A federal judge ruled that Illinois may restrict access to operable firearms inside private residences used as licensed foster homes or in-home daycare centers. iStock-1489034470
A federal judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, ruled without trial that foster homes and in-home daycare centers are sensitive areas and that guns can be regulated in these private residences.
The case, Miller v. Mueller (18-cv-3085), challenged the Illinois Day Care Home Rule (89 Ill. Admin. Code § 406.8(a)(17)–(18)) and Foster Home Rule (related provisions under 89 Ill. Admin. Code § 402). The Day Care Home Rule prohibited handguns in any home that offers home daycare (with limited exceptions for peace officers or certain employment-required possession by residents). Other firearms must be kept disassembled, unloaded, and in locked storage inaccessible to children. Ammunition must be locked separately and inaccessible to children. Parents must be notified of the presence of firearms and ammunition, as well as the storage arrangements. Residents must also display “No Firearms” signs.
The Foster Home Rule requires that firearms and ammunition be kept locked and inaccessible to children. Loaded guns are generally prohibited (with limited exceptions) within residences. The maximum penalty for violations is license revocation.
Illinois residents and licensed foster parents Jennifer and Darin Miller, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association, and Illinois Carry, sued Heidi Mueller (Acting Director, Illinois DCFS) and Kwame Raoul (Illinois Attorney General). They claimed that the state codes violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home under Heller and Bruen. Jennifer Miller also runs an in-home daycare center, giving her standing to challenge the Day Care Home Rule. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2018. A district court granted summary judgment for the defendants in 2022 (pre-Bruen). The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022).
The plaintiffs claimed that the rules could not survive a Bruen analysis. They succeeded at step one because the plain text of the Second Amendment presumptively covers the Millers’ desire to keep firearms operable in their home for self-defense. The judge, Obama-appointed Sue E. Myerscough, however, found that day-care homes and foster homes qualify as “sensitive places” analogous to schools (a category Heller and Bruen treat as presumptively lawful for firearm restrictions). She reasoned that both are environments overwhelmingly dominated by children; both involve learning, education, supervision, and skill-building; and both are already subject to extensive state safety regulation precisely because of the presence of children.
The judge wrote:
“The Court finds that the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule, that day care homes and foster homes are sensitive places analogous to schools where firearms may be restricted, and, therefore, that the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule restricting firearms kept in day care homes and foster homes, respectively, are constitutional. The Court also finds that both the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule are reasonable restrictions on government contractors’ and licensees’ assumedly implicated Second Amendment rights.”
Judge Myerscough said the rules are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation in analogous sensitive places. They impose a comparable burden (not a total ban on possession in the home; limited to the licensed activity; discrete application to a narrow class of licensees/contractors; temporary while the license is held). She said the rules are conditions attached to government licenses (day care) and to government contractor status (foster care).
According to the judge, the government has greater latitude to impose conditions on those who voluntarily seek state benefits or contract with the state, especially when the conditions further the state’s interest in protecting children under its regulatory or custodial responsibility. The judge also said the Millers are not treated as “ordinary” law-abiding citizens in the Heller/Bruen sense because they have voluntarily invited intensive state regulation into their home in exchange for the privilege of providing licensed child care. They remain free to forgo the licenses if they prefer unrestricted firearm possession.
The court upheld both the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule as constitutional under Bruen (sensitive-places analysis + historical tradition) and under the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine. The judge said the restrictions are treated as reasonable, place- and role-based regulations tied to the state’s child-protection responsibilities rather than as general bans on the right to keep arms in the home.
Judge Myerscough’s decision prioritizes the state’s interest in regulated care environments over the full exercise of Second Amendment rights by licensees while they hold those licenses. This decision appears to apply interest balancing, which is explicitly prohibited by the Bruen decision. To many, this is a district court rejecting Supreme Court precedent. More shockingly, the judge ruled without a trial after deciding one was not needed. The plaintiffs are expected to appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
The plaintiffs in Renna v. Bonta are asking a federal judge to block California’s ban on Glock and Glock-style pistols with cruciform trigger bars. IMG Duncan Johnson
A coalition of gun-rights organizations, California firearm owners, and licensed dealers is asking the federal judge who previously blocked major portions of California’s Handgun Roster to stop the state’s new ban on Glock and Glock-style pistols.
The challenged law prohibits licensed dealers from selling, offering for sale, transferring, or delivering what California calls a “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol.” According to the filing, that definition effectively covers every factory-stock Glock semiautomatic pistol and many Glock-pattern handguns, including the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, Ruger RXM, and several Shadow Systems models.
Those are not obscure or unusually dangerous weapons. They are ordinary semiautomatic handguns commonly selected by Americans for lawful purposes, particularly personal and home defense.
The plaintiffs are asking the judge to block enforcement of the law while the case proceeds. A hearing on the preliminary-injunction motion is scheduled for September 4.
California’s Handgun Roster Workaround Returns to Renna
The Renna lawsuit originally challenged California’s Unsafe Handgun Act and its government-controlled Handgun Roster. California generally prohibits licensed dealers from selling a handgun model unless the Department of Justice has approved that exact model for placement on the Roster.
The system excluded newer handguns while permitting some older models to remain available through grandfathering. That is why Californians could purchase certain Gen 3 Glock pistols but not newer Gen 4 and Gen 5 versions sold throughout most of the country.
In April 2023, Judge Sabraw preliminarily enjoined the Roster’s loaded-chamber-indicator, magazine-disconnect, and microstamping requirements. He found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that those mandates violated the Second Amendment by preventing Californians from commercially acquiring modern semiautomatic handguns in common use.
The court specifically discussed the Glock 43 and Glock 17 Gen 5 among the commonly owned pistols restricted by the Roster. That preliminary-injunction ruling remains under review by the Ninth Circuit.
Rather than accept the constitutional limits exposed in Renna, California enacted Assembly Bill 1127. The law took effect July 1, 2026, and created a separate prohibition aimed at both newer Glocks already blocked by the Roster and older Gen 3 models that remained available because they had been grandfathered.
The August 4 motion therefore places California’s attempted workaround before the same judge who previously found that major parts of the state’s handgun-control system were likely unconstitutional. As the plaintiffs state in the filing, “There is no Glock exception to the Second Amendment.”
The Filing Is Separate From the DOJ Lawsuit
The new Renna motion is separate from the Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging California’s Glock ban and portions of the Handgun Roster.
DOJ sued California on July 1 and sought a temporary restraining order against AB 1127. A judge denied that emergency request without finally resolving whether the law survives the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment test.
The Renna plaintiffs are now seeking a preliminary injunction in a different federal court and before a judge already familiar with California’s Roster restrictions. Their motion is also supported by declarations from Californians who want to purchase covered pistols for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and from firearm dealers forced to stop selling a major category of popular handguns.
The dealer plaintiffs told the court that Glock and Glock-style pistols represented a substantial part of their lawful business. They stopped selling or transferring the covered firearms because they face fines, criminal exposure, and possible suspension or revocation of their licenses if they violate the law.
That makes this more than a theoretical dispute over firearm design. Californians are currently being denied access to common defensive handguns, and licensed dealers are being threatened with punishment for selling them.
California Blames the Handgun for an Illegal Modification
California’s justification for the ban is that criminals can install devices commonly called Glock switches that cause some pistols to fire automatically. Those conversion devices are already illegal under state and federal law. California classifies pistol converters as machine guns and prohibits them. Federal law likewise treats the devices as machine guns, with unlawful possession, manufacture, or transfer carrying serious felony penalties.
AB 1127 does not close an overlooked loophole. It bans the original, unmodified handgun because someone might later attach a separate device that lawmakers have already prohibited. That is not a focused response to criminal conduct. It imposes the consequences of illegal modifications on peaceable people who have committed no crime.
Many lawful firearms can be illegally altered. That does not give the government authority to prohibit everyone else from acquiring the unaltered firearm. California could prosecute criminals who possess illegal switches or illegally convert pistols without banning millions of ordinary handguns.
The cruciform trigger bar targeted by the law is also not a machine-gun conversion device. It has been integral to Glock’s design since the early 1980s and serves legitimate functions, including helping prevent the handgun from firing if dropped.
California took a common mechanical feature found in millions of defensive pistols, attached the politically useful label “machinegun-convertible” to it, and used that label to shut down lawful commercial sales.
FPC President Brandon Combs provided the following statement regarding the filing:
“California is the unmistakable leader in innovating new and creative ways to impose tyranny. Rather than protect the rights of peaceable people, Gavin Newsom and his anti-rights regime are working to put people in cages and ban some of the most popular handguns in America. FPC and our Grassroots Army will defeat this latest attack on the right to keep and bear arms and continue to Fight Forward until every unconstitutional and immoral gun control law is eliminated.”
The Right to Keep Arms Includes the Right to Acquire Them
The constitutional analysis begins with the Second Amendment’s text. Glock pistols are bearable arms. Californians seeking to purchase them are among “the people.” A law that prevents them from acquiring those arms burdens their right to keep and bear them.
A right to possess a firearm would mean little if the government could prohibit every practical method of obtaining it. The Ninth Circuit has itself recognized that unless firearm acquisition receives some Second Amendment protection, the right to keep and bear arms becomes meaningless.
Because the text covers the plaintiffs’ proposed conduct, California bears the burden of demonstrating that its ban is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The state cannot satisfy that burden through policy arguments, crime statistics, or a court’s judgment that Californians do not need a particular handgun.
Under District of Columbia v. Heller, arms in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned. Handguns are the quintessential self-defense weapons, and semiautomatic pistols make up the overwhelming majority of the modern handgun market.
Glocks are among the most popular handguns in the United States. The motion points to hundreds of thousands of pistols manufactured domestically, substantial imports, widespread civilian ownership, and extensive use by law-enforcement agencies.
California cannot transform one of America’s most commonly owned handgun designs into a “dangerous and unusual” weapon simply by giving it an inflammatory name in the Penal Code.
California’s Model Is Spreading
California’s theory is already being copied elsewhere. Maryland enacted a similar restriction targeting Glock and Glock-style pistols with cruciform trigger bars, and gun-rights groups have moved for a preliminary injunction before that law takes effect.
The Renna motion also states that Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York have taken legislative or regulatory action mimicking California’s restriction. The filing does not explain the details of each state’s measure, so they should not all be described as identical. The broader pattern, however, is clear.
States that cannot openly prohibit handguns increasingly rely on approved-product lists, mechanical design mandates, and model-specific definitions to narrow the lawful handgun market one restriction at a time.
California may prosecute people who possess illegal machine-gun conversion devices. It may prosecute criminals who illegally modify firearms. What it cannot do is use those crimes as a pretext to ban unmodified handguns owned by millions of peaceable Americans.
Judge Sabraw has already found that California’s government-approved handgun market likely conflicts with the Second Amendment. The state has now returned with a new law aimed at many of the same pistols.
The statutory name changed. The constitutional defect did not.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The longtime gun-rights advocate admits transferring three firearms outside Canada’s legal process but denies selling them as a broader RCMP investigation continues. iStock-1162371641
Former Member of Parliament, 78-year-old Inky Mark, has been a long-time and vocal opponent of the increasingly restrictive Canadian firearms laws. Mark’s father and grandfather had immigrated to Canada from China in 1923. Mark and his mother came to Canada when he was five years old, fleeing Chinese communist oppression in 1953. Mark could not immigrate earlier due to the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923.
Inky Mark served as a member of Parliament for 13 years, 3 months, and 15 days. He was fiercely independent with a strong conservative bent. He criticized highly restrictive Canadian firearms laws and Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
On March 21, 2026, at a gun show in Newfolden in the northwestern corner of Minnesota, about 50 miles south of the Canadian border, Wilfred Kachurowski, 73, was looking at the items in the show. Wilfred is a Canadian citizen who has a residence in Dauphin, Manitoba. Inky Mark also has a residence in Dauphin.
Merely looking at firearms or purchasing a firearm may not have been Kachurowski’s intention. He is reported by inews.tv as taking a .38 caliber firearm from one of the gun show tables and placing it in a bag attached to his walker. The owner of the firearm followed him and tackled him to the floor. The police were called. Later reporting by CBC.com stated the revolver was a Taurus Judge chambered for .45 Colt/.410 shotgun rounds. Kachurowski was arrested and taken to jail. He was later released on bail. He returned to Canada on March 28.
Taurus Judge revolvers, by Weingarten
U.S. Customs and Border Protection notified the Manitoba RCMP that Kachurowski had been charged with the theft of a handgun on March 23. Kachurowski was still in custody at that point. The owner of the handgun stated Kachurowski matched the description of a suspect in a previous theft from a Grand Forks, North Dakota gun show in 2025.
The RCMP used the information to obtain a search warrant for Kachurowski’s home in Dauphin, Manitoba. The search was conducted on April 15. During the search, the police found seven firearms, two of which had been reported as stolen in the United States. On one, the serial number had been altered. The firearms were not stored as required by Canadian law. Some of them were loaded.
Firearms seized from Wilfred Kachurowski’s residence. Image courtesy of the Manitoba RCMP.
The firearms appear to be a pistol caliber carbine, a revolving shotgun, and five revolvers. Revolvers with a barrel less than 105mm are highly restricted in Canada. The short-barreled shotgun may not be legal in Canada, as short barreled shotguns are legal in Canada only if they come from the factory with a short barrel. The shotgun in the image appears to have had its barrel shortened by simply cutting the barrel off at a convenient point. The RCMP is reported as saying the firearms were not stored in compliance with Canadian law.
One or more of the guns found at Kachurowski’s residence were linked to former Member of Parliament Inky Mark.
RCMP investigators allege that the firearms had been purchased by a second suspect and were never lawfully transferred to Kachurowski. The RCMP obtained a warrant to search former MP and gun collector Inky Mark’s residence. On July 7, 2026 the RCMP executed the search warrant.
At Inky Mark’s residence, they found and seized 439 guns. Some are alleged not to have been stored properly by Canadian standards. Some were antiques. RCMP investigators allege that at least three firearms had been illegally trafficked and that one firearm had a tampered serial number. Canadian and U.S. media have made much of the fact that Inky Mark’s collection contained a muzzle-loading antique cannon. Police described the cannon as an antique. If it legally qualifies as an “antique firearm” under Canadian law, it may be subject to different licensing, registration, and transfer rules than modern firearms.
Police also seized more than C$300,000 in cash. The RCMP release did not explain whether authorities allege the money represented proceeds of firearm sales, and possession of a large amount of cash is not by itself proof of criminal activity. Given the size of the collection and the apparent presence of collectible firearms, its value may be substantial. From the pictures in the media, many of the firearms are valuable antiques and high-dollar modern firearms.
The RCMP charged Inky Mark with 12 firearms-related offenses. The offenses included: Unsafe storage of firearms, careless use of a firearm, possession of a property obtained by crime, and possession of a firearm with a tampered serial number.
A 78-year-old, former Member of Parliament (MP), firearms collector, and refugee from the People’s Republic of China has been released under conditions. In Canada, this is essentially the same as being released on bail in the USA. Former MP Inky Mark has admitted to the illegal transfer of three firearms. In a cbc.ca article, Mark states that the $300,000 came from property sales in Dauphine. He says the illegal transfers were not sales. From Inky Mark:
“I didn’t sell anything. I transferred — according to them illegally, which it was,” he said. “I did it three times, stupid me.”
Inky Mark’s legal problems likely stem from the highly restrictive firearms laws in Canada. So far, it appears that three firearms have been found to have been stolen at some point during their existence. The charges include requirements for storing the firearms. Those requirements are nearly non-existent in the USA. Over the course of a long and successful life, I do not find it unusual for a man who fled Communist China to have $300,000 Canadian (213,000 U.S. dollars) in cash at his residence. It is hard to discount the political symbolism of the case. A man who fought the highly restrictive firearms laws, in the name of liberty, is caught in their tentacles. While three firearms are said to have been “illegally trafficked”, it is not clear if two or all of them may be from the case of Wilfred Kachurowski. The charges mostly appear to be malum prohibitum, (bad by definition of law). With the restoration of Second Amendment rights ongoing in the American courts, such cases are becoming less likely south of the Canadian border.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination to lead the Justice Department permanently advanced from the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 12–10 party-line vote. iStock-1312189737
Todd Blanche’s nomination to become the next attorney general of the United States cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, moving President Donald Trump’s nominee one step closer to taking permanent control of the Department of Justice.
The committee advanced Blanche on a 12-10 party-line vote, with every Republican voting in favor and every Democrat voting against him. His nomination now moves to the full Senate, where a final confirmation vote has not yet been scheduled. For gun owners, however, the confirmation drama surrounding Blanche is mostly background noise.
The important question is whether he will use the power of the Justice Department to dismantle unconstitutional gun-control policies—or merely oversee them while issuing friendlier press releases.
Republican Holdouts Clear Blanche’s Path
Blanche’s nomination had been stalled by Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Their objections centered on a controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” compensation fund connected to the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit over the leaking of his tax records.
Blanche formally rescinded the fund, clearing the way for Cornyn and Tillis to support moving his nomination out of committee. Democrats remained united against him, focusing on his prior work as Trump’s criminal-defense attorney and allegations that he had allowed politics to influence the department.
Those issues will dominate Beltway coverage. Gun owners should be watching something else.
Blanche is already serving as acting attorney general while retaining his confirmed position as deputy attorney general. That means he currently oversees more than 100,000 Justice Department employees, including the FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshals Service and 93 U.S. attorneys’ offices.
He is not asking for an opportunity to prove himself from scratch. He is asking the Senate to make permanent the authority he is already exercising.
Bondi Left More Announcements Than Victories
Blanche replaced Pam Bondi after Trump removed her as attorney general in April. Bondi presided over a department that continued defending federal gun restrictions and Biden-era legal positions in court. Even as the administration promised relief, Justice Department lawyers remained willing to argue for infringements against young adults, gun owners, and manufacturers. This eventually led major gun rights organizations to call for Bondi’s removal.
AmmoLand was already asking just 60 days into Bondi’s tenure why DOJ attorneys were still advancing anti-gun arguments. By the time she left office, the central problem remained: the administration talked about defending the Second Amendment while federal lawyers continued defending restrictions that violated it.
The Second Amendment Section may become a useful weapon against state and federal gun control. Its creation, however, does not erase Bondi’s record or entitle her to credit for victories that had not yet been won.
A new nameplate on a Justice Department door does not restore a right.
Blanche Must Decide Which Side DOJ Is On
Blanche has taken several actions that suggest the department may finally be moving in a better direction. During his time as acting AG, the DOJ has challenged state restrictions on commonly owned rifles and handguns, announced ATF regulatory reforms and said federal power should no longer be weaponized against lawful gun owners. Yet the record remains mixed.
The administration has allowed portions of the Biden-era frames-and-receivers rule to remain in place, and federal attorneys have continued defending National Firearms Act restrictions and other gun-control positions that cannot be squared with the Second Amendment’s text or original meaning.
The attorney general does not get to pick which constitutional rights are politically convenient to defend. The Second Amendment commands that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” It does not authorize the Justice Department to preserve infringements because government lawyers have defended them for decades.
Blanche’s nomination advancing is not a victory for gun owners. It is an opportunity, and a test.
Gun owners do not need another attorney general who praises the Second Amendment from a podium while DOJ attorneys undermine it in court. Blanche has shown signs that he may be willing to change course. If confirmed, he will have the authority and responsibility to prove it.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The Third Circuit is allowing New Jersey to keep enforcing rifle and magazine bans while the state appeals to the Supreme Court. IMG Jim Grant
New Jersey may continue enforcing its bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines while the state asks the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse its historic Second Amendment defeat. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted New Jersey’s motion to stay its mandate on August 4, ending several weeks of contradictory state guidance over when the court’s July 17 ruling would take effect.
New Jersey State Police had previously told firearm retailers that the decision was effective July 31 and that officials were preparing compliance instructions. The Attorney General’s Office later claimed the mandate would not issue until August 7. On July 31, the state moved to prevent the mandate from issuing at all.
The Third Circuit has now granted that request.
A Constitutional Victory Gun Owners Still Cannot Use
The en banc Third Circuit ruled July 17 that New Jersey’s ban on covered semiautomatic rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment. Ten of the court’s 15 judges joined the judgment. The court held that semiautomatic rifles are plainly “Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment and that New Jersey failed to establish a historical tradition supporting its sweeping prohibition.
The court also recognized that magazines are not mere accessories or “accoutrements” existing outside the Constitution. They are essential ammunition-feeding devices that facilitate the ordinary operation of semiautomatic firearms.
The Third Circuit concluded that New Jersey could not ban commonly possessed rifles and magazines simply because lawmakers dislike their features, capacity, appearance, or popularity.
That ruling remains the judgment of the court. The August 4 order does not withdraw it, vacate it, reconsider it, or suggest that the majority has changed its view of the Second Amendment. What the order does is prevent the mandate, the formal instruction putting that judgment into effect, from issuing.
For New Jersey gun owners, that distinction carries criminal consequences. The state’s bans remain enforceable for now. Dealers cannot treat the July ruling as authorization to begin ordinary sales of the affected rifles and magazines, and residents should not assume that possession prohibited under current New Jersey law has suddenly become lawful. The court declared the laws unconstitutional, then allowed the state to continue enforcing them.
New Jersey Asked to Preserve Its Infringement
New Jersey filed its stay motion on July 31, arguing that allowing lawful commerce in AR-15-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines would cause the state “irreparable harm.” The state warned that thousands of rifles and magazines could enter New Jersey and become difficult to retrieve if the Supreme Court later reversed the Third Circuit.
As AmmoLand previously reported, that argument turned constitutional rights upside down. New Jersey treated the restoration of an enumerated right as an injury to the government while treating continued enforcement of unconstitutional criminal laws as a minor inconvenience for the citizens whose rights were violated.
The state’s filing even included screenshots and social-media posts from dealers and firearm companies preparing to serve New Jersey customers once the mandate was issued. Those exhibits were offered as proof of an emergency. In reality, they demonstrated common use.
The rifles and magazines at issue are ordinary commercial products possessed by millions of Americans for self-defense, competition, hunting, training, and other lawful purposes. New Jersey calls their return to the lawful market a “flood.” Gun owners would call it the end of an unconstitutional state-enforced ban.
The Third Circuit has now given the state the delay it requested, a move some in the Second Amendment community saw coming.
Bummer, but expected. This is pretty normal. The only reason they may have denied it was NJ’s delay in seeking the stay, but I guess that wasn’t enough. https://t.co/sRW4XVslze
New Jersey Created Confusion Over When the Ruling Would Take Effect
Before obtaining the stay, New Jersey officials sent conflicting messages to firearm retailers and gun owners about when the Third Circuit’s decision would become effective. The New Jersey State Police notified Garden State firearm retailers that officials were preparing guidance following the court’s ruling.
“We are aware of the Third Circuit’s decision in ANJRPC v. Platkin, which is effective July 31, 2026,” the State Police email said. “We are working with the Office of the Attorney General to develop practical guidance for New Jersey residents and businesses in light of that decision.”
That message reasonably led retailers and gun owners to believe the state was preparing to comply with the Third Circuit’s judgment by July 31. The Attorney General’s Office then changed course. After initially appearing to recognize the July 31 date, a spokesperson said July 31 was actually the deadline for seeking rehearing and that the decision would become effective when the mandate issued on August 7.
New Jersey then filed its motion to stay the mandate on July 31. The filing automatically prevented the mandate from issuing while the Third Circuit considered the motion. The August 4 order now extends that delay. The mandate will remain stayed while New Jersey prepares its anticipated Supreme Court petition. If the justices grant review, the stay remains in effect until the Supreme Court finally resolves the case.
The state therefore moved from telling dealers that the decision was effective July 31, to announcing an August 7 mandate date, to asking the court to prevent the judgment from taking effect at all. New Jersey imposes serious criminal penalties on people who possess the rifles and magazines covered by its bans. When constitutional rights and potential felony charges are at stake, citizens should not have to decipher contradictory announcements from the same government that is fighting to preserve the restrictions.
There will be no immediate New Jersey equivalent of California’s “Freedom Week.” The bans remain enforceable while the Supreme Court process unfolds, despite the Third Circuit’s holding that those laws violate the Second Amendment.
The Magazine Fight Is Already at the Supreme Court’s Door
The timing of the stay is especially important because the national fight over magazine bans is already moving toward the Supreme Court. On August 3, the petitioners in Duncan v. Bonta filed a supplemental brief urging the justices to review California’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds. They pointed directly to the Third Circuit’s New Jersey decision, which created an acknowledged split with the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit held that California may prohibit magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The Third Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, holding that magazines are protected “Arms” and cannot be banned when commonly possessed for lawful purposes.
The same magazine can now be treated as constitutionally protected in Pennsylvania and prohibited contraband in California. The Bill of Rights is not supposed to change when an American crosses from one federal judicial circuit into another.
The Third Circuit expressly rejected the Ninth Circuit’s theory that magazines are mere accessories outside the Second Amendment’s text. It also rejected the suggestion that a ten-round magazine can be a protected arm while an otherwise identical eleven-round magazine is not. There is no ten-round exception written into the Second Amendment. There is no Founding-era tradition establishing ten rounds as the constitutional limit for an ammunition-feeding device. Ten is an entirely arbitrary number selected by anti-gun lawmakers.
The Ninth Circuit also tried to justify California’s ban by asking how often citizens fire more than ten rounds during documented defensive gun uses. But the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. It does not protect only the ammunition capacity a judge believes citizens are statistically likely to need.
Americans do not have to prove that they will fire every round in a magazine before they may lawfully possess it.
Several Second Amendment Cases Are Converging
The Supreme Court has already granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, cases challenging bans on AR-15-style rifles. The Duncan petitioners are asking the Court to hear the magazine question alongside those rifle-ban cases. A related Washington case, Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, also presents a challenge to a magazine-capacity restriction.
New Jersey’s anticipated petition could place both issues before the justices in a single case: whether states may ban commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and whether they may ban the standard magazines used with them.
Gun-control states have followed the same strategy against both. They attach politically loaded labels to ordinary arms, call AR-15s “assault weapons,” call standard magazines “large-capacity magazines,” and then argue that the terminology places those arms outside the Constitution. It does not.
The original meaning of the Second Amendment does not depend on which arms modern politicians find acceptable. Nor does a state’s claimed sovereign interest supersede the federal Constitution. The Supremacy Clause leaves no room for New Jersey to exercise a supposed sovereign right to violate the Second Amendment.
New Jersey Won a Delay, Not the Case
The Third Circuit’s order is a procedural victory for New Jersey, but it is not a constitutional vindication. The state remains the losing party and continues to act like the losers they are. Their historical arguments failed. Claims that commonly owned rifles and magazines fall outside the Second Amendment failed. Their attempt to defend a politically selected ten-round limit failed. What New Jersey has secured is more time.
For gun owners, however, time spent under an unconstitutional law is not harmless. Every additional day means continued restrictions on acquiring, possessing, and carrying arms the Third Circuit has already recognized as constitutionally protected.
The state argued that allowing citizens to exercise their rights could make its bans difficult to restore later. That concern reveals the real nature of the alleged injury: New Jersey fears that lawful citizens will obtain arms that the government wants the power to confiscate, prohibit, or permanently exclude from the state.
The Third Circuit has allowed that unconstitutional regime to survive while the Supreme Court decides whether to intervene.
New Jersey may have postponed the consequences of its defeat. It has not rewritten the Second Amendment, erased the circuit split, or transformed commonly owned rifles and magazines into unprotected contraband.
The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to end that contradiction nationwide.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The Justice Department says Montgomery County’s overlapping 100-yard firearm exclusion zones make lawful public carry nearly impossible and violate the Second Amendment. iStock-901657484
Montgomery County did not merely pass another unconstitutional gun law. According to the United States Department of Justice, county police and sheriff’s deputies who enforce it are engaging in a pattern or practice of civil-rights violations. That is the remarkable argument at the center of the federal government’s newly filed lawsuit against Montgomery County, the Montgomery County Police Department, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Maxwell C. Uy.
The complaint challenges Montgomery County’s recently enacted Bill 23-26, which prohibits the possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition, and undefined “major components” at broadly defined places of public assembly and within 100 yards of them. DOJ says those restrictions violate the Second Amendment and that enforcing them constitutes unlawful police misconduct under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, the federal statute authorizing the Attorney General to sue government agencies engaged in a pattern or practice of depriving people of constitutional rights.
In other words, the Justice Department is not asking Montgomery County politely to reconsider. It is accusing the county’s law-enforcement agencies of violating federal civil rights law every time they enforce the challenged provisions.
In @MontgomeryCoMD, Bill 23-26 broadly bans citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives—this is unconstitutional. The @CivilRights Division will protect Second Amendment rights in line with the Supreme Court’s holding in Wolford.…
AmmoLand previously reported that Maryland Shall Issue and five Maryland carry-permit holders filed Barreto v. Montgomery County after the county council rebuilt its carry restrictions following an earlier loss in Maryland’s highest court. The DOJ complaint repeatedly relies on evidence developed in Barreto, including a detailed map showing the enormous reach of the county’s firearm exclusion zones.
The United States has not joined Barreto. It filed a separate lawsuit, opening a second federal front against Bill 23-26.
The county’s ordinance defines “places of public assembly” to include publicly or privately owned parks, houses of worship, schools, libraries, recreational facilities and multipurpose exhibition facilities. It also covers government buildings open to the public, polling places, courthouses and legislative assemblies. The definition extends to associated property, including parking lots and grounds. Then Montgomery County adds another 100 yards.
That turns supposedly discrete “sensitive places” into sprawling gun-free bubbles that reach neighboring sidewalks, homes, businesses, parking lots and roads.
More Than 10,000 Parcels Before Adding the Buffers
DOJ calls the resulting exclusion zone “breathtaking in scope.” Montgomery County records identify 605 houses of worship, 693 public parks, 42 public recreation centers, ten colleges and universities, 45 post offices, 38 fire stations, 15 public swimming pools, 13 Metro stations and 11 MARC commuter-rail locations. According to the complaint, the mapped locations already cover at least 10,000 parcels and more than 7,900 acres—over 26 percent of Montgomery County. Those numbers do not include the 100-yard buffers.
Once those buffers are added, the actual area covered by the ban becomes considerably larger and far more difficult for an ordinary person to identify.
That is the trap. A citizen does not need to walk into a courthouse or school while armed to violate the ordinance. He can become a criminal by walking down a sidewalk one block from a park, leaving a restaurant near a library, or parking too close to a recreational facility. The county has created thousands of invisible lines backed by criminal punishment.
A Gun Owner Can Become a Criminal in His Own Backyard
DOJ asks the court to consider a gun owner whose home sits within 100 yards of a park. Bill 23-26 contains an exception allowing him to possess a firearm inside his home. But step into his own backyard while armed, and he becomes a criminal. Consider a church with a neighboring parsonage. The pastor may possess a firearm in his residence, but walking from his home to the church can violate the ordinance.
The situation becomes even more absurd if the pastor has a spare magazine. The home exception covers firearms and ammunition, but not firearm “components.” Under the ordinance’s language, DOJ argues, he could be prosecuted for possessing the magazine even inside his own home.
Those examples expose Bill 23-26 for what it is. This is not a carefully drawn sensitive-place law. It is an ordinance written so broadly that ordinary, peaceable conduct becomes a crime depending on which side of an unmarked line a citizen happens to stand.
Montgomery County’s Law Is Worse Than Hawaii’s
The Justice Department grounds its challenge in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wolford v. Lopez. In Wolford, the Court struck down Hawaii’s default ban on carrying firearms on private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission. The Court held that Hawaii had “hobbled” the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense while conducting their daily lives.
Montgomery County’s law suffers from the same constitutional defect, but DOJ says it is even more restrictive. Under Hawaii’s law, a carrier could at least seek permission from the property owner. Montgomery County does not care whether the owner consents.
A church cannot authorize armed congregants to provide security. A recreational facility cannot permit a licensed visitor to carry. A private owner whose property falls within one of the county’s exclusion zones cannot override the county’s command. The carrier remains a criminal despite having both a state carry permit and the owner’s express permission.
The complaint goes further than the DOJ press release by openly challenging the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Kipke v. Moore. In Kipke, the Fourth Circuit majority upheld firearm restrictions in parks. DOJ acknowledges that decision and then states plainly that the court was wrong. The United States is asking the district court to overturn that part of Kipke.
DOJ relies on Judge G. Steven Agee’s dissent, which concluded that governments at the Founding did not broadly prohibit firearms on public lands, urban green spaces or comparable locations. That creates a significant procedural fight because a federal district court ordinarily remains bound by circuit precedent. At a minimum, DOJ appears to be preserving the parks issue for appeal and arguing that Wolford has undermined the Fourth Circuit’s analysis.
The complaint separately challenges firearm prohibitions at houses of worship, libraries, recreational facilities and multipurpose exhibition facilities. For houses of worship, DOJ says the historical record contains no tradition of banning firearms.
For libraries, the government notes that libraries existed at the Founding and that the 1850 Census counted 1,217 public libraries, yet no state categorically prohibited firearms in them.
The same problem applies to recreational and exhibition facilities: Montgomery County has identified a modern policy preference, not a historical tradition supporting its ban.
Ammunition, Optics, Barrels, and Maybe a Detent Pin
Bill 23-26 does not stop with guns. It also prohibits ammunition and “major components” within the exclusion zones. The phrase “major components” is not defined.
DOJ asks the obvious questions: Does it include a barrel? A trigger? A pistol grip? An upper receiver? An optic? Could it include something as small as the detent pin holding a safety selector in place? Nobody knows. That is a serious problem when violating the ordinance carries criminal consequences.
The Second Amendment would be meaningless if government could claim that citizens may possess firearms while separately prohibiting the ammunition and functional components necessary to use them.
DOJ cites Duncan v. Bonta for the principle that the right to bear arms necessarily includes components and accessories required for a firearm’s ordinary operation. It also relies on precedent recognizing ammunition as a necessary corollary to the right itself. Montgomery County cannot evade the Second Amendment by banning the pieces that make an arm work.
DOJ Uses Federal Police-Misconduct Law
The most important part of the complaint may be the vehicle DOJ chose to bring the case. Section 12601 makes it unlawful for a governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law-enforcement officers that deprives people of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law.
That statute is commonly associated with federal investigations of police departments over excessive force, unlawful searches, or discriminatory enforcement. DOJ is now applying it to the Second Amendment. The complaint alleges that Montgomery County police officers and sheriff’s deputies have a duty to enforce Bill 23-26 and are either enforcing it or will continue to enforce it unless stopped by a federal court.
Each enforcement action, DOJ argues, deprives a law-abiding citizen of the right to keep and bear arms.
The United States is asking for a declaration that enforcement of the challenged provisions constitutes a pattern or practice of unconstitutional law-enforcement conduct. It also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the county, police department, sheriff’s office and Sheriff Uy from enforcing them.
That turns the usual gun-control litigation on its head. For years, local officials have treated the Second Amendment as a second-class right and forced gun owners to finance lawsuit after lawsuit merely to make government follow Supreme Court precedent. This time, the Civil Rights Division is treating the enforcement of an unconstitutional gun law as the civil-rights violation it is.
Montgomery County Built a Criminal Trap
Bill 23-26 leaves the right to bear arms nominally intact while making its exercise almost impossible.
A licensed citizen can carry in Montgomery County, provided he remains in his vehicle, avoids thousands of properties, stays more than 100 yards from each one, never enters an invisible buffer by mistake, and does not carry an ammunition magazine or firearm part that county officials later decide qualifies as a “major component.”
That is not regulation of a constitutional right. It is a criminal trap designed to discourage people from exercising it.
Maryland gun owners challenged the law first. Now the United States has accused Montgomery County’s law-enforcement agencies of engaging in a pattern or practice of violating the Second Amendment.
Montgomery County tried to erase the right to bear arms 100 yards at a time. DOJ is now asking a federal judge to stop the county police from enforcing the eraser.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
Second Amendment attorney Stephen Stamboulieh has accepted a position with the U.S. Department of Justice. iStock-1055139516
“Second Amendment attorney Stephen Stamboulieh (@Stambo2A) “has accepted a position with the Department of Justice,” Second Amendment legal reporter Rob Romano announced Monday to his followers on X. He included a link to Court Listener, And Stamboulieh’s Aug. 3 “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel” in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
“Stephen D. Stamboulieh respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d), for leave to withdraw his appearance as counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants Larry Morse and Theodore Ray Buck, Jr. in the above captioned appeal.” (Larry Morse and Theodore Ray Buck, Jr. v. Kwame Raoul, et al., challenges the state’s ban on the sale and possession of silencers.)
The reason for his withdrawal will no doubt surprise many in the Second Amendment community who have been following Stamboulieh’s groundbreaking work against federal and state infringements of the right to keep and bear arms. He has represented this correspondent in numerous Freedom of Information Act requests and legal complaints for years, some, including against the DOJ that are still pending. Having known his withdrawal was coming because of that, options for going forward with new representation are being explored.
Rights restoration/ decision-making for firearms disability relief
ATF and Secret Service involvement in the Hunter Biden case
Bump stocks
NICS permanent entry consent
Prior DOJ statements of interest
Obtaining Air Force court martial records for Sutherland Springs shooter
And much more, not to mention actions undertaken for others on butterfly knives, stun guns, etc.
With his pending assignment at DOJ, any public comments at this time by Stamboulieh about this career development will be understandably limited. Just bear in mind, having been at the receiving end of his work, they are as aware of his fierce pro-2A advocacy as anyone (he was once dismissed by US attorneys as part of “a small cadre of firearms activists and their efforts to recover fees through largely unsuccessful FOIA litigation”), and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s previously unheard of work enforcing the right is a good indicator that current Justice management views his uncompromising principles as an asset.
Looking at the work Stamboulieh has done on gun owners’ behalf over the years, those who know him have full confidence that he is not switching sides but will now be positioned to be even more effective at advancing justice.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
