{"id":113307,"date":"2025-11-15T01:05:40","date_gmt":"2025-11-15T07:05:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=113307"},"modified":"2025-11-15T01:07:14","modified_gmt":"2025-11-15T07:07:14","slug":"113307","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=113307","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Second Amendment in the spotlight<\/a><\/p>\n

If you\u2019ve followed coverage of the Supreme Court\u2019s 2025-26 term over the past few months, you\u2019d likely say this term\u2019s theme is executive power. The court already has added three major cases on the scope of presidential authority to its oral arguments docket \u2013 the\u00a0tariffs dispute<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0two<\/a>\u00a0battles<\/a>\u00a0over removing federal agency leaders \u2013 and will have the opportunity to take up more, including\u00a0cases<\/a>\u00a0on<\/a>\u00a0President Donald Trump\u2019s\u00a0executive order on birthright citizenship<\/a>. The court is also fielding several requests related to executive power on the interim docket, perhaps most prominently being\u00a0Trump\u2019s deployment<\/a>\u00a0of the National Guard.<\/p>\n

<\/span>By the time the dust settles on this term, however, the court may have also had a great deal to say about the Second Amendment. So far this fall, the justices have taken up\u00a0two<\/a>\u00a0cases<\/a>\u00a0on gun rights, and they\u2019ll be considering several additional petitions on Second Amendment issues over the next two weeks.<\/p>\n

The landscape post-Bruen<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

This wave of gun cases is hitting the Supreme Court three years after it\u00a0found a New York law\u00a0unconstitutional<\/a>\u00a0that heavily restricted the ability to carry a gun in public in\u00a0New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen<\/em><\/a>. That decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is perhaps best known for its text, history, and tradition analysis. As Haley Proctor explained in a recent\u00a0column<\/a>\u00a0for SCOTUSblog, the court instructed judges tasked with resolving a gun rights dispute to determine \u201cwhether the Second Amendment\u2019s plain text covers the conduct in which the challenger wishes to engage,\u201d and if it does, whether the challenged law \u201cis consistent with the Nation\u2019s historical tradition of firearm regulation.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

According to research from\u00a0The Trace<\/a>, an outlet focused on gun rights and gun violence,\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0sparked thousands of lawsuits, as gun rights supporters pushed to have old and new gun laws alike assessed under the text, history, and tradition test. Now, several of those lawsuits have made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices are being asked to resolve rapidly developing divisions between courts of appeals.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s a brief overview of the two Second Amendment questions that the court has agreed to address this term and two others that the justices will consider taking up during conferences this month.<\/p>\n

Do gun owners need express permission to carry a gun onto private property?<\/strong><\/p>\n

In\u00a0Wolford v. Lopez<\/em><\/a>, the court will consider a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for someone with a concealed carry permit to carry a gun onto private property that\u2019s open to the public without seeking \u2013 and receiving \u2013 permission to do so first. The permission requirement is one part of Hawaii\u2019s broader \u201csensitive places\u201d law, which, like other, similar measures across the country, was passed after\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0with the goal of imposing new gun restrictions.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0challengers<\/a>\u00a0to Hawaii\u2019s law, as well as the\u00a0Trump administration<\/a>, contend the state\u2019s rule for concealed carry on private property amounts to an almost complete ban on public carry that has no corollary in Founding-era gun restrictions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit\u2019s decision in favor of Hawaii \u201cconflicts with\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u2019s recognition that the Nation does not have \u2018a tradition of broadly prohibiting the public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense,\u2019\u201d wrote U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer.<\/p>\n

The court\u00a0announced<\/a>\u00a0on Wednesday that it will hear arguments in\u00a0Wolford<\/em>\u00a0on Tuesday, Jan. 20.<\/p>\n

Can habitual drug users own guns?<\/strong><\/p>\n

In\u00a0United States v. Hemani<\/em><\/a>, the court is considering whether a\u00a0federal law<\/a>\u00a0that prohibits a person from owning a gun if they are \u201can unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance\u201d violates the Second Amendment. The Trump administration, which brought the question to the court in\u00a0multiple petitions<\/a>, contends that such a prohibition is constitutional because \u201cthere are compelling legal and historical reasons\u201d to keep guns away from habitual drug users. \u201cThis restriction provides a modest, modern analogue of much harsher founding-era restrictions on habitual drunkards, and so it stands solidly within our Nation\u2019s history and tradition of regulation,\u201d wrote Sauer in the\u00a0petition<\/a>\u00a0for review.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s eventual ruling in the case will likely resolve a conflict between the courts of appeals over the law\u2019s application. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has\u00a0held<\/a>\u00a0that the government does not violate the Second Amendment when it disarms \u201cpresumptively risky people,\u201d such as habitual drug users, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0the government should only be able to enforce the statute after proving that the drug users \u201cpose[s] a credible threat to the physical safety of others.\u201d The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit\u00a0has<\/a>\u00a0held<\/a>\u00a0that the statute should only apply to individuals who were actually impaired by the drug use at the time they possessed a gun.<\/p>\n

In the\u00a0Hemani<\/em>\u00a0case, the 5th Circuit cited its past rulings as it\u00a0upheld<\/a>\u00a0the district court\u2019s decision to dismiss the gun charge against the defendant. The 5th Circuit stated that the government acknowledged that its evidence was deficient to prove that Hemani was using drugs at the time when he was found in possession of a firearm. (The government has\u00a0said<\/a>\u00a0that the FBI became interested in Hemani\u2019s actions because of he and his family\u2019s connections to and comments about foreign terrorists.)<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court is expected to hear this case sometime in early 2026.<\/p>\n

Can 18-to-20-year-olds own guns?<\/strong><\/p>\n

On Friday, Nov. 14, the justices are set to consider\u00a0four<\/a>\u00a0petitions<\/a>\u00a0on the\u00a0gun<\/a>\u00a0rights<\/a>\u00a0of young adults. Specifically, these cases ask whether barring 18-to-20-year-olds from owning a gun violates the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

The court declined an opportunity to weigh in on this debate earlier this year when, in April, it chose not to review\u00a0Jacobson v. Worth<\/em><\/a>, which concerned a Minnesota statute preventing adults younger than age 21 from receiving gun permits. By passing on the case, the court left in place a ruling that said the statute violated the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

Now, the same question is back in front of the justices in petitions that emphasize what rights young adults have under the Second Amendment to possess a firearm. \u201c[F]or an entire class of Americans, the Second Amendment has become a national patchwork, with the availability of the right to keep and bear arms contingent on one\u2019s state of residence,\u201d one petitioner\u00a0wrote<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The court will release an order list on Monday, Nov. 17, so we could know by then whether the justices will take up this issue.<\/p>\n

Can nonviolent offenders own guns?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

During the court\u2019s Nov. 21 conference, it\u2019s expected to address at least\u00a0two<\/a>\u00a0petitions<\/a>\u00a0on a different Second Amendment issue: whether the\u00a0federal ban<\/a>\u00a0on firearm possession by anyone who has been convicted of \u201ca crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year\u201d is unconstitutional as applied to nonviolent offenders.<\/p>\n

The question has been raised by\u00a0Steven Duarte<\/a>, who was convicted under the statute due to past convictions such as vandalism, firearm possession, drug possession, and evading a police officer, and\u00a0Melynda Vincent,<\/a>\u00a0who was convicted under the statute due to a past conviction \u201cfor trying to pass a bad check.\u201d Both point to a circuit split on the issue that has developed since the court released its\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0decision.<\/p>\n

Sauer filed a\u00a0response<\/a>\u00a0with the court to Vincent\u2019s petition in which he urged the court to deny review in her case. He noted that the \u201cDepartment of Justice recently revitalized an administrative process \u2026 through which convicted felons can regain their ability to possess firearms,\u201d arguing that, if given time, this policy shift might resolve the circuit split. In her reply\u00a0brief<\/a>, Vincent contended that revitalizing the program does not resolve the core issue, which is that the statute should not be permissible under the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

Sauer waived his right to respond to Duarte\u2019s petition.<\/p>\n

The Second Amendment term?<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the weeks ahead, the justices will consider even more petitions on gun rights, including\u00a0one<\/a>\u00a0on whether the Second Amendment guarantees a right to possess AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles. We shall see if this surge in gun-related petitions will result in a term as big on Second Amendment issues as it is on executive power.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Second Amendment in the spotlight If you\u2019ve followed coverage of the Supreme Court\u2019s 2025-26 term over the past few months, you\u2019d likely say this term\u2019s theme is executive power. The court already has added three major cases on the scope of presidential authority to its oral arguments docket \u2013 the\u00a0tariffs dispute\u00a0and\u00a0two\u00a0battles\u00a0over removing federal agency leaders … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113307","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=113307"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113307\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":113311,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113307\/revisions\/113311"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=113307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=113307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=113307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}