The Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Duncan v. Bonta reaffirms California’s ban on standard-capacity magazines by redefining them as unprotected accessories rather than “arms,” in direct defiance of Heller, Bruen, and the Supreme Court’s originalist framework for Second Amendment analysis.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok upholds ATF’s 2022 definitions of “firearm” and “frame or receiver” as not facially invalid, but it misconstrues plaintiffs’ arguments, ignores key statutory limits, and leaves the door open for as-applied challenges and eventual repeal.

Attorney General Pam Bondi’s interim final rule revives the petition process under § 925(c) to lift firearm disabilities, aligning with Second Amendment developments and restoring a lawful remedy long blocked by congressional appropriations riders.

The Supreme Court should grant certiorari in Jacobson v. Worth rather than issue a GVR, since the Eighth Circuit already engaged Rahimi in depth, especially given the mounting circuit split now sharpened by NRA v. Bondi, where the Eleventh Circuit relied on historically and doctrinally dubious analogies to uphold Florida’s age-based gun purchase ban.

A petition for rehearing en banc challenges the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Peterson, which held that suppressors are not “Arms” under the Second Amendment, overlooking their widespread lawful use for ear protection and recoil reduction—an opportunity for the Attorney General to reevaluate the United States’ stance and recognize that suppressors, like other firearm components, fall within the scope of constitutional protection.

The Supreme Court’s oral argument in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos suggests a favorable ruling for firearm manufacturers, likely dismissing Mexico’s claims of aiding and abetting liability while also addressing the broader issue of proximate cause under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The Supreme Court should delay its decision in Garland v. VanDerStok to allow the new Administration to present its position on the ATF’s Final Rule redefining “firearm&rdquo and “firearm frame or receiver,&rdquo given its Second Amendment implications and the President’s recent Executive Order directing a review of firearm regulations.

The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Peterson ruled that firearm suppressors are not “arms”” under the Second Amendment, rejecting claims that they enhance self-defense, while the case showed unresolved constitutional questions about firearm accessories and the application of Bruen.

Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, decided by the Fifth Circuit on January 30, held that the federal prohibition on firearm sales to adults aged 18 to 20 violates the Second Amendment, rejecting historical analogues and emphasizing that the right to “keep and bear arms” inherently includes the right to purchase them.

The Supreme Court has relisted two Second Amendment cases—Snope v. Brown, addressing Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic rifles in common use, and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, concerning a ban on common-use magazines—highlighting the fundamental issue of self-defense rights and the evolving legal landscape shaped by landmark decisions such as Bruen.

The Third Circuit’s en banc decision in Range v. Attorney General underscores the urgent need for Supreme Court clarification on Second Amendment jurisprudence, particularly regarding the constitutionality of disarming non-violent felons like Bryan Range, amidst a growing circuit split and legislative challenges.

Four Second Amendment petitions, including Snope v. Brown challenging Maryland’s semiautomatic rifle ban, highlight the urgent need for Supreme Court clarification as Colorado prepares to enact SB 3, which would ban nearly all semiautomatic firearms.

The Supreme Court faces critical decisions on whether bans on semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines, commonly used for lawful purposes, violate the Second Amendment’s protection of individual rights.

The case of Snope v. Brown involves Maryland’s “assault weapon” prohibition and the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, highlighting the flawed analysis of ammunition power and the misuse of firearm-related rhetoric to justify banning AR-15-style rifles.

“Applying the Text and History Methodology to Looming Second Amendment Battles After Rahimi” was the focus of a November 16 session at the Federalist Society’s 2024 National Lawyers Convention, where panelists debated the Supreme Court’s historical analysis approach in Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi, highlighting key principles for Second Amendment litigation and challenges to firearm regulations.

On October 4, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, addressing whether the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bars Mexico’s lawsuit blaming the U.S. firearms industry for cartel violence.