LEGAL ALERT: A New York federal judge has ruled that the state’s non-resident carry ban violates the Second Amendment. https://t.co/RRJzOx8VsV pic.twitter.com/EnEXCjFbuz
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) August 20, 2025
Category: Courts
In case you were wondering, this is what treating the 2A as a first class right looks like:
LEGAL ALERT: The Tenth Circuit has ruled that New Mexico’s 7-day firearm waiting period likely violates the Second Amendment. https://t.co/UE4WP6Csnn pic.twitter.com/0l4aaDW2eA
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) August 19, 2025
Judge strikes down Minnesota’s binary trigger ban, suggests invalidating 2024 omnibus bill
A Ramsey County District Court judge on Monday struck down a 2024 law banning binary trigger devices — which double the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms — as a violation of the state constitution’s rule requiring legislation to be about a single subject.
Although just the binary trigger ban was struck down, Judge Leonardo Castro used sweeping language about the DFL-controlled Legislature’s violation of the single-subject rule, clearing the way for potential litigation over a bevy of subjects included in the law, from Uber and Lyft driver wages to paid leave provisions.
The ruling didn’t strictly address the legality of binary triggers, but instead focused on the 1,400-page bill in which the binary trigger ban was included last year. In the final moments of the 2024 session, the DFL-controlled Legislature passed an “omnibus” bill — think: everything but the kitchen sink — that included 13 separate subjects, including minimum pay rates for Uber and Lyft drivers; alterations to the state’s paid leave program; and changes to make the child tax credit more user-friendly.
The Minnesota Constitution states “no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” The purpose is to prevent legislators from steamrolling provisions into big bills with little notice.
But bills running several hundred pages about a multitude of subjects are common, no matter which party controls the Legislature.
Castro said in his ruling that the Minnesota Supreme Court has considered dozens of cases challenging the state Constitution’s single-subject clause since 1857.
The case challenging the binary trigger ban was brought by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, arguing the 1,400-page omnibus bill in 2024 was unconstitutional.
Castro ruled that the bill included many provisions that had nothing to do with one another.
“The 2024 Omnibus Bill violates the Single Subject and Title Clause, because, at best, it contains many non-germane parts, and at worst, has no identifiable common theme,” Castro wrote.
Despite his sweeping language, Castro employed judicial restraint. He refrained from invalidating all the provisions in the 1,400-page bill and only struck down the binary trigger ban. He did so because Minnesota Supreme Court precedent states that courts should favor striking certain provisions rather than invalidating entire bills, he wrote.
“But make no mistake, during the late hours of May 19, 2024, lawmaking did not ‘occur within the framework of the Constitution,’” Castro concluded. “This Court respectfully suggests that if there has ever been a bill without common theme and where ‘all bounds of reason and restraint seem to have been abandoned,’ this is it; and if there has ever been time for the ‘draconian result of invalidating the entire law,’ that time is now.”
Supreme Court Being Asked to Hear Magazine Capacity Case
California’s magazine capacity limitation law from 2000 has been under fire for several years. In 2016, the law was supersized, completely banning magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Formerly petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States, Duncan v. Bonta was granted, vacated, and remanded to the lower court in the wake of NYSRPA v. Bruen. The National Rifle Association-backed case has returned to SCOTUS and they’ve filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on August 15, 2025.
Named plaintiffs Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, and Christopher Waddell are joined by California Rifle and Pistol Association in this challenge. The petition was filed by the powerhouse firm Clement & Murphy, with Paul D. Clement and Erin E. Murphy listed as the counsels of record.
“Since 2000, California has prohibited the manufacture, import, sale, and transfer of ‘large-capacity magazines,’ defined by the state as ‘any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.’ In 2016, the state banned the possession of such magazines, and required any lawfully possessed magazine to be surrendered, permanently altered, or destroyed,” the National Rifle Association said in a release. “This lawsuit was filed before the possession ban took effect, alleging that it violates the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.”
In the petition, Clement and Murphy laid out the history of the case, asserting that “it should have been easy to see that California’s ban on feeding devices that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition violates the Second Amendment.”
For the district court, that was indeed easy to see. But the Ninth Circuit would have none of it. The court bypassed the ordinary panel-review process, reconvened an en banc panel that now consisted mostly of judges not in active service, granted “emergency” relief to the state over the dissent of most of the active judges on that panel, and ultimately held that California’s sweeping and confiscatory ban on some of the most common arms in America does not even implicate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin of the NRA weighed in on the filing. “Tens of millions of Americans lawfully own hundreds of millions of the magazines that California bans,” said Hamlin. “The Supreme Court should take this case to vindicate the rights of Californians and reaffirm that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning common arms.”
In the filing, they further argue that the 9th Circuit erred in their decisions. They state that the 9th’s decision can’t “be reconciled with this Court’s precedents or the constitutional traditions.” And, they observed that the circuit court professed “surface-level adherence to Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi” but “ultimately cast those decisions aside, pawning off interest-balancing as careful consideration of constitutional text and historical tradition.”
On behalf of the litigation arm of the Association — the NRA Institute for Legislative Action — Executive Director John Commerford said that: “After nearly a decade of litigation, two en banc decisions, and a prior remand from the Supreme Court, this case is more than ready for the Court’s review.” Commerford continued, “the people of California have endured long enough” and that “it’s time to restore their constitutional rights.”
The frenzy of post-Bruen grant, vacate, and remands that occurred in 2022 are coming home to roost. Snope v. Brown out of Maryland was one such GVRed case that was denied certiorari when represented to the High Court. Snope did not deal with magazine capacity restrictions, but rather so-called “assault weapons.”
The magazine question in Duncan, which affects Heller-protected handguns, could be the stepping stone SCOTUS uses to get back to the topic of semi-automatic rifle prohibitions.
A New Jersey case, also NRA backed — ANJRPC v. Platkin — was also in the batch of punted cases. Like Duncan, it concerns magazine capacity and is sitting at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a post-argument state. (ANJRPC has been consolidated with two semi-automatic rifle ban challenges and that might be an interesting twist in the prevailing days).
Will the High Court pick Duncan v. Bonta as the case to settle the debate on magazine capacity restrictions? Possibly. Or, is it more likely the justices wait out for an opinion from the Third Circuit on the New Jersey case in hopes that there’s a split? We’ll be watching the Supreme Court’s calendar when the session starts to see if Duncan makes the cut.
Not surprisingly, a bill has earlier been filed in the state legislature to increase the ration of gun buys to 3 a month.
Final Judgement from 9th Circuit Strikes Down California Gun Rationing Law
The most left-leaning federal appeals court in the nation on Thursday closed the coffin lid on California’s controversial “one-gun-per-month” law.
In June, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling and struck down the limit as not in line with the right to keep and bear arms. The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, challenged California’s 2019 ban on purchasing more than one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle inside a 30-day period.
The same court this week issued a mandate that the judgment takes effect as of Aug. 14. The state had until Aug. 6 to request a rehearing in the case, but did not file, effectively waving a white flag on defending the law.
The case was filed by six individuals and supported by a variety of pro-gun groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition, the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
The gun rights groups characterized the win this week as a historic precedent.
“Today’s mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit marks the first time the court has issued a final decision striking down a law for infringing on the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in an email to Guns.com. “Between Heller and Bruen, every case heard by a panel which concluded the law was contrary to the Second Amendment was reheard en banc by the court and ultimately upheld. This is a historic victory for Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit and marks a measurable defeat for Governor Newsom and the legislature’s attempts to curtail the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in California.”
🚨HUGE UPDATE!🚨
The Big Beautiful Lawsuit by GOA, @gunfoundation, @FRACAction, @palmettoarmory, @silencerco, @SilencerShop & B&T USA just got bigger.
AG @KenPaxtonTX announces Texas & 14 other states joined to challenge the NFA’s unconstitutional registration rules.🔥 https://t.co/AUzMMLsgMR pic.twitter.com/gHMwaGzeBB
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 10, 2025
Lawsuit: The Regulation Of Untaxed Firearms Under Federal Law Is Unconstitutional
Several Second Amendment advocacy groups, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), have filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).
President Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill erased the NFA’s $200 stamp tax on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, any firearm classified by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) as “other,” and suppressors starting Jan. 1, 2026. However, “the firearms are still required to be registered and are subject to” regulations designed to enforce the “now-extinct” tax, the lawsuit says. This “regulatory regime” no longer comports with Congress’ constitutional authority, plaintiffs claim. The lawsuit also argues that “the NFA’s regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment.”
The National Firearms Act’s registration scheme only exists to ensure that the tax on NFA firearms was paid,” Adam Kraut, the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) executive director, said in a press release. “With Congress removing the tax on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and ‘any other weapons,’ the continued inclusion of these items in the NFA serves no purpose, except continuing to retain an impermissible hurdle to the exercise of one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
The lawsuit, Brown v. ATF, was filed on August 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs are the NRA, the American Suppressor Association (ASA), SAF, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two individual members of these organizations. They are suing both the ATF and the DOJ. The lawsuit asks the court to declare NFA regulations “relating to making, transferring, receiving, possessing, or otherwise using” the untaxed firearms and suppressors unlawful and to block anyone from enforcing the challenged portions of the law.
Minnesota Supreme Court rules it is legal to possess ‘ghost guns’ without serial numbers
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in a split decision Wednesday that it is legal for Minnesotans to possess ghost guns without a serial number because current state law does not clearly restrict it.
Justice Paul Thissen’s majority opinion delves into the intersection between federal law around what firearms require a serial number and the Minnesota legal statute for felony possession of a firearm without a serial number.
It was not a unanimous opinion. Thissen was joined by Justices Anne McKeig, Gordon Moore and Sarah Hennesy. Chief Justice Natalie Hudson wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justice Karl Procaccini. Justice Theodora Gaïtas recused herself from participating in the case.
The case stemmed from a single vehicle car crash in Fridley in 2022. A Minnesota state trooper who arrived on the scene saw a gun magazine inside the car and the driver told the trooper he had a pistol.
The trooper found a black 9 mm Glock 19 without a serial number and identified it as a privately made firearm, which are commonly called ghost guns.
The driver was charged with possessing a firearm without a serial number and filed a motion to dismiss the charge. An Anoka County judge agreed, ruling that state law was “unconstitutionally vague.” The state appealed that ruling; the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and said Minnesota’s legal statute prohibiting possession of a firearm without a serial number “plainly applies to any firearm.”
The Supreme Court disagreed.
The opinion focuses on how Minnesota’s legal statute came to lean on federal law to interpret the phrase “serial number or other identification” and how, in the absence of clearer state laws, the court needs to use federal laws to consider whether the possession of a ghost gun without a serial number is a felony.
Supreme Court’s Failure: Path to Tyranny ~ & Why Armed Americans Must Care
The recent inaction by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the people’s right to keep and bear arms isn’t just disappointing—it invites tyranny. When the Court refuses to protect a right so explicitly anchored in the Constitution, it risks turning once‑free people into subjects. And as the founding generation understood, tyranny compels rebellion.
Background: What This Means For You
If you’re new to this issue: the Second Amendment guarantees a natural, individual right of self‑defense. Landmark cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed that Americans have the right to own functional firearms, especially handguns, for lawful purposes in their homes.
Two years later McDonald v. Chicago made clear that this right applies at the state level as well.
Since then, lower courts have been left to navigate whether gun regulations are allowed under an “in‑common‑use” and historical tradition approach, not interest balancing. Yet, gun‑rights advocates have seen many victories blocked, and equally many restrictions upheld under vague standards.
The Court’s Recent Defeat: Antonyuk and Beyond
In its latest term, the Court chose not to review Antonyuk vs. James, a critical Second Amendment case from New York’s courts. That means the lower court’s decision—and the State’s restrictive Concealed Carry Improvement Act—remains in place.
Despite calls from Justices Thomas and Alito for clarity, the Court laid down no reasoning. That silence undermines not just precedent, but the credibility of the constitutional right itself.
Without Court guidance, states pushing severe carry limits and licensing regimes can continue to chip away at our right to armed self‑defense—state power overriding individual liberty, even where founding principles say otherwise.
Why This Matters to Armed Americans
Our in-depth article over at Arbalest, “The Failure Of The U.S. Supreme Court To Ensure The Sanctity Of The RKBA”, spells it out: the failure of the Court to act is not neutrality—it is bowing to tyranny. Masked under slogans like “strong gun laws reduce violence,” the real outcome is disarming law‑abiding citizens, while leaving government unchecked.
A citizenry that cannot defend itself is at the mercy of government power. If free people allow erosion of the right to bear arms, they lose the final safeguard against arbitrary state authority. The author warns: this is not philosophical—they mean actual disarmament, or worse.
Last Words
The failure of the high Court has weakened the natural law right. Its refusal to grant certiorari in key Second Amendment cases refuses to protect the sanctity of those rights. It allows anti‑gun states to continue trampling self‑defense protections under the guise of regulation. This is not legal evolution—it’s legal surrender.
If you’re ready to dig into the full arguments, precise citations, and rhetorical power of the original, I encourage you to visit our article and read it in full. It lays out, step‑by‑step, how judicial inaction signals tyranny—and why now is the time for armed citizens to pay attention.
In Re the preceeding:
From the dissent:
“By the majority’s reasoning, any regulation of sales of ammunition is presumptively unlawful, unless the state can produce an identical historical twin,” – Judge Bybee
Yes you moron, they’re literally following Bruen: A law must have an analogue to the Founding Era. Does he think that the Founders were too stupid to have thought of restricting ammunition? That they couldn’t conceive of erecting barriers around it?
There’s no way that judge is that stupid. He’s trying to legislate from the bench and carry water for the demoncraps. No other explanation is possible, and that’s reprehensible.
waiting for the standard en banc request, where the rest of the 9th circus can express it’s normal idiocy on RKBA….
California ammunition background checks declared unconstitutional by US appeals court
July 24 (Reuters) – A divided federal appeals court on Thursday said California’s first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In a 2-1 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California upheld a lower court judge’s permanent injunction against enforcing the law.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said the law “meaningfully constrains” people’s right to keep and bear arms.
She also said California failed to show the law was consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation as required under a 2022 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” Ikuta wrote.
The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who defended the law, was disappointed by the decision.
“Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options,” a spokesperson said.
Fifth Circuit Issues Another Common Sense Decision on Guns
When it comes to deciding Second Amendment cases, there’s probably no appellate court more cognizant of the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms than the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges on the court have, among other things; ruled several ATF rules out of bounds, upheld the right of “unlawful” users of marijuana to possess firearms (so long as they’re not actively under the influence), and declared that adults under the age of 21 have a Second Amendment right to purchase handguns from firearm retailers.
Now the court has issued another common sense decision in favor of our right to keep and bear arms: police don’t have the authority to stop and search someone just because they were carrying a gun.
That ruling came from a three-judge panel in a case called U.S. v. Wilson. From the decision:
On March 16, 2022, federal agents stopped Damion Wilson pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). As he was approaching Wilson, Deputy U.S. Marshal Michael Atkins “noticed a bulge in [Wilson’s] waist area” that seemed like “a hard object.” ROA.252 (alteration in original).
Based on his training, Deputy Atkins believed the object was a concealed firearm. Atkins and other federal agents then ordered Wilson to stop and put his hands up. Wilson complied. The agents asked Wilson if he was armed, and he replied that he was. The agents ordered Wilson to drop the backpack he was wearing, to turn around, and to place his hands behind his back. The agents handcuffed him. While Wilson was being cuffed, Deputy Atkins asked him if he had a concealed weapons permit. Wilson admitted that he did not.
The agents took the gun—which was loaded with an extended magazine—from Wilson.Deputy Atkins told Wilson that he was not under arrest and that agents wanted to talk to him about Wilson’s friend—a federal fugitive named Malik Fernandez. Wilson denied having seen or spoken to Fernandez in six years. However, on Wilson’s public Instagram account, officers found a photo of Wilson and Fernandez together that had been posted approximately four months earlier.
Local police then arrested Wilson for carrying a firearm without a permit. Incident to that arrest, officers searched Wilson’s backpack and found marijuana. Officers then obtained a search warrant for Wilson’s apartment and found more marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and approximately$1,700.
Wilson ended up being charged by DOJ with several crimes, but he moved to suppress all physical evidence and statements stemming from his stop and arrest. While a district court judge rejected his argument, the Fifth Circuit found it more persuasive… though in the end their decision didn’t help his case. The key takeaway for gun owners, though, is this:
Undoubtedly, obtaining a driver’s license is more difficult than acquiring a concealed carry permit in a shall-issue State. Based solely on the observation that someone is driving a car, does an officer have reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed?
Obviously, no: “[S]topping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” without “articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered.” This was true even though driving, like carrying a firearm, is “subject to state regulation.”
… Put differently, officers cannot assume that citizens engaging in an activity subject to licensing are unlicensed. Without more facts, it is “[in]sufficiently probable that the observed conduct suggests unlawful activity.”
… If anything, the Constitution’s prohibition on presuming illegality should be stronger for gun owners than for car drivers. Unlike driving on public highways, which is a State-created and State-regulated privilege, “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”
So regardless of how States’ permitting schemes are set up, keeping and bearing arms is preemptively lawful nationwide. We therefore refuse to “single out the Second Amendment for disfavor,” ), and we reject the district court’s categorical rule that presumes Louisiana gun owners are committing crimes.
The panel, though, concluded that Wilson’s stop was justified under Terry because there were other factors that created a “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot”; primarily his relationship with Fernandez, who was a federal fugitive allegedly involved in a shootout related to drug trafficking.
For those of us who don’t regularly pal around with drug traffickers or violent offenders, the Fifth Circuit’s decision offers real protection against unlawful searches just because we’re exercising our Second Amendment rights… at least in those states under the court’s jurisdiction. It’s unclear whether Wilson will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but even if he does the Court will most likely be able to respond without discussing the Second Amendment implications of the appellate court’s decision.
Special Taxes on Firearms are Unconstitutional.
1. The Tax Law That Now Finds Itself Without a Tax
In the recent discourse around the potential removal of suppressors and short barrel rifles from the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and its tax and registration requirements, a point made repeatedly was that if the tax was repealed but the registration stayed, the latter would be illegal as it was only ever justified by the former.
This is indeed correct, as from its inception, the NFA was justified as a tax, with the registration being incidental to that tax and only existing ostensibly to ensure the tax was properly paid for each NFA item sold. Then-Attorney General Cummings was clear about this in his testimony to Congress during the debates over the bill in 1934:
Courts have consistently upheld the NFA, and its registration provision, on the grounds that it was a tax. Some who tried to challenge the law even argued that the tax was a pretext, with the real aim being to unconstitutionally restrict the arms included in the NFA. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in 1937, just a few years after the NFA was first enacted in Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 512-514 (1937):
“Petitioner. . .insists that the present levy is not a true tax, but a penalty imposed for the purpose of suppressing traffic in a certain noxious type of firearms, the local regulation of which is reserved to the states because not granted to the national government. . . But a tax is not any the less a tax because it has a regulatory effect. . . Here the annual tax of $200 is productive of some revenue. We are not free to speculate as to the motives which moved Congress to impose it, or as to the extent to which it may operate to restrict the activities taxed. As it is not attended by an offensive regulation, and since it operates as a tax, it is within the national taxing power.”
Ever since then, dozens of rulings have upheld the NFA on those same grounds. For example, in 2018 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “the NFA is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, as well as its authority to enact any laws “necessary and proper” to carry out that power.” United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170, 1179 (10th Cir. 2018).
This Government Official Tried to Punish the NRA—Now the Court Just Gave Her a Free Pass
Remember when a New York state official used her position to pressure financial institutions to stop working with the National Rifle Association (NRA)? Well, a federal appeals court seems to believe she should not be held accountable for blatantly violating the organization’s constitutional rights.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that former Superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services Maria Vullo is entitled to be protected by qualified immunity.
And we wonder why our government officials are so corrupt.
In its lawsuit, the NRA alleged that Vullo “used [her] powers to coerce and retaliate against financial institutions that conducted business with the NRA to deprive the NRA and its members of their First Amendment rights.”
The court acknowledged that Vullo’s statements and guidance letters prompted these companies to reassess their business relationships with the NRA. However, the court decided Vullo is entitled to qualified immunity because she did not directly target the NRA’s speech. Instead, she sought to coerce banks and insurance companies to cut ties with the organization, which harmed the NRA indirectly.
In essence, the court pointed out that Vullo was targeting the NRA’s business relationships, not its speech, which means it wasn’t obvious that her actions violated the First Amendment. “Vullo is not alleged to have targeted a speaker (the NRA) or a conduit for the NRA’s speech (for example, a publisher) but third-party, regulated entities,” the court stated.
The court’s argument was predicated on the notion that Vullo’s actions did not violate a law that was “clearly established” at the time she was targeting these companies. To put it simply, the qualified immunity doctrine protects government officials unless they broke a law that was so well-defined that a reasonable official would know they were breaking it.
STL judge strikes law requiring guns in parked cars to be locked away
ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis judge took down a local law that required drivers to store firearms in lockboxes or other secured containers while leaving them unattended in vehicles.
The July 15 ruling states that a 2017 ordinance conflicts with a Missouri law that takes away local governments’ ability to regulate firearms.
Circuit Judge Joseph P. Whyte ruled that since the measure conflicts with state gun laws, it violates the Missouri Constitution’s preemption clause, which prohibits local governments from enacting gun regulations that go beyond state law.
The preemption states:
“The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts 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.”
The ordinance, introduced by former Alderwoman Lyda Krewson and approved unanimously by the Board of Aldermen, aimed to curb gun thefts from vehicles, which city officials say have surged in recent years and often lead to firearms being used in violent crimes.
“Requiring reasonable measures to secure firearms left in unattended vehicles will reduce gun thefts, protect the property of the City’s law-abiding citizens, and prevent stolen guns from falling into the hands of criminals,” aldermen said in the ordinance.
Under the law, gun owners who left firearms unsecured in vehicles could face fines of up to $500 and incarcerations of up to 90 days.
But Attorney General Bailey framed the ordinance as an unconstitutional infringement on Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.
In a gun-related lawsuit in February 2023, Bailey said, “I have long held that the Constitution was meant to be a floor, not a ceiling, and the Second Amendment is the amendment that makes all of the others possible.
The judge’s ruling leans heavily on Missouri Revised Statutes Section 21.750, which expressly prohibits cities and counties from adopting any ordinance or regulation related to the possession, transfer or storage of firearms beyond what state law allows.
Supporters of the ordinance had argued that the measure was tailored not to restrict gun ownership and pointed to data from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department showing more than 1200 guns stolen from vehicles in 2023, a 27% increase over the previous year.
It is still uncertain whether the city plans to appeal the ruling.
Trump DOJ wants Supreme Court to bring down hammer on gun rules
WASHINGTON − After the Supreme Court in 2022 made it harder to restrict who can arm themselves in public, some states took a different approach.
Five Democrat-led, mostly densely populous states passed laws that prohibit bringing a handgun onto someone else’s property without that person’s express consent.
Now the Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to declare that such rules in Hawaii, California, New York, Maryland and New Jersey violate the Constitution.
“The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in explaining why the Department of Justice wants the high court to weigh in.
That’s not the only example of how the change in administrations is affecting litigation over gun regulations.
FPC WIN: Order Vacating Biden “Pistol Brace” Rule Stands, Government Dismisses Appeal
NEW ORLEANS (July 17, 2025) – This afternoon, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the federal government agreed to a joint dismissal of the government’s appeal in our Mock v. Bondi lawsuit, a case that successfully challenged the Biden ATF’s “pistol brace” ban rule and secured injunctive relief for gun owners while the case was being litigated to final judgment, which completely vacated the rule.
“Today is a great day for freedom and the American people,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “The dismissal of this appeal should be the final nail in the coffin of this unconstitutional Biden ATF assault on gun owners. As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not ‘short-barreled rifles’. But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment. We are thrilled to have secured this important win for liberty and excited to take on even more unconstitutional laws so you can exercise your rights when, where, and how you choose.”
“The government is finally retreating from the Biden Administration’s patently unlawful effort to turn millions of peaceable people into felons by decree,” said FPC Action Foundation President Cody J. Wisniewski, an attorney for the challengers. “This horrible rule was a perversion of our system of limited government, so we’re glad to see this case resolved in favor of liberty and the rule of law.”
“This is a clear-cut victory and monumental step in preserving gun rights for future generations and safeguarding the firearms ecosystem from regulatory overreach,” said David Farrell, a Maxim Defense vice president. “This important achievement is the result of tireless dedication from the entire litigation team, not to mention the many supporters who have stood with us every single day. When we fight boldly and stand united, freedom prevails.”
If you want to support this important pro-Second Amendment win and FPC’s dozens of cases working to strike down unconstitutional gun control laws, join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.
Today’s filing in Mock can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/mock. The Mock case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in this case by two individual FPC members as well as Maxim Defense. FPC Action Foundation is counsel of record for the Plaintiffs, alongside Benbrook Law Group, P.C. and Cooper & Scully, P.C. Schaerr | Jaffe LLP represented the plaintiffs during the preliminary injunction appeal. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this case.
2nd Amendment Victory Sends Clear Message About Government Overreach
In a landmark decision for gun owners, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in favor of two plaintiffs, Gerald Novak and Adam Wenzel, in a case that raises important questions about government overreach and the Second Amendment. The case revolves around the seizure of 14 firearms by the Saginaw County Sheriff’s Department in Michigan, which Novak and Wenzel claimed as their property.
Despite no evidence that the firearms were involved in the criminal act that led to their confiscation, the sheriff refused to return the guns, citing a lack of proof of ownership. This legal battle, now on appeal for the third time, highlights the tension between individual rights and governmental authority.