Wolford Already Put the Burden on Hawaii, Not Gun Owners
A Nigerian op-ed opens with a line that makes the case for the Second Amendment better than most American commentary manages. Its author argues that a constitutional right cannot depend on whether officials find its exercise comforting. Then the piece asks the Supreme Court to draw a workable legal boundary in its forthcoming AR-15 case. TTAG highlighted the op-ed on November 8, 2026. The author's opening argument works. The rest of the piece is where it stumbles, and that gap tells gun owners where the real fight sits.
Key Details
The author wants the Court to settle three questions in the AR-15 case:
- Which firearms qualify as protected arms under the Second Amendment.
- Whether accessories such as magazines can be separated from the right to own a firearm.
- What kind of evidence courts must weigh, and which side carries the burden of proof.
The op-ed singles out the phrase "in common use" as language that needs definition. It spends far less effort on the text that comes before it, which says the right "shall not be infringed." The author treats the Court's coming decision as a chance to set limits. He does not address whether the government must justify those limits first.
TTAG also points to the Court's recent Wolford decision as already settling the burden question. According to that account, the government must justify a restriction and show a historical tradition supporting it. The same analysis reportedly covers which justifications count. TTAG cites Hawaii's attempt to rely on a Black Code measure to defend its own restriction as an example of a justification the Court examined. The op-ed never mentions Wolford at all.
Background
District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms. In that opinion, Justice Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment protects arms in common use at the time, and he tied that language to the historical record. Heller did not give lower courts a full test for every regulation, and that gap produced years of conflicting rulings. The phrase "in common use" has been argued ever since over how many owners must possess a firearm before it qualifies.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022 replaced the old means-end balancing approach with a text-and-history test. Under Bruen, the government must show that a modern regulation fits within a historical tradition of firearm regulation. That shift put the burden on the state, not the citizen. The federal assault weapon ban enacted in 1994 expired in 2004 after its ten-year sunset, and Congress did not renew it. Ten years of data from that period remains the main source of debate over whether the ban reduced violence.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
The AR-15 case will hit owners hardest in states that already restrict semi-automatic rifles and detachable magazines. California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York all have bans or restrictions on certain modern sporting rifles. A ruling that defines "in common use" narrowly could let those states expand their lists of banned features. A broad definition could strike down those lists entirely. Owners in those states should watch the ruling closely, because the outcome will decide whether their current rifles stay legal.
Accessories matter just as much. If the Court says magazines fall outside the right, a state could ban high-capacity magazines without touching the rifle. Owners who keep standard-capacity magazines in a gun safe should document their purchase dates and keep receipts. Owners in restrictive states should also track any new registration or grandfathering rules that follow a ruling. Anyone who relies on a rifle for home defense should review state law before buying new magazines or parts. Wolford's burden standard matters too, because Hawaii-style restrictions on private property carry depend on the same burden logic.
DownRange Analysis
The op-ed gets the first step right. A right that depends on official comfort is no right at all. The author then asks the Court to build a new test from scratch, which ignores what Bruen already requires. Under that framework, the state must prove its tradition. Asking gun owners to argue for "in common use" from zero hands the government an advantage it does not have under current law. Wolford confirms that burden now sits where it belongs.
Survival under Bruen scrutiny depends on whether states can point to 1791 or 1868 analogues for modern rifles. Most of them cannot. The market will feel any ruling immediately. Retailers in ban states will see demand spike before any decision, and dealers will adjust inventory fast. Owners should not panic-buy, but they should know their state's current law. Contact your state rights group, follow the docket, and push your representatives to support a text-first standard. The Court decides the case. Owners who understand the burden rules will argue the case better than any op-ed.
