed” and “parks” statutes declared unconstitutional

On August 22, 2025, a three-judge panel (the “court”) in Tennessee declared Tennessee’s intent to go armed statute unconstitutional. The court also declared Tennessee’s statute that prohibits carrying firearms in parks to be unconstitutional.

Tennessee’s “intent to go armed” statute is contained in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(1) which provides “A person commits an offense who carries, with the intent to go armed, a firearm or a club.” The statute makes it a criminal offense to carry any firearm at any time and at any place, including a person’s on property or in their own home, “with the intent to go armed.” Thus, an officer would have reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed just by observing a person carry or wearing a firearm – even in their own yard. That reasonable cause justifies an officer in stopping, detaining, questioning, charging or arresting the individual for that crime. The statutes do provide certain affirmative defenses, such as the individual had a handgun permit or that they were in their own home, but those defenses do not shield the individual from being stopped, questioned or arrested. Indeed, Tennessee law currently puts the burden on the individual to raise and demonstrate those defenses at trial.

Recognizing the statute’s function, the court’s ruling stated “As such, the Going Armed Statute criminalizes conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment as discussed above. Such conduct is presumed to be constitutionally protected—in other words, this statute is presumed to
be unconstitutional—unless Defendants can demonstrate that regulation of carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed is within the historical tradition of this nation.”

Turning to the arguments by Defendants Gov. Lee and Attorney General Skrmetti, which the court rejected, the court stated “Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive because they make no defense of nor even address the constitutional infirmity at the heart of the statute—the criminalization of the constitutional right to bear arms. . . . Defendants do not satisfy their flipped burden under Bruen and have in no way demonstrated a plainly legitimate sweep for proscribing in toto, subject to narrow exceptions in subsequent subsections, the right to bear arms.”

In striking down the intent to go armed statute as violating both the 2nd Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution, the court concluded by stating “this Court holds that the Going Armed Statute violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and therefore also violates Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. With respect to the Going Armed Statute, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED….”

The Plaintiffs also asked the court to declare Tennessee’s “parks statute,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a), unconstitutional. That statute makes it a crime for individuals to carry weapons prohibited by Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1302(a), a statute which Tennessee’s Attorney General asserts includes everyday handguns and other commonly owned firearms. The court, adopting much of its analysis regarding the intent to go armed statute, also found the parks statute to be unconstitutional.

In the effort to defend the park’s statute, the state (Attorney General Skrmetti’s office) had argued that Tennessee’s parks (including its greenways and recreational areas) were “sensitive places.” However, the court likewise rejected this argument by the defendants.

Finally, the Defendants asserted that should the court rule in favor of the Plaintiffs that the determination that these statutes are unconstitutional should be limited and protect only the Plaintiffs and not all Tennesseans. The court likewise rejected that request by the Defendants. Instead, the court stated “Plaintiffs here have vindicated their constitutional rights. No government official, or the public for that matter, has a legitimate interest in the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Tennesseans that are not party to this action may unintentionally benefit from the protection of their constitutional rights, but no right of theirs could be prejudiced by the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, we do not limit the scope of the declaratory relief sought by and now granted to Plaintiffs.”

This lawsuit was brought by three individuals who are members of Tennessee Firearms Association and in which Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation are organizational plaintiffs. All plaintiffs were represented by John Harris, who is also the executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association. The defendants were Governor Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti in their respective official capacities in addition to several state commissioners, a district attorney and a sheriff.

Efforts by the Tennessee Firearms Association to repeal these statutes in the Legislature have been rejected repeatedly by the Republican controlled Tennessee Legislature. Those blockades were one of the motivations for bringing this court challenge.

Federal Judge Issues Permanent Injunction on California’s Ban on Non-Resident Carry

The Firearms Policy Coalition is hailing a federal judge’s permanent injunction against the state’s ban on non-resident carry, which allows FPC members to file an application for a permit to carry in any of the state’s 58 counties.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued the permanent injunction on Thursday, several weeks after she concluded that the state’s ban on non-resident carry was unconstitutional.

Defendant Attorney General Rob Bonta; Defendant’s officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with Defendant, are hereby permanently enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code sections 26150(a)(3) and 26155(a)(3) as to CCW applications submitted by Plaintiff Firearms Policy Coalition’s members who are not residents of California, including the named Individual Plaintiffs.

That’s pretty simple and succinct. And as FPC notes, that’s also pretty much the exact opposite of what Bonta was asking for.

In a statement, FPC elaborated on Bonta’s request.

The State of California had asked the Court to issue a complex injunction requiring applicants to submit a sworn statement declaring intent to carry in a specific county within the next 12 months and limiting applications to that county — along with five pages of additional conditions and qualifications. But the Court agreed with FPC, which asked the Court to enter a straightforward injunction simply blocking enforcement of the ban altogether.

“People do not lose their right to keep and bear arms when they visit California. With this injunction, they can finally protect themselves and their families while in the Golden State,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

FPC members will be able to apply in whatever county they wish, without having to provide any sort of sworn statement or notarized declaration of intent, which is exactly how it should be. California residents may be forced to apply for a carry permit in the county where they live, but it makes no sense for non-residents to be funneled into one particular county… particularly given the lengthy wait times and excessive fees that are found in some of the state’s most populated counties.

Continue reading “”

Appeals Court Backs Florida Medical Marijuana Patients in Gun Rights Battle

Atlanta, GA –  A federal appeals court has delivered a major win for medical marijuana patients and gun rights advocates, ruling that the federal government cannot automatically strip gun rights from Floridians who legally use cannabis for medical reasons.

The Ruling

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s argument that medical marijuana patients should be treated like drug addicts or dangerous individuals. Writing for the panel, Judge Elizabeth Branch stated:

“When viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the allegations in the operative complaint do not lead to the inference that the plaintiffs are comparatively similar to either felons or dangerous individuals—the two historical analogues the Federal Government offers in its attempt to meet its burden”.

Branch emphasized that plaintiffs Vera Cooper and Nicole Hansell, who disclosed their medical marijuana use on federal gun purchase forms, “cannot fairly be labeled as dangerous people solely due to their medicinal marijuana use”.

The court concluded:

“Appellants cannot be considered relevantly similar to either felons or dangerous individuals based solely on their medical marijuana use. Accordingly, the Federal Government has failed, at the motion to dismiss stage, to establish that disarming Appellants is consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation”.

The ruling vacated a lower court dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Continue reading “”