Supreme Court’s Wolford Decision Could Blow A Hole In New Jersey’s AR-15 Ban Defense

The Supreme Court’s Wolford decision could reshape how courts review New Jersey’s ban on so-called assault firearms. img Duncan Johnson

The Supreme Court’s decision in Wolford v. Lopez was about Hawaii’s attempt to turn most private property open to the public into gun-free zones by default. But the ruling may have just handed gun owners in New Jersey a powerful new weapon in the fight against the state’s ban on so-called “assault firearms.”

On June 26, attorneys for the Cheeseman plaintiffs in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General notified the Third Circuit that Wolford directly affects the pending challenge to New Jersey’s semiautomatic firearm ban.

Their point is simple: New Jersey cannot force gun owners to prove at the starting line that banned firearms are “in common use” before the Second Amendment even applies. Under Wolford, the first question is much more basic.

Does the law regulate “Arms”? If yes, the Constitution is already in play.

We just filed this letter with the Third Circuit in our lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s “assault weapon” ban, where we argue that yesterday’s Wolford decision strengthens our case: https://t.co/XrjnZkKX5L pic.twitter.com/LGzUorELot

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 26, 2026

Wolford Reaffirms The Plain Text Test

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court in Wolford, explained that Bruen’s first step asks whether the law falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text. That includes whether the law concerns “Arms,” meaning weapons “customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes,” according to the Court.

Phrasing matters. The Second Amendment does not protect only whatever gun a state lawyer is willing to admit is useful for home defense. It does not protect only handguns. It does not protect only muskets. It protects “Arms.” And Wolford confirms that the category includes weapons customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes. That is a problem for New Jersey.

That matters in Cheeseman because New Jersey’s ban plainly regulates firearms. Not accessories. Not conduct divorced from arms. Firearms.

The Cheeseman letter seizes on that language, telling the Third Circuit that “the only predicate question” is whether the law concerns “Arms.” The plaintiffs argue that the answer is “beyond dispute,” meaning the Second Amendment presumptively protects possession of the banned firearms. From there, the burden shifts to New Jersey.

That is the part anti-gun states hate. They want gun owners trapped in a never-ending preliminary debate over whether AR-15s, modern semiautomatic rifles, and similar arms are common enough, useful enough, or favored enough by judges to count. Wolford makes that harder.

New Jersey’s Common-Use Argument Takes A Hit

New Jersey has argued that “common use” belongs at the threshold stage of the case. In other words, the state wants courts to ask whether the banned arms are common before deciding whether the Second Amendment applies.

The Cheeseman plaintiffs say Wolford rejects that exact move.

Quoting Wolford, the letter notes that such considerations are “out of place at Bruen’s first step.” At that stage, the Court said, the question is whether the law falls within the Second Amendment’s “plain text.” That distinction is critical.

Common use still matters, but not the way New Jersey wants it to matter. Under Heller and Bruen, the government may try to defend a ban by proving the arms are “dangerous and unusual.” But that is the government’s burden. It is not supposed to be a precondition gun owners must satisfy before their rights are recognized.

New Jersey does not get to say, “Prove your guns are protected before we have to justify banning them.” Wolford says the plain text comes first.

Barrett’s Concurrence Makes The Point Even Sharper

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence is also important for Cheeseman. She warned against letting governments “smuggle additional limits” into the plain-text stage of Second Amendment analysis.

That is exactly what New Jersey appears to be trying to do. If a state can redefine Bruen step one by importing parts of the historical analysis into the threshold question, then the government can water down the Second Amendment before the real test even begins.

That gives the Cheeseman plaintiffs a clean response. The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” Once a ban targets arms and restricts possession, the state has to justify the restriction through history and tradition.

Jackson’s Dissent Helps Clarify The Fight

Interestingly, the Cheeseman letter also points to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent. Jackson disagreed with the majority’s application of Bruen, but she described the majority’s rule as requiring courts to look only to the Second Amendment’s “plain text” at step one.

That matters because even the dissent understood what the majority had done. Wolford separates the plain-text inquiry from the historical-analogue inquiry. The plaintiffs in Cheeseman are now telling the Third Circuit to apply that separation to New Jersey’s rifle ban.

The End of Assault Weapon Bans?

Wolford was not an “assault weapon” case, and it did not directly decide whether bans on AR-15s are unconstitutional. But Supreme Court decisions often reshape pending cases by clarifying the test lower courts must use.

Here, the clarification is bad news for New Jersey.

Modern semiautomatic rifles are unquestionably “Arms.” They are weapons. They are owned by millions of Americans. They are used for lawful purposes, including self-defense, training, competition, and home protection. Under Wolford, that should be enough to trigger Second Amendment protection at the plain-text stage.

Then New Jersey must prove its ban fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That is where these bans have always been weakest. There is no founding-era tradition of banning an entire class of commonly owned firearms because politicians dislike their appearance, features, or popularity.

The Third Circuit now has fresh Supreme Court guidance sitting directly in front of it.

For New Jersey gun owners, Wolford may not be the final shot in Cheeseman. But it may have just made the state’s job a whole lot harder.

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/7XOAuJD
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Says Courts Can’t Smuggle Gun Control Into Bruen Step One

The Supreme Court’s Wolford v. Lopez ruling did more than strike down Hawaii’s “vampire law.” It warned lower courts not to smuggle gun-control arguments into Bruen Step One before the government has to prove a historical tradition. IMG Scott Witner

The Supreme Court of the United States issued a landmark ruling in Wolford v. Lopez that struck down Hawaii’s so-called “vampire law,” but the decision’s impact extends far beyond that single victory. The opinion provides crucial clarification that lower courts cannot employ certain procedural strategies to evade rulings against restrictive gun control measures.

On the surface, Wolford addresses whether private property owners must post “gun welcome” signs before individuals may lawfully carry firearms on their premises. However, like many other landmark Second Amendment decisions, Wolford transcends this narrow issue. It delivers important guidance on how courts must properly apply the constitutional framework established in Bruen and Heller.

Bruen Step One Just Got Harder to Beat

The most significant clarification is that courts may no longer shoehorn gun-control reasoning into Step One of the Bruen analysis.

Step One focuses strictly on the plain text of the Second Amendment. If the regulated individual is part of “the people” and the arm in question is “bearable,” the conduct is presumptively protected. Liberal courts have repeatedly attempted to dismiss cases at this early stage by asserting that certain popular arms, such as AR-15-style rifles, fall outside constitutional protection.

The Wolford decision firmly rejects this tactic, making clear that such maneuvering cannot be used to bypass Step Two’s historical-tradition analysis.

In Footnote 1, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote: “No one disputes that the Second Amendment’s text has a fixed meaning that must be satisfied before a law is deemed presumptively unconstitutional.” She noted the disagreement centers on whether courts can improperly import additional limits from regulatory tradition into the plain-text inquiry. “The answer is and always has been no.”

Associate Justice Samuel Alito reinforced the two-step structure from Bruen, emphasizing that courts must first determine whether the challenged law implicates the core protections of the Amendment regarding “the people,” “keep[ing],” and “bear[ing]” Arms.

Another common tactic courts have used to uphold “assault weapons” bans is to claim that firearms like AR-15s are not “in common use” specifically for self-defense. In Heller, the Court held that arms in common use cannot be banned, yet anti-gun courts have tried to append “for self-defense” to narrow that protection. This strained interpretation has been deployed to justify not only bans on commonly owned rifles but also restrictions on magazines and other accessories.

What “Offensive or Defensive Purposes” Means for Gun Owners

Wolford firmly rejects this reasoning. It clarifies that the Second Amendment protects “weapons customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes,” not merely those carried for self-defense.

Heller never intended to confine the right to a narrow self-defense test; rather, it safeguards arms for all lawful purposes. Wolford confirms that bearable arms in common use are protected regardless of whether they are handguns or other types of firearms. A defensive firearm is one someone might carry outside the home for self-defense, such as a pistol that millions of Americans carry every day. Firearms kept mainly inside the home can be used for defensive purposes, but they can also be used legally for offensive purposes, such as clearing a house in case of an intruder. Also, guns like AR-15s can be used for hunting. This is not a defensive purpose. It is an offensive purpose.

Americans also have the right to bear arms to resist tyranny. In fact, that is the main purpose of the Second Amendment.

Wolford makes it clear these arms are protected under the Second Amendment and deviates from the anti-gun idea that the primary function of a gun must be for self-defense to be protected by the Second Amendment. Since many anti-gun defendants have argued that the Second Amendment only applies to firearms that are primarily used for self-defense, their arguments now fall short.

Thanks to this ruling, anti-gun courts will face significantly greater difficulty in upholding unconstitutional restrictions. By closing off these procedural loopholes, Wolford strengthens the Second Amendment’s safeguards and ensures more faithful application of constitutional text and history.

This opinion will have lasting ramifications far beyond Hawaii’s “vampire rule,” providing a powerful tool for defenders of the right to keep and bear arms across the country for years to come.

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/k6yoYVR
via IFTTT

Federal Judge Rules Jackson County’s Under-21 Handgun Ban Violated the Second Amendment

A federal judge ruled that Jackson County’s repealed under-21 handgun and ammunition ban violated the Second Amendment. iStock-1324734605

A federal judge from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Western Division, has ruled that an ordinance banning anyone under 21 from buying handguns or handgun ammunition was unconstitutional.

In November 2024, Jackson County passed Ordinance No. 5865. Section 1 of the ordinance prohibited the sale or transfer of handguns and handgun ammunition to anyone under 21 (and purchase by those under 21). Section 3 prohibited individuals aged 18–20 from possessing semiautomatic assault rifles (with limited exceptions).

Leonard Wilson, Jr. (age 18 at filing), Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the State of Missouri sued Jackson County, the County Sheriff, and the County Prosecutor in Leonard Wilson, Jr. et al. v. Jackson County, Missouri, et al. Wilson wanted to buy a handgun and ammunition from his uncle, but was blocked by the ordinance.

Shortly after the suit was filed in June 2025, the County repealed the Prior Ordinance and replaced it with a narrower Current Ordinance (Ordinance No. 6002) that only applies to minors under 18.

On February 10, 2026, the judge in the case dismissed GOF from the case for lack of standing. GOA was dismissed because the judge found the injunctive relief claims moot. He also dismissed Count III (state preemption) on supplemental jurisdiction grounds. The February 10 ruling left Wilson and the State with only claims for nominal damages on Counts I (Second Amendment) and II (vagueness).

Young Adults Are Protected by the Second Amendment

The court granted in part and deferred in part the motion on June 24, 2026. The Court ruled that Section 1 of the Prior Ordinance violated Wilson’s Second Amendment rights. The judge relied heavily on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Worth v. Jacobson, 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024), which struck down a Minnesota law restricting 18–20-year-olds from obtaining permits to openly carry firearms. He ruled that people 18 and older are protected by the Second Amendment.

The judge found that age-based restrictions like this lack historical tradition under the Bruen framework. The right to keep and bear arms implies the right to acquire or purchase firearms; a ban on purchase is an indirect prohibition on possession.

The Court was not convinced that Wilson had standing to challenge the assault weapon provision of the ordinance and will address jurisdiction further.

The case is limited to nominal damages (symbolic compensation) for the constitutional violation of the repealed ordinance. The Defendants’ arguments, which attempted to distinguish Bruen and Worth (e.g., self-defense vs. range use, purchase vs. possession), were rejected by the judge. They tried to argue “common use for self-defense,” but the judge pushed back, pointing out that the United States Supreme Court said common use applies for “lawful purposes” and not just “self-defense.”

The judge wrote: “Defendants do not conduct their own Bruen analysis. They do not even mention Worth. Instead, they attempt to distinguish Bruen because of its discussion about the Second Amendment’s relation to the right to self-defense, whereas Wilson wants a handgun so he can shoot it at a firearms range. (Doc. 48, pp. 9-11.) However, nothing in Bruen, or any other case, holds that the Second Amendment applies only to people who want a firearm for self-defense.”

Even though the ordinance was repealed, this is still a victory for the Second Amendment. It shows that localities cannot pass an unconstitutional ordinance and then repeal it once sued to dodge responsibility.

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/AQ1nmsk
via IFTTT

Virginia Assault Firearms Ban Blocked Statewide Until Dec. 31

A Virginia judge issued a statewide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Commonwealth’s assault-firearms ban until Dec. 31. IMG Duncan Johnson

A Virginia judge has issued a statewide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Commonwealth’s new ban on so-called “assault firearms” until December 31, 2026, handing Virginia gun owners a major victory just days before the law was scheduled to take effect.

The ruling came Thursday in Crump v. Katz, the state-court challenge to Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s sweeping gun-control package. The judge read the preliminary injunction from the bench and made clear that the assault-firearms ban is now enjoined statewide while the case proceeds.

The Commonwealth tried to limit the injunction to Lancaster County. The judge refused.

The state then asked the judge to stay his own ruling. He refused that, too.

That means the injunction is in effect now unless a higher court intervenes. Virginia’s assault-firearms ban is not merely delayed on paper. It is blocked statewide through Dec. 31.

John Crump Has Standing, GOA and VCDL Do Not

The court did narrow the case before granting relief. The judge held that Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League did not have standing, but found that individual plaintiff John Crump did. That finding kept the case alive.

Crump, an AmmoLand contributor and longtime Second Amendment journalist, challenged the law as a Virginia gun owner directly affected by the ban. The judge accepted that Crump had standing to sue, and that was enough for the court to reach the preliminary-injunction question.

The state may try to spin the standing ruling as a partial win because GOA and VCDL were knocked out at this stage. But the Commonwealth’s real goal was to keep the ban alive for July 1. It failed.

Judge Refuses County-Only Injunction

The statewide scope of the injunction is critical. Had the court limited relief to one county, Virginia gun owners would have been left with a confusing patchwork of rights depending on where they lived, traveled, bought, sold, trained, or competed. The judge rejected that approach and made the injunction statewide.

For gun owners, dealers, instructors, competitors, and families across Virginia, the practical effect is simple: the assault-firearms ban is blocked across the Commonwealth until Dec. 31, unless an appellate court steps in.

Virginia’s Gun Ban Hits Common Firearms

Virginia Democrats marketed the law as a public-safety measure. In reality, the ban targets ordinary Virginians. Virginians who own, buy, train with, and rely on commonly possessed firearms for lawful purposes.

These are not exotic weapons. They are firearms owned by millions of peaceable Americans for home defense, competition, training, collecting, and militia-suitable use.

Crump v. Katz challenges the Commonwealth’s attempt to restrict arms protected under Virginia’s own Constitution. Article I, Section 13 declares that “a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.”

The state’s defense was revealing. Virginia argued that Article I, Section 13 is not an individual right like the Second Amendment, but instead a collective, militia-tethered provision. Put plainly, the Commonwealth claimed Virginians have less protection under their own constitution than Americans have under the federal Bill of Rights.

The court was not willing to let the assault-firearms ban take effect while that argument plays out.

A Major First-Round Win for Virginia Gun Owners

This is not the final ruling on the merits. A preliminary injunction does not end the case. The Commonwealth can still seek emergency appellate relief, and no one should expect Virginia’s gun-control machine to quit.

But Thursday’s ruling changes the battlefield.

The judge refused to shrink the injunction to one county. He refused to pause his own order. And he refused to let Richmond enforce its assault-firearms ban before the constitutional challenge is resolved.

The lesson for Richmond should be obvious: changing the label does not change the right. Calling a rifle an “assault firearm” does not make it unusual. Calling a gun ban “public safety” does not make it constitutional.

For now, Virginia’s assault-firearms ban is blocked statewide.

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/JFnhyIi
via IFTTT

Supreme Court’s Hemani Ruling Spells Doom for Unlawful Red Flag Laws

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hemani repeatedly used the phrase “pre-deprivation process,” which should send shivers down the back of anti-gunners. The Court made clear Americans cannot lose their right to bear arms without a pre-deprivation hearing, yet that is the entire point of today’s red flag law movement.

Much of the coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Hemani focused on its holding: the federal ban on gun possession by users of illegal drugs, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), could not constitutionally be applied to a man whose only offense was unlawfully using marijuana. That result matters obviously. But within the Court’s opinion appeared a phrase that lands squarely against one of the anti-gun movement’s favorite weapons. The Court repeatedly referenced the concept of “pre-deprivation process.”

In other words, before an American may be disarmed by the government, there must be a pre-deprivation legal process during which the American can fight the attempt to disarm him. Properly understood and applied, this notion provides gun owners with a powerful argument against red flag laws.

The Historical Approach to Disarming a Dangerous Person

Let’s start with a distinction the red flag debate is designed to obscure. America has always had a way to deal with violent criminals (prison or death) and the dangerously mentally ill (civil commitment). The civil commitment process has been around for generations in every state. Unlike modern red flag laws, America’s commitment processes include robust due process protections designed to protect the individual and fundamental right to freedom against wrongful charges of mental incompetence. Some of those due process protections include the right to appointed legal counsel, expert witnesses, the right to confront witnesses, and setting the government’s burden of proof at the heightened “clear and convincing evidence” standard.

In contrast to civil commitment laws, modern red flag laws are designed to bypass the well-established due process protections of those accused of being dangerous to themselves or others. Red flag laws are specifically built to circumvent the usual due process protections of American gun owners. Red flag laws often allow courts to take one’s firearms away on an ex parte petition, which means without the gun owner first being able to fight the charge. There is no doubt that red flag laws are NOT about public safety, but are about subverting Second Amendment rights. That the only remedy arising from such laws is the confiscation of guns (not knives or cars, or a commitment to a mental institution) means the law reaches exactly one class of Americans: those who own guns.

In reality, if you are truly too dangerous to hold a firearm, then you are probably too dangerous to walk the street, and civil commitment is the correct answer that the law has always supplied.

What Hemani Demands: Process Before Deprivation

Here is where the Hemani decision changes the terrain. The Supreme Court did not treat the timing of disarmament as an afterthought; it made process central. Reviewing the historical analogues the government offered, the Hemani majority observed that a vagrant could be jailed “generally only upon a conviction,” a habitual drunkard civilly committed “usually only after proceedings before something like a probate court,” and a surety demanded only after “a proceeding before a justice of the peace.” Each required process before the loss of liberty. The Court then said that: “None of that holds true for § 922(g)(3).”

The Hemani Court explained that:

“On the government’s account, the statute automatically divests an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user and until he ends his drug use­–all without any pre-deprivation process. To be sure, and as the government highlights, an unlawful user who violates this ban is entitled to “a full-dress criminal trial” before he can be imprisoned or permanently disarmed. Brief for United States 26. But be that as it may, §922(g)(3) offers an unlawful user no pre-deprivation process before his “‘temporary disarmament,’” the very burden the government says is akin to the burden vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety laws imposed on habitual drunkards.”

That was a defect, not a virtue. The Court pointedly contrasted sections 922(g)(3) with subsections (g)(1) and (g)(4) (the bans on convicted felons and those “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution”), which “involve some manner of pre-deprivation process.” A conviction. An adjudication. A hearing. The constitutional through-line is unmistakable: the government must give you your day in court before it takes your arms, not after. And the Supreme Court just said that in Hemani.

Rahimi Already Pointed the Way

The Hemani decision builds on United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), where the Supreme Court upheld disarming a man subject to a domestic-violence restraining order. The Supreme Court in Rahimi found: “An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Chief Justice John Roberts flagged, in a footnote, that the objections to that statute “appear to sound in due process rather than the Second Amendment” but declined to reach the question because Mr. Rahimi never raised it. Hemani picks up the thread Rahimi left dangling and insists that due process come first.

The Red Flag Problem

Lay these principles against a typical red flag statute and the conflict is obvious. The order issues first; the firearms vanish; the hearing, if it happens, comes later (and at great financial and time expenses to the gun owner). That is deprivation before process, the precise sequence the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution forbid when they bar the government from taking “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Hemani adds a second demand these laws struggle to meet: an individualized finding about the dangerousness of the specific gun owner.

The Court faulted the government for not caring “whether [Hemani’s] drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others,” refusing to let a categorical label substitute for proof about the particular person. Red flag petitions, built on allegation and prediction rather than an adjudicated finding of present dangerousness, run headlong into both requirements.

I have argued for years that physically-violent dangerousness must be proven in court before a neutral judge (not just asserted) and that the Constitution fixes the order of operations: notice of a hearing, then an actual hearing, and finally, if warranted, a deprivation of a constitutional right. Hemani now says this in the Supreme Court’s own words. Litigators fighting these confiscation regimes have a new and authoritative tool, and they should use it. Godspeed!

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith hosts the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on Youtube and Rumble; is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar; and his Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Smith’s most recent book is ISRAEL DISARMED: What the October 7 Attack Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms and he has lectured at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Princeton University, the Wharton School at U. Penn, and Oxford University. He is a frequent speaker at the Federalist Society’s Annual National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C.

• @fourboxesdiner
• On The Web

---

from https://ift.tt/vlRwYXD
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’ in Major Second Amendment Win

The Supreme Court ruled that Hawaii’s post-Bruen “Vampire Rule” violated the Second Amendment by making licensed carry illegal by default in businesses open to the public. IMG Duncan Johnson

The Supreme Court just delivered a major Second Amendment win and sent a blunt warning to Hawaii, New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, and every other anti-gun state trying to dodge Bruen.

In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court struck down Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Rule,” holding that the state violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by banning licensed concealed carry on private property open to the public unless the owner gave express permission.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 6-3 majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Barrett also wrote a separate concurrence. Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The Court did not sugarcoat what Hawaii had done after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” Alito wrote. “We hold that the law is unconstitutional.”

That is the line anti-gun politicians should be forced to read out loud.

Hawaii Tried to Make Bruen Useless

Before Bruen, Hawaii made it nearly impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain a carry license. The Supreme Court noted that “from 2000 to 2018, only four such licenses were issued.”

After Bruen confirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, Hawaii did what anti-gun states often do. It changed tactics.

Instead of openly denying carry permits, Hawaii created a legal trap for anyone who actually tried to carry.

The law flipped the normal rule for private property open to the public. Under traditional common law, when a business opens its doors to the public, customers have implied permission to enter unless the owner says otherwise. Hawaii reversed that rule for armed citizens. A licensed carry permit holder could not enter a gas station, convenience store, restaurant, coffee shop, drug store, grocery store, big-box store, barber shop, dry cleaner, or laundromat unless the owner posted a pro-carry sign or gave direct permission.

In other words, your carry permit became nearly worthless the moment you left your driveway.

The Court Saw Through the Private-Property Dodge

Hawaii argued that the case was really about property rights, not gun rights. The majority rejected that dodge.

The ruling does not force private businesses to allow guns. A private owner can still post “no guns” or otherwise exclude armed customers. The constitutional problem was that Hawaii made “no guns” the statewide government-imposed default for property open to the public.

Alito explained that this new default rule imposed “severe restrictions on the daily activities” of permit holders who had already satisfied Hawaii’s carry requirements.

The Court gave a practical example of a woman who carries for self-defense while going to work, stopping for gas, buying lunch, visiting a drug store, picking up dry cleaning, and shopping for groceries. Under Hawaii’s rule, unless every business posted a “Guns Welcome” sign or something similar, “each visit could expose her to criminal liability.”

That is not public carry. That is criminalizing normal life.

‘The Spirit of Aloha’ Does Not Trump the Bill of Rights

One of the strongest parts of the opinion came when the Court rejected Hawaii’s attempt to rely on local anti-gun culture.

“The Second Amendment cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha’ in Hawaii,” Alito wrote, “any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple (Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald).”

He continued: “Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.”

That matters far beyond Hawaii. The Second Amendment is not stronger in red states and weaker in blue states. It is not subject to a state legislature’s mood, a governor’s politics, or a judge’s personal discomfort with armed citizens.

The right to bear arms means the same thing in Honolulu as it does in Dallas, Miami, Phoenix, or Richmond.

Hawaii’s Historical Analogues Fell Apart

Under Bruen, once the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct at issue, the government must prove its law is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Hawaii failed.

The state leaned heavily on old anti-poaching and trespass laws, claiming they justified its modern no-carry default. The Court was not buying it. Those laws were aimed at unauthorized hunting on private lands, not peaceful concealed carry by licensed citizens in public-facing businesses.

“The gap between the State’s anti-poaching analogues and its new rule is just too wide,” Alito wrote.

The Court also hammered Hawaii for relying on an 1865 Louisiana law rooted in the Black Codes, the post-Civil War system used to disarm freed blacks and keep them defenseless.

“Unless we put history entirely out of our minds,” Alito wrote, “Hawaii’s claim that this tainted artifact illuminates the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken seriously.”

That quote should sting. Anti-gun states keep pretending history supports disarmament. The Court reminded them that some of the history they rely on is not a constitutional tradition. It is a warning.

Barrett: ‘This Case, However, Is Not Hard’

Justice Barrett’s concurrence drove the point home.

“Applying old principles to new circumstances is not always easy,” Barrett wrote. “This case, however, is not hard.”

She made clear that Hawaii’s law regulated armed carry and therefore triggered Second Amendment scrutiny. She also rejected the idea that public dislike of firearms can justify stripping citizens of a constitutional right.

“While most Hawaiians might prefer that no one carry firearms in public places, a majority’s opposition to a constitutional right is not a permissible basis for restricting it,” Barrett wrote.

That is the heart of Wolford. Rights are not popularity contests. The Bill of Rights exists precisely because government officials and political majorities cannot be trusted to respect liberties they dislike.

A Warning to Other Anti-Gun States

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings. For Hawaii gun owners, that is a direct win. For the rest of the country, it is a warning shot.

California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York adopted similar post-Bruen schemes designed to make licensed carry as difficult and risky as possible. Those laws are now on shakier ground.

The message from the Court is simple: states cannot pretend to comply with Bruen while making the right to bear arms useless in practice.

Hawaii tried to turn carry into a permission slip. The Supreme Court said no.

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/0TfqBHv
via IFTTT

Virginia Universal Background Checks Return July 1 After Court Lifts Injunction

Virginia’s universal background-check requirement for private firearm sales is set to return July 1 after the court dissolved the injunction blocking enforcement. iStock-1494671908

Virginia’s universal background-check mandate for private firearm sales is poised to return July 1 after a Lynchburg court unexpectedly dissolved the permanent injunction that had blocked enforcement statewide.

Gun Owners Foundation announced the setback Wednesday, warning that the fight is not over and condemning the mandate as a potential “backdoor gun registry.”

Unless an appellate court intervenes, Virginia State Police may resume processing background checks for private firearm sales on July 1. The reversal represents another major blow to Virginia gun owners already facing a sweeping ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines taking effect the same day.

Gun Owners Foundation announced the setback on X, stating that the injunction will remain in place only through June 30.

“Bad news out of VA: The judge in our case unexpectedly dissolved the Universal Background Check injunction, effective 7/1 despite previously declaring the law unconstitutional,” GOF wrote. “We’re not done. We will continue to fight against tyrannical attempts to create a backdoor gun registry.”

Bad news out of VA: The judge in our case unexpectedly dissolved the Universal Background Check injunction, effective 7/1 despite previously declaring the law unconstitutional.

We’re not done. We will continue to fight against tyrannical attempts to create a backdoor registry. https://t.co/WTvVb2JfOx

— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) June 24, 2026

Virginia’s Universal Background-Check Ban Is Back From the Dead

Unless an appellate court intervenes, Virginia State Police may resume administering and enforcing background checks on private firearm transfers beginning July 1.

The decision is the latest turn in Wilson v. Katz, formerly Wilson v. Hanley, a challenge brought by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, the Virginia Citizens Defense League and individual plaintiffs.

As AmmoLand previously reported, the case began after Virginia imposed background checks on nearly all firearm transfers in 2020. The mandate created a de facto handgun-purchase ban for adults ages 18 to 20. Virginia law allowed those adults to purchase handguns privately, but the federally controlled system used by dealers would not process those transfers.

In October 2025, the court concluded that Virginia Code §18.2-308.2:5 could not constitutionally be applied under that system. Rather than manufacture an illogical exception for younger adults, the court struck the act in its entirety and permanently enjoined its enforcement statewide.

The ruling allowed lawful private firearm transfers to proceed without government-mandated background checks, dealer fees or state-generated transaction records.

Virginia “Fixed” the Violation by Taking Away More Rights

Virginia’s new anti-gun government responded by attacking the rights of young adults instead of respecting the ruling. The General Assembly passed HB 1525, which raised Virginia’s minimum age for purchasing handguns and so-called “assault firearms” to 21. Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed it with an emergency clause on April 22.

Attorney General Jay Jones then argued that eliminating handgun-purchase rights for 18-to-20-year-olds had “fixed” the defect identified by the court and rendered the injunction unnecessary.

Virginia State Police attempted to restart private-sale background checks on May 27, before the court had dissolved its order. GOA and VCDL sought contempt sanctions. At a June 3 hearing, the court reaffirmed that the injunction remained binding, and State Police again stopped processing the checks.

July 1 Brings New Burdens for Virginia Gun Owners

That protection will now expire July 1.

This ruling does not end the litigation. It dissolves the existing injunction after Virginia changed the legal landscape by banning young adults from making the purchases that exposed the original law’s fatal defect.

For gun owners, the practical result is nevertheless serious. Private transactions will again be forced through government intermediaries, generating fees, delays and records that can become the foundation for firearm registration.

Virginia created a constitutional violation, lost in court, and then answered by taking away more rights. GOF has promised to keep fighting. Virginia gun owners should immediately expect an appeal, and another major battle over whether the government may turn private firearm ownership into a state-monitored privilege.

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/ysHxBug
via IFTTT