Category: Courts

Machine Guns and Bootleggers | Rightly Decided

The litigators from TPPF’s Center for the American Future begin by breaking down a major Fifth Circuit victory that struck down an 1869 federal ban on home distilling of spirits. They analyze the McNutt and Hobby Distillers Association v. U.S. Department of Justice case, dissecting standing doctrine, the limits of the taxing power, and the Necessary and Proper Clause’s role in preserving federalism.

They also highlight their litigation targeting the Hughes Amendment’s ban on post-1986 machine guns (Temple Gun Club v. Blanche), and the FinCEN case (Corley v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury) involving Treasury rules on residential real estate transfers.

SAF Backing Former Virginia AG’s Challenge to State’s New ‘Assault Firearms’ Ban.

The Second Amendment Foundation has agreed to help support former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in a challenge to the state’s newly passed “assault weapons” ban.

In May, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed into law a ban on so-called “assault firearms” declaring that “…any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.” The law further defines an “assault firearm” as a semiautomatic rifle chambered in any caliber besides .22 rimfire or one that contains a litany of common features. The law also bans magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition and goes into effect on July 1.

“Unlike other lawsuits filed challenging this ‘assault weapons’ ban, this case is unique in that plaintiffs are arguing they have the right to buy the banned arms to preserve their ability to function as the militia that is preserved under the Virginia constitution’s Militia Clause,” Cuccinelli said. “Most other cases are making Heller-like arguments, and we feel this case is a good vehicle to ensure this unconstitutional ban is looked at by the court from every angle.”

Virginia’s Militia Clause treats the militia as including any able-bodied person within a specified age range who is not already part of an organized militia. The newly passed assault weapons ban runs afoul of the Militia Clause because it prevents members of the militia from acquiring the arms necessary for their militia service.

“While SAF is already a named plaintiff in our own federal Second Amendment challenge McDonald v. Katz, we felt it important to support this unique lawsuit,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “When it comes to vindicating the rights of our members, we will pursue every viable legal option. We are thrilled to have been given the opportunity to support this state court challenge with Mr. Cuccinelli and think it complements our ongoing federal challenge very nicely.”

As noted in the compliant, “The General Assembly cannot…prohibit the body of the people from acquiring the very weapons with which they must be prepared to serve as that militia.” Joining SAF in Curtis v. Katz are Bob’s Gun Store, Mike Wood, Dustin Curtis and Daniel Hinkson. Cuccinelli is the attorney of record for the lawsuit. “We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again – Virginia lawmakers outright lied to their constituency when they said these new laws aren’t bans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we’ve seen in the news lately, numerous county prosecutors across Virginia have publicly stated they will not enforce this new ‘assault weapons’ ban. When the people who enforce the laws are refusing do so it should be a wakeup call for lawmakers that they passed an unconstitutional law.”

Virginia Gun Ban Lawsuit Argues Banned Arms Are Militia Arms

While four Second Amendment-based cases challenging Virginia’s semiautomatic gun and magazine ban are on hold pending a decision by a three-judge panel on whether they should be consolidated, another case, taking a different approach, is still “scheduled to be argued next Wednesday, June 17th at 9am,” Counsel for Plaintiffs Kenneth T. Cuccinelli stated in a June 10 “Non-client specific case update” email.

The Curtis v. Katz complaint, filed in the Circuit Court of the County of Spotsylvania, asks for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against SB 749 / HB 217 because  the “ban provisions of the Act  violate the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia.”

That’s where the important difference from the other challenges comes in:

“Plaintiffs challenge these prohibitions solely under the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia. They do not rest their case on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor on the individual right to keep and bear arms also embodied in Article I, Section 13.

Their argument is simpler and more fundamental: the militia clause guarantees the existence of a “well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms.” That guarantee is self-executing.

It necessarily presupposes that the body of the people may acquire and possess the arms with which they must be trained. The General Assembly cannot, consistent with that guarantee, prohibit the body of the people from acquiring the very weapons with which they must be prepared to serve as that militia.”

Simply put, as noted in the Statement of Facts, “The weapons banned by the act are the arms of the citizen militia.”

Along with the update email came a welcome bonus.

“The Commonwealth Attorney Defendant in our case, Ryan Mehaffey, filed a blockbuster brief in our case arguing that WE should get our preliminary injunction,” Cuccinelli informed. “It’s a good piece of work and a very pleasant surprise.  I’ve attached it for your reading pleasure (merged in the embed below).

While Mehaffey was named in the complaint because he is the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Spotsylvania County, it should be noted he is one of the brave Virginia prosecutors who has gone on record saying he will not enforce the ban. (While his brief is, indeed, “a good piece of work” his contention that “a sawed off shotgun is not protected because it does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” is historically arguable, as is what some of us might see as overreliance on limiting small arms to those that “are lawfully in common use today,” which suggests bans on machineguns and limiting developing technologies to the standing army would be consistent with Founding intent instead of potentially rendering the Second Amendment moot. That said, the brunt of Mehaffey’s brief is outstanding and educational.)

“I will let you all know if I hear anything about consolidation or our case schedule,” Cuccinelli advised his email recipients. “If you don’t hear from me, that means we’re still on the schedule above.”

U.S. District Judge Vacates the Biden ATF ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule

U.S. District Judge Vacates the Biden ATF ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule

Biden ATF’s “Engaged in the Business” rule was vacated Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in a case brought by Gun Owners of America.

Kacsmaryk noted that Gun Owners of America and their fellow plaintiffs “succeeded on the merits of their claims, brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, against the challenged Final Rule: Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms.”

He noted, “The Final Rule is therefore VACATED.”

Moreover, Kacsmaryk ruled that the ATF “may not apply the Final Rule to anyone–including individuals and organizations who are parties to…[the GOA’s] case.”

On May 14, 2023, Breitbart News reported that former President Biden asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to act where Congress had not and take the U.S. “as close as possible” to universal background checks. The ‘Engaged in the Business Rule,’ challenged in the aforementioned lawsuit by GOA, was the result.

That rule is now vacated.

Sometimes it makes you wonder if the DOJ’s Right hand knows what the Left hand is doing.

Supreme Court shrugs off DOJ appeal over gun rights for nonviolent felon

The Supreme Court refused Monday to step into a high-stakes battle over whether nonviolent felons can be banned from owning guns for life, letting a lower court victory stand for a Mississippi man who lost his firearm rights over back child support.

By declining to hear the Department of Justice’s appeal, the high court left intact a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court had overturned the conviction of Edwardham Cockerham, who pleaded guilty to violating a federal law that prohibits felons from possessing firearms.

Cockerham challenged the law after his conviction, arguing that a lifetime ban for a nonviolent offense violated his Second Amendment rights. U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho agreed, drawing a sharp distinction between violent criminals and debtors based on historical context.

“The Government analogizes failure to pay child support to theft. But during the Founding era, thieves were treated differently from debtors,” Ho wrote in the 5th Circuit’s opinion. “Thieves were subject to permanent disarmament. Debtors were not. Debtors could be imprisoned, and thus temporarily disarmed.”

Ho noted that debtors were released from prison once their debts were paid, adding that the government acknowledged Cockerham was no longer delinquent on his child support when he was caught with a firearm. “Cockerham’s conviction under §922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment,” Ho concluded.

The Justice Department routinely defends existing federal laws regardless of internal policy views, a standard practice highlighted by officials. Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, noted in an interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation that policy debates belong in the legislature.

“I understand people have policy differences with DOJ’s enforcement of federal laws, but, in my opinion, and I’ve said this to many gun groups, the appropriate place to launch those policy discussions is in Congress, not with us,” Dhillon said. “We have, I mean, not me, but other people in this building regularly respond to all kinds of litigation on behalf of the United States where I don’t necessarily agree with what we’re defending.”

Legal experts tracking gun rights cases viewed the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case as a potential signal of its current legal direction, particularly following its 2024 ruling in United States v. Rahimi.

“SAF was happy to hear the Supreme Court declined to review this case, as the Fifth Circuit reached the correct ruling: dangerousness must be the standard for disarmament, and many nonviolent felons are not dangerous,” Konstadinos Moros, Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation, told the DCNF. “That includes Mr. Cockerham, whose crime was failing to pay child support.”

However, Moros cautioned against reading too much into the Supreme Court’s procedural move.

“To be clear, the Supreme Court refusing to review a particular case does not necessarily mean the Court agrees with the lower court’s decision, so we should not treat this as definitive,” Moros said. “Still, it is a possible sign that the high court is sticking closely to what it decided in Rahimi — actual dangerousness is required to deny a citizen their Second Amendment rights. The upcoming ruling in US v. Hemani should shed more light on this.”

More clarity on the court’s stance may emerge soon. The Supreme Court is currently weighing United States v. Hemani, a separate case out of the 5th Circuit involving a federal ban on firearm possession by drug users or addicts. The justices heard oral arguments in that case in March, and a decision is expected shortly.

Virginia judge shuts down universal gun background checks bill

A judge has shot down Democrats’ attempt to implement universal background checks for gun purchases in Virginia.

Virginia’s battle over gun violence prevention and gun control laws is as heated as it’s ever been now that the courts are hearing challenges to new laws passed by Democrats.

“It was a historical session for gun violence prevention,” said Del. Garrett McGuire, a Democrat from Fairfax County.

McGuire just had his universal background checks bill shot down by a judge in Lynchburg.

The bill required Virginia State Police to conduct background checks and provide criminal history records for private gun sales as well as restricting handgun purchases by teenagers.

Two gun rights groups, Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League, sued and won.

“One of the key reasons that the universal background checks law was unconstitutional is that it denied 18 to 20 year olds the ability to buy a handgun. Period,” said Philip Van Cleave with the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

More than 20 states and D.C. currently have some form of universal background check requirement in place, according to the Giffords Center for Violence Prevention. Virginia passed a similar law in 2020. A judge ruled against it in October.

Then the General Assembly passed a new version of the law this year. But last week, the same judge upheld their previous ruling, striking down the law.

McGuire said he championed this bill, in part, because he was a student at Virginia Tech during the campus shooting in 2007.

“Nineteen years later, I find myself in the House of Delegates still asking some of the same questions that we asked right after that shooting, including why is there a loophole in our code that allows criminals to purchase firearms?” he said.

Following the court’s ruling last week, Virginia State Police issued a notice saying the department was “prohibited from administering, enforcing, or otherwise imposing” universal background checks and that VSP “currently cannot provide criminal history background checks for the private sale of firearms.”

More than 90% of Americans support universal background checks, according to gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety.

Chris Stone with Gun Owners of America said they’re unconstitutional.

“There’s instances where people need a firearm, and they get held up in a waiting period program,” he said. “Or even if there isn’t a waiting period, their name comes back as a false positive in the NICS system.”

When asked how can people with past violent offences or mental health conditions be prevented from buying guns if there’s no background check, Stone said, “Well, ironically what that shows is that the system itself doesn’t work.”

This likely isn’t the last legal action on Virginia’s universal background checks, and gun rights groups have more gun safety laws in their sights, with additional legal challenges on the way.

Virginia’s Democratic majority also passed an assault weapons ban that goes into effect next month. This Friday, gun rights groups are challenging that law in court, too.

SCOTUS Keeps Hardware Bans on Hold, but Makes Interesting Move on Prohibited Person Case

Yet again, the Supreme Court’s orders from its weekly conference have been released with no news on any of the five lawsuits challenging bans on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

I still think SCOTUS is waiting on the Third Circuit to issue its en banc opinion in the challenges to New Jersey’s gun and magazine ban, which could create a circuit court split on the constitutionality of banning commonly-owned arms. As some have theorized, though, the Third Circuit could be waiting on SCOTUS to issue its opinions in Wolford v. Lopez and U.S. v. Hemani to see if those decisions will provide any guidance to lower courts.

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS 2A Decisions on Horizon; More Cases Waiting in Wings

By Dave Workman

Editor-in-Chief

Sometime between now and the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hand down rulings on a pair of Second Amendment cases which could have considerable impact on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and those who use controlled substances.

The cases are known as Wolford v. Lopez—which challenges a restrictive Hawaii carry law—and United States v. Hemani, which challenges the ban on gun ownership by persons who regularly use illegal drugs, including marijuana.

Reuters is reporting that Hayley Lawrence, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, and is described as a “gun control advocate,” expects Hawaii to lose. The Aloha State currently requires property owners to provide “express authorization” to any legally armed citizen to bring their firearm onto private property which is open to the public (i.e. restaurants, supermarkets, shopping malls, etc.).

An affirmative ruling by the high court could nix, or greatly restrict, government designations of so-called “sensitive places” as a means of discouraging concealed carry.

In the Hemani case, Reuters heard from Darrell Miller, a law professor at the University of Chicago. He suggests the court might deliver a narrow ruling.

Waiting in the wings, according to the Second Amendment Case Tracker, are several other Second Amendment cases, including a couple for which the court has been essentially “kicking the can down the road” for several weeks, and their outcome could have a significant impact on restrictive state gun laws.

Chief among these are Duncan v. Bonta, a case out of California challenging California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines,” and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, challenging the Evergreen State’s ban on “large-capacity magazines.” Both cases have been essentially gathering dust, and it is likely the Supreme Court would consider both together.

An affirmative ruling would be a hammer blow to several states and the gun control lobby, which has a big stake in the outcome. Should the court take both cases and rule such magazines are protected by the Second Amendment, it would be an embarrassing loss to anti-gun politicians including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, the latter who has boasted frequently that he has never lost a case to the gun lobby.

Another case with sweeping implications is Viramontes v. Cook County, challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Illinois. If the court takes this case and rules on the side of the Second Amendment, it could remove similar bans in California, Washington, New York and several other states.

Similar cases are Nat’l Assoc. for Gun Rights v. Lamont and Grant v. Higgins, challenging the semi-auto ban in Connecticut. Lamont also challenges the state’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

We are neither surprised, not amused.

Ninth Circuit Rules Suppressors Are Not Second Amendment Arms

The Ninth Circuit just handed gun control lawyers another gift, and it came from exactly the kind of case Second Amendment advocates should dread.

In United States v. João Ricardo DeBorba, the court upheld a stack of federal gun convictions against a man who was unlawfully in the United States, had claimed U.S. citizenship on firearm-related paperwork, was subject to domestic violence no-contact orders, and was caught with firearms, ammunition, and an unregistered suppressor.

Bad cases still make law, and this one may do real damage. The most dangerous part of the ruling is not simply that DeBorba lost. Given the facts, that outcome was hardly surprising. The problem is that the Ninth Circuit went out of its way to say that suppressors, also called silencers, are not “arms” protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.

The court treated suppressors as optional firearm accessories and said they are not covered because they are not necessary to the ordinary operation of a firearm. In other words, because a gun can technically fire without a suppressor, the court says a suppressor falls outside the Second Amendment.

A suppressor is not some decorative range toy. It protects hearing, reduces blast, improves communication, helps training, and makes shooting safer for the shooter and those nearby. Hunters use them. Instructors use them. Competitive shooters use them. Ordinary Americans use them. In much of the civilized world, suppressors are treated as basic safety equipment, not criminal contraband.

The Second Amendment does not protect only a stripped-down firearm in its most primitive form. It protects the right to keep and bear arms in a way that is useful, effective, and practical. Optics help a shooter hit what he is aiming at. Magazines feed the firearm. Lights help identify a threat. Suppressors help protect hearing and allow safer training and defensive use.

Constitutional attorney and AmmoLand contributor Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner hammered that point in his video breakdown of the decision. Smith argued that the court ignored the broader meaning of “arms” under Bruen, where an arm includes an instrument that facilitates armed self-defense. As Smith put it, the key is not whether an item is absolutely necessary, but whether it helps facilitate the protected right.

Continue reading “”

Arkansas Court Delivers Win for the Right to Bear Arms

Arkansas’s firearm preemption law prohibits localities and political subdivisions from enacting any measures dealing with the ownership, transfer, transportation, carrying, or possession of firearms, ammunition for firearms, or components of firearms. Despite that, the city of Little Rock has prohibited lawful carry in all city-owned buildings… at least until now.

Law professor Robert Steinbuch believed the policy was a violation of state law, and decided to do something about it back in 2022.

“We saw this sign up that said nobody is allowed in with firearms,” Steinbuch said. “Including, critically, those that have the enhanced concealed carry license.”

Steinbuch felt that violated state law. So he, along with another attorney, decided to sue.

“Chris Corbett went up to the city hall and said to the security guard, ‘I have an enhanced concealed carry license- may I come in with my firearm?” Steinbuch described. “And they said no.”

After that, the lawsuit began.

And then dragged on, to the point that Steinbuch and Corbett appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court in the hopes of getting a new judge assigned to the case; one who wouldn’t drag their feet in issuing a ruling.

Coincidentally or not, the judge did finally issue an opinion last Friday, and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

“He issued the order in which we won,” Steinbuch said. “So four years later, on a matter that could have been decided three-and-a-half years earlier, finally, we got a decision.”

Judge Fox’s office didn’t return our request for comment on Tuesday.

However, his ruling shows clear agreement with Steinbuch on two points—the city’s policy violates Arkansas code, and the city must stop enforcing it immediately.

Steinbuch said he hadn’t yet confirmed how the city plans to follow this ruling.

Officials have indicated they’ll appeal the decision instead of taking down the “no guns allowed” signage, but if the judge issued an injunction halting enforcement of the carry ban then the city will have to ask to have that order stayed while the litigation continues.

The state’s firearm preemption law arguably should be enough to strike down the city’s policy, but the law regarding enhanced concealed carry permits makes is abundantly clear that Little Rock doesn’t have the authority to ban lawful carry in all city-owned buildings… at least for those with an enhanced carry license. The Arkansas Department of Public Safety website helpfully notes the areas where those with an enhanced permit can legally bear arms.

A.C.A. § 5-73-122 – Carrying a firearm in publicly owned buildings or facilities.

Exempted licensees with an Enhanced CHCL from the prohibition on carry and possession of a firearm in publicly owned buildings, facilities, and on State Capitol grounds, so long as the location is not a:

▪ Courtroom;

▪ Administrative hearing conducted by a state agency;

▪ Public school (K-12), public pre-K, or public daycare facility;

▪ Facility operated by the AR Division of Correction or Division of Community Correction; or

▪ “Posted firearm-sensitive area” located at the Arkansas State Hospital, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, or a collegiate athletic event

Given that language, I share Steinbuch’s frustration with the slow-walking of the lawsuit. There’s no legitimate reason why this litigation should have been dragged out for four years when the statute explicitly states that carrying in publicly owned buildings is allowed with a very few exceptions.

Based on that, there’s also no way that Little Rock is going to prevail in its appeal. Instead of doing the right thing, though, it looks like city officials are going to try to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. The appellate court should swiftly rule in favor of the plaintiffs here, and the courts should also reject any attempt by Little Rock to keep its “gun-free zones” in place while they drag out their doomed defense of the carry ban.

Gun Rights Groups Rush to Court After Maryland Bans Glocks

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have filed a lawsuit challenging Maryland’s newly signed Glock ban.

The filing comes in immediate response to Gov. Wes Moore signing the bill into law earlier today.

The National Rifle Association of America, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the SAF filed the lawsuit targeting Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Attorney General Anthony Brown, and Acting Superintendent of the Maryland State Police Michael Jackson.

 2026 Nra Fpc 2af v Moore Complaint  by  scott.mcclallen 

Gov. Moore signed into law Senate Bill 334, which states a person “…may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a machine-gun convertible pistol.” It further defines a “machine gun convertible pistol” as a firearm that contains a cruciform trigger bar.

The ban activates on Jan. 1, 2027, when it will turn many law-abiding citizens into criminals for owning a basic pistol. The Democrats claim that this will somehow protect state residents from criminals.

Continue reading “”

Indiana Republicans Snuffed Out Gary’s 26-Year Legal Battle Against Gunmakers

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Gary’s historic lawsuit must be dismissed. The decision comes after the state legislature retroactively barred city governments from suing gun manufacturers.

After a tumultuous 26-year journey through Indiana’s court system, the city of Gary’s historic lawsuit against the country’s largest gun manufacturers has come to an anticlimactic close.

On May 21, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that it would not hear an appeal from Gary, whose lawyers had argued that a state law aimed at ending the lawsuit was unconstitutional. The ruling means the city’s case is effectively over, with no opportunity for appeal.

Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts, Good News for Those Who Build Guns

What used to be a fringe hobby in the firearms world, building or customizing your own guns, is increasingly popular.

So, Wyomingites welcome a ruling by the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Second Amendment could apply to the buying, selling and possession of firearms parts without serial numbers.

AR-15 style rifles in particular can be built or customized to owners’ liking, using parts and accessories that can be purchased over-the-counter or ordered online.

“It’s like Barbie dolls for men. It’s all about accessorizing,” firearms enthusiast Nic George of Sheridan told Cowboy State Daily.

Court Rules On Colorado Case

At issue is whether the purchase, exchange and possession of firearms parts without serial numbers fall solely under state commercial regulations, or has Second Amendment implications.

The 10th Circuit Court on April 23 ruled the latter, Casper Attorney Ryan Semerad told Cowboy State Daily.

Continue reading “”

Student Injured in Antioch Shooting Sues AI Detection Company

We’ve written a lot about the use of AI to detect firearms. Proponents of the technology claim it not only works but can work faster than any other tool available to prevent school shootings. Some of these systems call the police immediately upon noticing a gun, even if it hasn’t been drawn.

Assuming, of course, they don’t misidentify a bag of Doritos as a firearm. Or a clarinet.

The problem with AI is that it’s more artificial than actually intelligent. It makes massive mistakes, and because of how it works, it can create panic and confusion when it creates a false positive.

But a student injured in the Antioch High School is taking aim at the company the school used for its AI gun detection system for failing to recognize the threat.

A student injured during the deadly shooting at Antioch High School has filed a lawsuit against the company behind the school’s AI-powered gun detection system, alleging the technology failed to detect the shooter’s handgun before shots were fired.

The lawsuit, filed May 1 in Davidson County Circuit Court, was brought by Antonyous Henin, who was 17 years old at the time of the Jan. 22, 2025 shooting at Antioch High School. The complaint names Virginia-based Omnilert LLC and Lebanon-based System Integrations, Inc. as defendants.

On January 22, 2025, 17-year-old Soloman Henderson opened fire in the Antioch High School cafeteria, killing 16-year-old Josselin Dayana Corea Escalante before taking his own life.

According to the complaint, Henin was injured and another student was wounded.

At the time of the shooting, Antioch High School did not have traditional metal detectors in place. Instead, the school had AI-powered security cameras designed to identify weapons….
The lawsuit alleges Antioch High School had an Omnilert gun detection system installed and operational at the time of the shooting. The system was designed to use artificial intelligence to detect visible firearms and trigger emergency alerts.

Henin’s attorneys claim Omnilert marketed the system as technology that could “detect firearms — both indoors and outdoors — before a shot is fired” and “turn passive cameras into life-saving tools.”

Yeah, well, that worked out swimmingly, didn’t it?

Continue reading “”

Bruen’s Text-and-History Test Spreads Beyond the Second Amendment

“The U.S. Court of Appeals just took the Heller and Bruen playbook — founding-era text, founding era dictionaries, founding era silence — and ran it through a First Amendment case. Every yard they gained for the Establishment Clause is a yard also banked for the Second Amendment.”
– Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has handed down an en banc decision in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, No. 25-50695 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2026), upholding a Texas law requiring public-school classrooms to display a poster of the Ten Commandments. The 9–8 majority, written by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, held that the Texas law does not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. That alone is a big deal. But more importantly for Second Amendment supporters, the en banc court embraced the “text and history” methodology used by the Supreme Court in its Second Amendment decisions.

FPC WIN: Second Circuit Strikes Down New York Public Handgun Carry Ban

What: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Firearms Policy Coalition’s (FPC) Christian v. James lawsuit that New York’s ban on firearms at all publicly accessible private property without the express consent of the owner (also known as the “vampire rule”) violates the Second Amendment. The court however also facially upheld the state’s ban on carry in public parks.

Who: FPC is joined in this case by FPC member Brett Christian and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, along with Nicolas J. Rotsko of Fluet.

When: The Court’s opinion was issued on May 18.2026. The case will now be sent back to the district court, which will issue a final order in this case.

Where: The opinion was issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in New York City and covers Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.

NSSF Funds Lawsuit Against Virginia for Unconstitutional Firearm Bans

WASHINGTON, D.C.  — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is funding a lawsuit filed today against the Commonwealth of Virginia for violating both the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution. Virginia’s expansive new law, HB 217 / SB 749, bans the sale and transfer of firearms that are expressly protected for private ownership by both the federal and state constitutions.

“Governor Abigail Spanberger, and the Virginia General Assembly, are grossly violating rights held by the citizens of the Commonwealth. The constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia expressly prohibit the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that firearms in common use are protected from radical gun control. Denying law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves with the firearms of their choosing does nothing to make Virginia safer. The only thing this unconstitutional law does is surrender the freedoms that the Founding Fathers, including Virginians George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison — who authored the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment — so wisely fought for and sought to protect to ensure freedom from tyranny.”

The NSSF-funded complaint, filed by Erick Black, Britton Condon, Clark’s Gun Shop, Inc., Optimus Arms, LLC and Hexmag USA, LLC, in Virginia’s Circuit Court of Fauquier County, details that HB 217 / SB 749 criminalizes not just the sale or transfer of commonly-owned Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard capacity magazines, but also commonly owned handguns and shotguns Virginians regularly use for self-defense and hunting. The overly broad definitions of what is wrongfully defined as an “assault firearm” disenfranchise Virginians of their right to keep and bear arms, which are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and Article I of the Virginia Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision held that firearms in common use are protected by the Second Amendment. That holding precludes bans on the legal sale of MSRs, which number over 32 million in circulation. Likewise, there are a conservatively estimated nearly 1 billion detachable magazines in private possession and hundreds of millions with a capacity exceeding 15 rounds. Many commonly owned pistols are equipped with 17-round magazines, which HB 217 / SB 749 now criminalizes. The law’s expansive definition of “assault firearm” wraps in many commonly owned semiautomatic shotguns and handguns, which will be unlawful to purchase or bear in Virginia.

Virginia’s HB 217 / SB 749 fails the Supreme Court’s Bruen “history and tradition” test, as there were no analogous laws banning the lawful acquisition or bearing of firearms at the Nation’s founding. In fact, it is well documented that rifles with a capacity greater than 15 rounds were available and possessed by Americans when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791.

Additionally, because HB 217 / SB 749 bans rifles, pistols and shotguns commonly used for hunting, it violates Article XI, Section 4 of the Virginia Constitution.

Big Win in Pennsylvania on Fourth Amendment Violation

Without the Second Amendment, the rest are vulnerable. Even with it, rights are usurped all the time. A recent Fourth Amendment win pulls into focus just how fragile everything is.

It’s a slippery slope when rights start to get violated. Especially when it comes to our protections of having our persons and papers secured, right to not self-incriminate, and right to an attorney. It’s a simple formula to follow and remember when dealing with the authorities: “I want to invoke my Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights.” Or in other words: you can’t look/come in here, I’m telling you nothing, and I want my lawyer. But what happens when a governmental body creates a law that violates those protections from warrantless and suspicion-less searches?

Pennsylvania attorney Josh Prince with the Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. had a client in this very circumstance. According to a post on Prince’s website, “Bristol Borough enacted an ordinance permitting their enforcement officers/inspectors, on a biennial basis, to inspect – absent any form of warrant or any form of suspicion of wrongdoing – any building, and the apartments within, where the apartments are rented or leased out.”

When Prince’s client refused the Borough to gain entry to his property, “the Borough sent a letter to … (him), expecting him to capitulate, and threatening fines for non-compliance. …” The penalties that Prince’s client was facing included a fine up to $1,000.00 per day as well as potential incarceration.

“(Prince) attempted to amicably resolve the matter, by the Borough agreeing not to enforce the unconstitutional ordinance against his clients, the Borough’s attorney responded back that the only amicable resolution would be for Josh’s clients to comply with the Borough’s ordinances,” Prince’s post noted.

After filing for an emergency injunction in Katz, et al. v. Bristol Borough, et al., Katz was granted some of the relief he sought. Prince obtained “an emergency, ex-parte preliminary injunction, precluding enforcement of Bristol Borough’s warrantless and suspicion-less searches of his clients’ buildings and apartments” and a future hearing was scheduled for a permanent injunction.

One hiccup Prince noted about the proceedings was the bond that his client was required to post. It was said that the judge ordered a $5,000.00 bond to be posted. While it might be customary to ask for someone similarly situated to post bond, Prince said that usually would run from anywhere between $1.00 and $100.00 — not $5,000.00. He’s hopeful that the court will not hold onto the bond for long.

The fact that Prince was able to secure the injunction as swiftly as he did may point at how the court views the merits of the case. “Because emergency injunctions are issued ex-parte (i.e. without the other side being heard), they are virtually unheard of, except in dire circumstances, where a clear violation of the law or constitution will occur, absent immediate court action,” Prince’s post explains.

When it comes to constitutional rights and liberties, they’re all closely connected. What of the Second Amendment right if one is having their Fourth usurped? Once one thread begins to unravel or break, it won’t be long until all is lost. Kudos to Prince on this monumental win.

DOJ Targets D.C. AR-15 & Suppressor Bans as Second Amendment Civil Rights Violations

The Trump Justice Department just sharpened its attack on Washington, D.C.’s gun-control regime, and this time the target is bigger than a single bad law.

In a First Amended Complaint filed May 14, 2026, the United States argues that the District of Columbia, its Metropolitan Police Department, and Acting Police Chief Jeffrey Carroll are violating the Second Amendment by enforcing local laws that ban AR-15-style rifles and suppressors. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asks a federal judge to declare those bans unconstitutional and block D.C. from enforcing them.

This is not another private citizen begging the courts to recognize what the Constitution already says. This is the United States government suing the District of Columbia and saying, in plain terms, that D.C.’s gun laws deprive Americans of their civil rights.

That is a major shift.

For decades, anti-gun politicians have treated the Second Amendment like a second-class right. They have banned commonly owned rifles, criminalized ordinary gun parts and accessories, buried lawful owners in registration schemes, and then acted shocked when Americans objected. D.C. has long been one of the worst offenders. This amended complaint puts that record directly in the federal government’s crosshairs.

The filing opens with the point gun owners have been making since Heller: the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right, not a privilege handed out by politicians. DOJ cites Heller, McDonald, and Bruen to argue that law-abiding Americans have the right to possess and use arms that are in common use for lawful purposes.

That is where D.C.’s AR-15 ban runs into trouble. D.C. does not simply say, “AR-15s are banned,” at least not in the clean way some states do. Instead, the District uses its registration scheme to get the same result. Under D.C. law, a person may not possess a firearm unless it is registered with the police. Then D.C. refuses to issue registration certificates for so-called “assault weapons,” a category that includes AR-15-platform rifles.

The result is the same: possess an AR-15 in D.C., and you are treated like a criminal.

The complaint correctly attacks the loaded phrase “assault weapon” for what it is: political language, not a serious firearms term. The AR-15 is not exotic or rare. It is not some strange military artifact sitting outside the American firearms tradition. It is the most popular rifle platform in the country.

DOJ’s amended complaint leans hard into that reality. The complaint cites estimates that Americans own 20 to 30 million AR-15s. It also points to Justice Kagan’s recent observation that the AR-15 is “the most popular rifle in the country.” It then cites Justice Kavanaugh’s statement in Snope v. Brown, where he noted that because millions of Americans own AR-15s and most states allow them, challengers have a strong argument that AR-15s are protected under Heller’s common-use test.

If the Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, then D.C. cannot ban the most popular rifle in America just because anti-gun politicians dislike it. The Constitution does not allow local officials to veto ordinary rifle ownership with scary language and a registration trap.

The complaint also lays out why Americans own AR-style rifles. DOJ cites surveys showing they are used for recreational target shooting, home defense, hunting, defense outside the home, and competition. In other words, the exact kind of lawful purposes the Second Amendment protects.

The filing also undercuts the usual gun-control narrative that AR-15s are uniquely tied to crime. DOJ notes that FBI homicide data from 2019 showed only 364 homicides with rifles of any kind, compared with 6,368 with handguns, 1,476 with knives or cutting instruments, 600 with hands, feet, or other personal weapons, and 397 with blunt objects.

Anti-gun politicians do not want Americans to see those numbers. The numbers wreck the narrative.

Continue reading “”