📡 RSSDAILY EDITION
📍 DOWNRANGECO.COM
Active and landmark Second Amendment decisions shaping the legal landscape for every gun owner in America.
This case tests whether Congress can disarm someone who habitually uses controlled substances, specifically marijuana and cocaine, under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3). The defendant argues the statute is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Trump DOJ supports the conviction, framing it as a public safety measure consistent with historical traditions of disarming dangerous individuals. A ruling here could either narrow or reinforce the federal prohibition on drug-user firearm possession. Decision expected June or July 2026.
READ OPINION ↗Hawaii enacted a law barring concealed carry permit holders from carrying firearms on any private property without the explicit written permission of the owner — effectively flipping the default rule from "permitted unless posted off" to "banned unless permission granted." Challengers argue this is a de facto ban on public carry, directly contradicting the Supreme Court's Bruen (2022) ruling that affirmed the right to carry outside the home. Oral arguments were held in January 2026, and a ruling is expected by summer. This case could reshape sensitive-places doctrine across restrictive carry states.
READ OPINION ↗This challenge targets the Illinois and Cook County assault weapons ban, which prohibits the possession, sale, and manufacture of semi-automatic rifles with certain features, including pistol grips, telescoping stocks, and detachable magazines. The plaintiffs argue that under the Bruen text-and-history test, modern semi-automatic rifles are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore protected by the Second Amendment. The case is currently under conference review, with the Court evaluating whether to grant certiorari. A cert grant would set up the first major SCOTUS ruling on assault weapons bans.
READ OPINION ↗California's Penal Code §32310 bans the manufacture, import, sale, and possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The Duncan case has been litigated in the Ninth Circuit since 2017 and has been relisted for Supreme Court conference more than a dozen times. The core question is whether large-capacity magazines are "arms" protected by the Second Amendment, or whether the historical tradition of regulation at the founding supports such restrictions. A SCOTUS grant here would be the first case to directly address magazine restrictions post-Bruen.
READ OPINION ↗Connecticut's assault weapons ban, enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, prohibits a broad range of semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines. NAGR's challenge argues the ban cannot survive Bruen's text-and-history test because semi-automatic rifles are widely owned arms with no historical analog for such a sweeping prohibition at the founding. This case is being considered alongside Viramontes — both represent the Court's potential entry point into definitively ruling on the constitutionality of assault weapons bans. The outcome would affect similar laws in California, New York, Maryland, and eight other states.
READ OPINION ↗In a landmark 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court held that bump stocks do not convert semi-automatic rifles into machine guns under federal law. The ATF's 2019 bump stock rule had reclassified the devices as machine gun components, effectively banning them following the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting. Justice Thomas wrote for the majority, concluding that a semi-automatic weapon fires only one round per trigger function regardless of how quickly the trigger cycles, and the statute's definition of "machine gun" requires a single trigger function to fire multiple rounds. This decision stripped the ATF of authority to redefine mechanical devices by regulatory fiat and was widely seen as a significant check on ATF rulemaking overreach.
READ OPINION ↗In an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld the federal law disarming individuals subject to domestic violence civil protective orders (18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8)). Chief Justice Roberts wrote that when an individual poses a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner or child, a temporary disarmament is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. The Court reviewed historical surety laws and going-armed laws as analogs. Critically, the ruling was narrow — applying only to civil protective orders involving a credible threat finding — and rejected the government's broader arguments. Justice Thomas dissented alone, arguing no historical analog supported the precise disarmament mechanism. Gun rights groups note the ruling is fact-specific and does not endorse sweeping domestic violence disarmament statutes beyond this specific context.
READ OPINION ↗The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the ATF's "ghost gun" rule — which required serialization and background checks for 80% lower kits sold with completion jigs — was not facially invalid under the Gun Control Act. The majority held that certain readily-convertible receiver kits can qualify as "firearms" under the GCA because they are "designed to or may readily be converted" to expel a projectile. Justices Gorsuch and Thomas dissented, arguing the statute's plain text requires a functional frame or receiver, not a blank. The ruling was narrow: it does not validate every ghost gun regulation, and standalone 80% lowers sold without completion tools may still fall outside the statute's reach. State laws on 80% lowers vary significantly and remain in force independently.
READ OPINION ↗The Bruen decision fundamentally restructured how courts analyze Second Amendment challenges. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Thomas established that firearm regulations must be consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation at the time of the founding (1791) and Reconstruction (1868). Courts can no longer apply the two-step means-ends scrutiny test that had allowed many gun laws to survive by serving "important government interests." Instead, the burden shifts to the government to identify a historical analog for any challenged regulation. The case specifically struck down New York's "proper cause" requirement for unrestricted carry permits. Every subsequent Second Amendment case — federal and state — is now analyzed under the Bruen text-and-history framework, making it the most operationally significant 2A ruling since Heller.
READ OPINION ↗Building on Heller, McDonald incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Prior to McDonald, the Second Amendment constrained only federal action, allowing cities and states to enact virtually any gun restriction. Justice Alito's plurality opinion held the right to keep and bear arms is "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty" and "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." The ruling struck down Chicago's 28-year handgun ban and the Oak Park, Illinois ban. McDonald established that all 50 states must respect the individual right recognized in Heller, making it the constitutional foundation upon which all subsequent state-level Second Amendment litigation rests.
READ OPINION ↗The most important Second Amendment ruling in American history. Justice Scalia's 5-4 majority opinion settled a two-century debate by holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms unconnected to service in an organized militia, specifically for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The decision struck Washington DC's longstanding handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement. Heller also acknowledged that the right is not unlimited — establishing that certain regulations remain presumptively lawful, including prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill, laws against carrying in sensitive places, and conditions of commercial sale. Every Second Amendment case today begins with the Heller baseline: the right is individual, fundamental, and tied to self-defense.
READ OPINION ↗After an extraordinary 15 relistings for conference — signaling deep internal division among the justices — the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Gardner v. Maryland on June 2, 2025, leaving Maryland's assault weapons ban intact for now. The refusal to hear the case means the Fourth Circuit's ruling upholding the ban remains binding law in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a notable statement accompanying the denial, observing that the Court "should address the AR-15 question soon" given the circuit splits developing across the country. The cert denial is not a ruling on the merits, but it effectively leaves assault weapons ban challengers without a federal forum until the Court takes up Viramontes or NAGR.
READ OPINION ↗