Category: Courts

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

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

Download the Opening Brief

Download the Full Excerpts (159MB)

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

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

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

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

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

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

NRA files brief in challenge to federal suppressor registration mandate

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

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

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

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

The brief was filed in United States v. Peterson.

DOJ Takes Troubling Position in Second Amendment Case

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

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

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

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

“The laws challenged in this case prevent 18-to-20-year-old adult Americans from acquiring handguns or handgun ammunition in the ordinary commercial market. The Fifth Circuit has held that those laws and their supporting regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” the filing states. “And now the Government has taken the position that even so, Plaintiffs should be entitled only to illusory relief and the Government should be free to continue to enforce these unconstitutional restrictions against Plaintiffs’ affected members as though they never brought and won this suit.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida Court Strikes Down Open Carry Ban

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

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

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

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

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier praised the ruling.

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

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

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

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

The ruling overturns McDaniels’ conviction and establishes statewide precedent.

Wonder how that affects being able to enlist at 17?

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does that make sense?

As the FPC put it later:

Right?

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

Hence, the DC restrictions being upheld.

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

Personally, I think the 11th Circuit blew it.

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

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

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

Tennessee of all places…

Skrmetti appealing gun law decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FPC Blasts Fifth Circuit’s Flawed Suppressor Ruling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Appeals Court Backs Florida Medical Marijuana Patients in Gun Rights Battle

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

The Ruling

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

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

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

The court concluded:

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

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

Continue reading “”

Judge strikes down Minnesota’s binary trigger ban, suggests invalidating 2024 omnibus bill

A Ramsey County District Court judge on Monday struck down a 2024 law banning binary trigger devices — which double the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms — as a violation of the state constitution’s rule requiring legislation to be about a single subject.

Although just the binary trigger ban was struck down, Judge Leonardo Castro used sweeping language about the DFL-controlled Legislature’s violation of the single-subject rule, clearing the way for potential litigation over a bevy of subjects included in the law, from Uber and Lyft driver wages to paid leave provisions.

The ruling didn’t strictly address the legality of binary triggers, but instead focused on the 1,400-page bill in which the binary trigger ban was included last year. In the final moments of the 2024 session, the DFL-controlled Legislature passed an “omnibus” bill — think: everything but the kitchen sink — that included 13 separate subjects, including minimum pay rates for Uber and Lyft drivers; alterations to the state’s paid leave program; and changes to make the child tax credit more user-friendly.

The Minnesota Constitution states “no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” The purpose is to prevent legislators from steamrolling provisions into big bills with little notice.

But bills running several hundred pages about a multitude of subjects are common, no matter which party controls the Legislature.

Castro said in his ruling that the Minnesota Supreme Court has considered dozens of cases challenging the state Constitution’s single-subject clause since 1857.

The case challenging the binary trigger ban was brought by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, arguing the 1,400-page omnibus bill in 2024 was unconstitutional.

Castro ruled that the bill included many provisions that had nothing to do with one another.

“The 2024 Omnibus Bill violates the Single Subject and Title Clause, because, at best, it contains many non-germane parts, and at worst, has no identifiable common theme,” Castro wrote.

Despite his sweeping language, Castro employed judicial restraint. He refrained from invalidating all the provisions in the 1,400-page bill and only struck down the binary trigger ban. He did so because Minnesota Supreme Court precedent states that courts should favor striking certain provisions rather than invalidating entire bills, he wrote.

“But make no mistake, during the late hours of May 19, 2024, lawmaking did not ‘occur within the framework of the Constitution,’” Castro concluded. “This Court respectfully suggests that if there has ever been a bill without common theme and where ‘all bounds of reason and restraint seem to have been abandoned,’ this is it; and if there has ever been time for the ‘draconian result of invalidating the entire law,’ that time is now.”

Supreme Court Being Asked to Hear Magazine Capacity Case

California’s magazine capacity limitation law from 2000 has been under fire for several years. In 2016, the law was supersized, completely banning magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Formerly petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States, Duncan v. Bonta was granted, vacated, and remanded to the lower court in the wake of NYSRPA v. Bruen. The National Rifle Association-backed case has returned to SCOTUS and they’ve filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on August 15, 2025.

Named plaintiffs Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, and Christopher Waddell are joined by California Rifle and Pistol Association in this challenge. The petition was filed by the powerhouse firm Clement & Murphy, with Paul D. Clement and Erin E. Murphy listed as the counsels of record.

“Since 2000, California has prohibited the manufacture, import, sale, and transfer of ‘large-capacity magazines,’ defined by the state as ‘any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.’ In 2016, the state banned the possession of such magazines, and required any lawfully possessed magazine to be surrendered, permanently altered, or destroyed,” the National Rifle Association said in a release. “This lawsuit was filed before the possession ban took effect, alleging that it violates the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.”

In the petition, Clement and Murphy laid out the history of the case, asserting that “it should have been easy to see that California’s ban on feeding devices that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition violates the Second Amendment.”

For the district court, that was indeed easy to see. But the Ninth Circuit would have none of it. The court bypassed the ordinary panel-review process, reconvened an en banc panel that now consisted mostly of judges not in active service, granted “emergency” relief to the state over the dissent of most of the active judges on that panel, and ultimately held that California’s sweeping and confiscatory ban on some of the most common arms in America does not even implicate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin of the NRA weighed in on the filing. “Tens of millions of Americans lawfully own hundreds of millions of the magazines that California bans,” said Hamlin. “The Supreme Court should take this case to vindicate the rights of Californians and reaffirm that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning common arms.”

In the filing, they further argue that the 9th Circuit erred in their decisions. They state that the 9th’s decision can’t “be reconciled with this Court’s precedents or the constitutional traditions.” And, they observed that the circuit court professed “surface-level adherence to Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi” but “ultimately cast those decisions aside, pawning off interest-balancing as careful consideration of constitutional text and historical tradition.”

On behalf of the litigation arm of the Association — the NRA Institute for Legislative Action — Executive Director John Commerford said that: “After nearly a decade of litigation, two en banc decisions, and a prior remand from the Supreme Court, this case is more than ready for the Court’s review.” Commerford continued, “the people of California have endured long enough” and that “it’s time to restore their constitutional rights.”

The frenzy of post-Bruen grant, vacate, and remands that occurred in 2022 are coming home to roost. Snope v. Brown out of Maryland was one such GVRed case that was denied certiorari when represented to the High Court. Snope did not deal with magazine capacity restrictions, but rather so-called “assault weapons.”

The magazine question in Duncan, which affects Heller-protected handguns, could be the stepping stone SCOTUS uses to get back to the topic of semi-automatic rifle prohibitions.

A New Jersey case, also NRA backed — ANJRPC v. Platkin — was also in the batch of punted cases. Like Duncan, it concerns magazine capacity and is sitting at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a post-argument state. (ANJRPC has been consolidated with two semi-automatic rifle ban challenges and that might be an interesting twist in the prevailing days).

Will the High Court pick Duncan v. Bonta as the case to settle the debate on magazine capacity restrictions? Possibly. Or, is it more likely the justices wait out for an opinion from the Third Circuit on the New Jersey case in hopes that there’s a split? We’ll be watching the Supreme Court’s calendar when the session starts to see if Duncan makes the cut.

Not surprisingly, a bill has earlier been filed in the state legislature to increase the ration of gun buys to 3 a month.

Final Judgement from 9th Circuit Strikes Down California Gun Rationing Law

The most left-leaning federal appeals court in the nation on Thursday closed the coffin lid on California’s controversial “one-gun-per-month” law.

In June, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling and struck down the limit as not in line with the right to keep and bear arms. The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, challenged California’s 2019 ban on purchasing more than one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle inside a 30-day period.

The same court this week issued a mandate that the judgment takes effect as of Aug. 14. The state had until Aug. 6 to request a rehearing in the case, but did not file, effectively waving a white flag on defending the law. 

The case was filed by six individuals and supported by a variety of pro-gun groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition, the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The gun rights groups characterized the win this week as a historic precedent.

“Today’s mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit marks the first time the court has issued a final decision striking down a law for infringing on the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in an email to Guns.com. “Between Heller and Bruen, every case heard by a panel which concluded the law was contrary to the Second Amendment was reheard en banc by the court and ultimately upheld. This is a historic victory for Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit and marks a measurable defeat for Governor Newsom and the legislature’s attempts to curtail the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in California.”