Category: Courts

Judge Vacates Decision Requiring 2A Groups to Identify Members

A federal judge in Louisiana has rescinded his order for the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association to provide a list of its membership to the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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Foundation Challenges Constitutionality of National Firearms Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

GOA, Partners Request Summary Judgement on NFA Provisions

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

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

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

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

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

From a press release:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck to the plaintiffs on this one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No wonder the Government refuses to defend it.”

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.