After Hemani, Bruen’s History and Tradition Test Has a New Target

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hemani makes one thing harder for gun-control advocates to avoid: under Bruen, the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. IMG Jim Grant

Ever since the Supreme Court established the “History and Tradition” test in its 2022 Bruen decision, America’s legal landscape has been undergoing a seismic re-evaluation. Under this standard, any modern gun control law is presumed unconstitutional unless the government can prove it aligns with a historical analogue from the founding era.

Because centuries of American law were not built with this exact strict historical formula in mind, dozens of well-established federal, state, and local gun control measures are currently in danger of being struck down.

The primary gun restriction acts, categories, and mandates facing constitutional collapse under the history and tradition test reveal a shifting landscape.

1. State “Assault Weapon” and High-Capacity Magazine Bans

Perhaps the most high-profile battleground involves state-level bans on semi-automatic rifles (like the AR-15 platform) and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Ten states and Washington, D.C., currently have these restrictions, but multiple challenges (Bianchi v. Brown, Duncan v. Bonta) are stacked at the Supreme Court’s doorstep.

The History Test Problem: Under the first step of the Bruen test, courts look at whether the hardware in question constitutes “Arms” in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Because millions of AR-15 style rifles are owned nationwide, they easily clear Step 1.

The Missing Analogue: When moving to Step 2, states have struggled to find a founding-era equivalent. The closest analogues governments have produced are 19th-century bans on Bowie knives or concealed pocket pistols. However, gun rights advocates successfully argue that those historical laws targeted specific concealment methods of weapon carry, not a flat ban on owning an entire class of popular, standard-sized rifles and feeding devices.

2. The Blanket Federal Felon Disarmament Ban (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1))

For decades, federal law has maintained a lifetime, blanket ban prohibiting anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison from ever owning a firearm again. This applies universally—whether the crime was violent armed robbery or a non-violent corporate tax freeze, mail fraud, or selling smuggled goods.

Following the Supreme Court’s strict approach in United States v. Hemani, which struck down the federal gun ban for regular marijuana users because historical “drunkard laws” didn’t support it, the blanket felon ban is highly vulnerable to “as-applied” challenges.

The History Test Problem: Historians point out that the founding generation did not have a sweeping, automatic, lifetime ban on gun ownership for all felons.

The True Analogue: Historical laws from the 1700s only disarmed specific groups deemed actively dangerous to the public or rebellious against the state (such as British loyalists during the Revolution). Consequently, the federal government is finding it nearly impossible to prove a historical tradition of permanently disarming someone for a non-violent, modern-day felony like driving an unregistered vehicle or filing fraudulent tax paperwork.

3. Mandatory “Waiting Periods” for Firearm Purchases

Several states require a mandatory waiting period—typically between 3 to 10 days—between the time a citizen buys a firearm and when they can legally take it home. While designed as a “cooling-off” period to prevent impulsive acts of violence, these laws are facing a massive historical reckoning in federal appeals courts.

The History Test Problem: The text of the Second Amendment protects the right to “keep and bear” arms. Delaying a law-abiding citizen’s ability to “keep” an item they just legally purchased directly burdens that right, moving the case to the historical phase.

The Absolute Absence of History: There is virtually zero historical footprint for a purchase waiting period in early American history. In 1791, if you had the money to buy a musket or flintlock pistol, you took it home immediately. States have attempted to argue that the time it took to travel to a store or manufacture a weapon acted as a natural “delay,” but courts are increasingly rejecting these reaches, noting that logistical constraints are not the same as an intentional, government-mandated restriction on a constitutional right.

4. State “Sensitive Places” Coverages (The Private Property Default)

Following the Bruen ruling, several restrictive states shifted tactics. Instead of denying carry permits altogether, they passed sweeping “sensitive places” laws. The most controversial is the private-property default rule (currently being challenged in the Supreme Court case Wolford v. Lopez), which automatically outlaws concealed carry inside any private business open to the public unless the owner posts a explicit sign welcoming guns.

The History Test Problem: While the Supreme Court acknowledged that historically “sensitive places” like courthouses or polling stations could be protected, expanding that definition to blanket entire municipal maps fails the history test.

The Analogy Twist: States like Hawaii and New York have attempted to justify these laws by citing 19th-century anti-trespass laws. However, those historical laws were aimed at stopping armed intruders from entering private domestic estates, homes, and plantations. There is a glaring lack of an American tradition where the government dictates that a public-facing grocery store, blacksmith, or tavern must be a default “no-gun zone.”

Summary of Vulnerable Firearms Regulations

As courts continue to scrub the history books to satisfy the Bruen and Rahimi frameworks, the message is clear: if a gun regulation cannot trace its genetic lineage back to early American tradition, its days on the modern books are numbered.

---

About Sean Maloney

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

---

from https://ift.tt/eSJMvC4
via IFTTT

Victor Davis Hanson Says a 1987 Threat Made the Second Amendment Personal

Victor Davis Hanson’s defense of the Second Amendment is not merely academic. In a Dec. 6, 2025 episode of Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words, the historian and Hoover Institution senior fellow recalled a late-night confrontation at his family farm that he says permanently shaped his view of armed self-defense. The episode was published under the title “Why Alvin Bragg Refuses To Recognize the Awesome Power of the Second Amendment.”

Hanson is best known as a classicist, military historian, and conservative public intellectual. The Hoover Institution has described him as the author or editor of 24 books and hundreds of articles, editorials, and book reviews. But in the episode, Hanson’s argument for the right to keep and bear arms turned on something more personal than scholarship: a night in 1987 when, according to Hanson, three men threatened him and his family.

In the video, Hanson explains why the authorities in the criminal justice system in “blue” states do not want people to be able to protect themselves.

If people can protect themselves, they are less dependent on the state criminal justice system. If people can protect themselves, it is not as important if the criminal justice system decides who is worthy of protection and who is not. People have a chance to protect themselves. In short, Hanson tells us that more power in the hands of individuals means less power in the hands of the State. He admonishes Alvin Bragg and pointedly tells him this is the purpose of the Second Amendment.

From the video:

“… because as long as you are allowed to defend yourself, everything else falls in place. You have no control over people if they have Second Amendment rights.”

Hanson discusses the murder of Iryna Zarutska. He says no one was willing to get involved, probably because they see examples where prosecutors go after individuals who stop crimes, such as Daniel Penny in New York. Then he reveals a story this correspondent had not heard before.

At about 17:30 into the video, he relates how he used his great-grandfather’s 16-gauge pump shotgun to stop an attack on his family in 1987 or 1988. He describes the shotgun as a Winchester pump in 16 gauge with an exposed hammer. This is probably a Winchester 1897 shotgun, because the earlier 1893 Winchester was not made in 16 gauge. He calls it an “1892”. On well used shotguns, the 1897 can look like 1892. Later models of Winchester pump shotguns did not have exposed hammers.

Victor was sitting in his farm house, the same house he grew up in, in 1987. At 2 a.m. his eight year old son came down stairs and said someone was throwing rocks at his window and yelling.

Outside Victor found three individuals who were armed and threatened him. Fortunately Victor was armed with his shotgun.

When confronted, one armed gangbanger fell to his knees and started praying. Victor forced them to take him to their car. He took their keys, and had them push the car about a quarter mile down the road. He threw the keys into a vineyard and told them the police were on their way.

More than 30 minutes later, the police showed up. Officially they said he should not have done what he did. Unofficially, they told him he did the right thing. Later the police department contacted him, informed him one of the three had just been released from prison, but they could not prosecute because the three denied doing anything, and they did not find any firearm.

From that day on, Victor Davis Hanson had a strong, personal understanding of the importance of the Second Amendment.  The story finishes about 20:50 on the video.

An old joke says: A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. Once a person uses rights protected by the Second Amendment to protect themselves and their loved ones, respect for the Second Amendment becomes personal.

---

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.

---

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

Virginia Gun Ban Faces Five Lawsuits as July 1 Deadline Nears

Virginia’s SB 749 firearm and magazine ban faces five court challenges ahead of its July 1 effective date. iStock-2281848109

Virginia’s sweeping ban on the future acquisition of commonly owned semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines is facing five separate lawsuits as its July 1 effective date rapidly approaches.

Two of those cases, Crump v. Katz and Santolla v. Katz, have preliminary-injunction hearings scheduled for June 25. A third court has already denied emergency relief, while a three-judge panel considers whether Virginia’s four state-court challenges should be transferred or consolidated.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s SB 749 / HB 217 prohibits the future importation, sale, manufacture, purchase and transfer of firearms Virginia labels “assault firearms.” It separately prohibits importing, selling, bartering, transferring or purchasing ammunition-feeding devices capable of accepting more than 15 rounds. SB 727 expands restrictions on carrying covered firearms in public.

The five cases are McDonald v. Katz, Santolla v. Katz, Crump v. Katz, Black v. Hook and Curtis v. Katz. Together, they challenge the laws under the Second Amendment, Virginia’s constitutional right to arms, its militia clause, the right to hunt and constitutional protections against vague criminal laws.

McDonald v. Katz: Federal Second Amendment Challenge

McDonald v. Katz is the federal case. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by Justin McDonald, Anthony Groeneveld, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation. The defendants include Virginia State Police Superintendent Jeffrey Katz and several local prosecutors and sheriffs.

The plaintiffs’ argument is the straightforward Heller/Bruen argument: semiautomatic rifles, pistols, shotguns, and standard-capacity magazines are bearable arms commonly possessed by peaceable Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense.

The complaint argues that arms in common use cannot be “dangerous and unusual,” and therefore cannot be banned.

The plaintiffs also acknowledge the reality of the Fourth Circuit: current circuit precedent in Bianchi and Kolbe is a problem, but they argue those cases were wrongly decided and should be overruled by a court with the power to do so.

Santolla v. Katz: NRA/VSSA State Case

Santolla v. Katz is the NRA-backed state case in Washington County Circuit Court. Plaintiffs include Joseph Santolla, Reagan Brooke Adams, Middletown Firearms, Middletown Training, Virginia Pride Ltd., individual VSSA members, and the Virginia Shooting Sports Association.

The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s Article I, Section 13 right to keep and bear arms is coextensive with the Second Amendment. In plain English, they are saying Virginia cannot ban commonly owned semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines any more than the federal government could. Their complaint leans on DiGiacinto, Heller, and Bruen, arguing that the Commonwealth is prohibiting arms and magazines commonly possessed for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

The business plaintiffs matter. This is not just about private owners. Middletown Firearms, Middletown Training, and Virginia Pride allege direct harm from a law that cuts off sales, training, and customer access to the arms and magazines at issue.

Crump v. Katz: GOA/VCDL Challenge

Crump v. Katz was filed in Lancaster County Circuit Court by AmmoLand contributor John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation. It challenges SB 749 / HB 217 and SB 727 under the Virginia Constitution.

The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s new laws ban the acquisition, transfer, manufacture, purchase, and public carry of firearms and magazines that are owned by millions of ordinary Americans. They rely on Article I, Section 13 and the Virginia Supreme Court’s prior treatment of that right as coextensive with the Second Amendment. Their position is simple: if the arms are common, the state cannot turn them into contraband through scary labels and feature tests.

Crump also directly challenges the public-carry restrictions in SB 727. That makes it different from some of the other cases, because it attacks not only the right to acquire arms but also the right to bear them in public. The plaintiffs opposing consolidation noted that only Crump and Santolla challenge Virginia Code § 18.2-287.4, the public-carry provision.

Status: The Lancaster case was initially stayed after the Supreme Court of Virginia appointed a three-judge panel to consider consolidation or transfer. However, the preliminary-injunction hearing has since been rescheduled for June 25, giving the Crump plaintiffs another opportunity to seek relief before the ban takes effect July 1.

State rebuttal: Virginia’s opposition in Crump lays out the Commonwealth’s broader playbook. On the merits, Virginia argues magazines are accessories, not arms; that “assault firearms” and magazines over 15 rounds are not commonly used for lawful self-defense; and that historical laws regulating dangerous weapons support modern restrictions. The state also says the burden is modest because Virginians may still own other firearms and smaller magazines.

That is the government’s theory. Your rights are not violated so long as politicians leave you with something they consider acceptable.

Black v. Hook: NSSF-Backed Industry Case

Black v. Hook is the NSSF-backed case in Fauquier County Circuit Court. Plaintiffs include Eric Black, Britton Condon, Clark’s Gun Shop, Optimus Arms, and Hexmag USA. This case brings in individual gun owners, a retailer, a firearm manufacturer, and a magazine manufacturer.

The plaintiffs argue the ban violates both the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution. NSSF says the law does not merely hit modern sporting rifles and standard-capacity magazines; it also sweeps up commonly owned handguns and shotguns used for self-defense and hunting. The plaintiffs point to more than 32 million modern sporting rifles in circulation and hundreds of millions of magazines over 15 rounds, arguing those numbers make the common-use question obvious.

Black also raises claims that are not duplicated in the other cases. According to the Crump plaintiffs’ opposition to transfer, Black uniquely includes an independent federal Second Amendment claim, an Article XI, Section 4 Virginia right-to-hunt claim, and federal and state vagueness claims aimed at the law’s catchall definition of “assault firearm.”

Currently, the case is included in the state consolidation/transfer fight. NSSF reported that the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction and requested a hearing before the July 1 effective date.

Curtis v. Katz: Militia-Clause Case

Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli serves as lead counsel in Curtis v. Katz. Cuccinelli has described the case as a novel challenge centered on the Virginia Constitution’s militia clause, arguing that the Commonwealth cannot require citizens to constitute its unorganized militia while denying them access to militia-suitable arms.

The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s Constitution does not merely protect an abstract right to own whatever arms Richmond allows. It guarantees “a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms.” Their theory is that this guarantee must mean the people can acquire and possess militia-suitable arms. They argue the banned AR-15-pattern rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms are civilian analogs of the M4 carbine and other standard service weapons, and that magazines over 15 rounds are standard equipment, not luxury accessories.

The plaintiffs also turn the state’s own exemptions against it. If law enforcement and government users need these firearms and magazines, the argument goes, then the Commonwealth has already admitted they have militia and defensive utility.

Status: This is the one case where a court has already ruled on emergency relief. On June 18, Spotsylvania Circuit Judge William E. Glover denied the preliminary injunction. That does not end the case, but it means Curtis did not stop the July 1 effective date.

State rebuttal: Virginia argued the injunction was too broad and that Article I, Section 13 does not create a self-executing private right for members of the unorganized militia to buy and possess military-style arms. The state says militia power is implemented through public law and government structure, not individual choice.

The court found likely irreparable harm if the law is later ruled unconstitutional, but held that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits at this stage.

What Comes Next

If no court acts before July 1, Virginia’s ban takes effect while gun owners, dealers, trainers and manufacturers keep litigating.

The state wants the public to believe this is not a serious infringement because it is not confiscation. That is wrong. A ban on buying, selling, transferring, manufacturing, importing and carrying common arms still guts the right.

The five lawsuits attack Virginia’s ban from different angles: federal Second Amendment rights, Virginia constitutional rights, public carry, militia arms, vagueness, hunting, commerce and industry harm.

Richmond can call them “assault firearms.” Gun owners know what they are: common rifles, pistols, shotguns and magazines used by law-abiding Americans for defense, training, competition, hunting and lawful use.

This fight is not over.

---

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/b6v4k9P
via IFTTT

SAF Lawsuit Targets Contra Costa County Ban on Red Dots, Weapon Lights and 1911 Pistols

SAF is challenging Contra Costa County’s CCW restrictions on red dots, weapon-mounted lights, and SAO 1911/2011-style pistols.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a federal lawsuit challenging Contra Costa County, California, over three concealed-carry bans that strike at common defensive handguns and accessories: red dot sights, weapon-mounted lights, and single-action-only 1911/2011-style pistols.

SAF says the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office bars local CCW permit holders from carrying handguns equipped with red dots or mounted lights and separately bans SAO 1911- and 2011-style pistols from being carried under county-issued permits.

These are ordinary tools millions of Americans use to carry responsibly. Red dots help shooters make accurate hits. Weapon lights help identify threats before a trigger is pressed. The 1911 platform is one of the most proven defensive handguns in American history. The complaint calls red dots and lights “popular, safety-enhancing attachments,” and that is exactly what they are.

The lawsuit names Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff David Livingston in his official capacity. SAF is joined by two Contra Costa County residents and carry permit holders, Andrew Moore and James Treuel. Both men say they are legally licensed, both want to carry handguns with modern defensive features, and both are blocked by the sheriff’s policies.

According to the complaint, Moore is approved to carry a Sig Sauer P365 Legion and a Smith & Wesson 2.0. Treuel is approved to carry a Sig Sauer P365 and an HK USP Compact. The problem is that the county’s rules stop them from adding red dots or lights to those carry guns. Even though those features are common among armed citizens and law enforcement.

From Contra Costa County Sheriffs CCW Application Instructions. Found on Step Five: Training, Weapons and Range Qualification tab.

SAF Says Contra Costa CCW Rules Violate Bruen and Heller

SAF’s constitutional argument is direct: Contra Costa’s policies violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments under District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under Bruen, the government does not get to ban common arms or accessories simply because a local official dislikes them. Once the conduct is covered by the Second Amendment, the government must point to a historical tradition supporting the restriction. SAF says Contra Costa cannot do that.

The complaint says the county’s bans have “no textual or historical pedigree” and represent “novel schemes developed in recent years or decades.” That is the heart of the case. Contra Costa is not enforcing some founding-era rule. It is creating a modern permission-slip regime that tells peaceable citizens they may carry only the county-approved version of a defensive handgun.

Kostas Moros, SAF’s Director of Legal Research and Education, put the issue plainly.

“Contra Costa County is the only jurisdiction in America that forbids law-abiding CCW permit holders from using red dot sights, firearm-mounted lights, or carrying the venerable 1911 platform,” said Moros. “These are common, popular and safety-enhancing features and firearms used by millions of Americans and even adopted by multiple California law enforcement agencies. There is zero historical tradition supporting these restrictions, and they cannot survive scrutiny under Bruen.”

That last line is the one Contra Costa will have to answer in court. Where is the historical tradition of banning citizens from carrying a handgun because it has a better sighting system? Show me the founding-era analogue for prohibiting a mounted light that helps identify a threat in the dark? How about the constitutional basis for banning a 1911-style pistol, a platform carried and trusted for more than a century?

California CCW Permit Holders From Other Counties Get More Freedom

The strangest part of the policy may be the resident-versus-visitor problem. SAF points out that California CCW permits are valid statewide. That means a permit holder from another California county can travel through Contra Costa County with a red dot-equipped pistol, a weapon-mounted light, or an SAO 1911/2011 pistol. But a Contra Costa resident with a Contra Costa permit is barred from carrying the same setup.

In plain English, Contra Costa treats its own residents worse than visitors. The complaint says the policies “single out Contra Costa County residents whose rights are hobbled by these unconstitutional policies.” That is not public safety. That is bureaucratic discrimination against the very citizens the sheriff’s office is supposed to serve.

Contra Costa’s CCW Policy Shows Post-Bruen Resistance

This case also highlights how far local governments will go after Bruen to preserve discretionary gun control. When they can no longer deny ordinary citizens the right to carry outright, some officials look for new ways to make carry less useful, less practical, and less effective. A right to carry should not become a right to carry only the least modern, least capable setup a sheriff’s office will tolerate.

SAF is asking the federal court for declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal damages, and attorney’s fees. SAF wants the court to declare the bans unconstitutional, stop Contra Costa officials from enforcing them, recognize that rights were violated, and require the defendants to pay the costs of forcing citizens into court.

Contra Costa County residents should not have to surrender red dots, weapon lights, or proven 1911-style pistols to exercise a constitutional right. The Second Amendment does not stop at the county line, and neither should the right to carry effective defensive arms.

---

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/5JSPBKe
via IFTTT

Feds Lost Young Adult Handgun Ban Case – Now Gun Groups Want the Full Win

SAF and FPC are asking the Fifth Circuit to expand an injunction against the federal handgun ban for law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20. iStock-1528484408

The federal government lost its defense of the handgun ban for young adults in the Fifth Circuit, declined to appeal that loss to the Supreme Court, and is now attempting to preserve as much of the unconstitutional restriction as possible.

The Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association filed an opening brief on June 22, asking the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to correct a district court injunction that protects only a fraction of the organizations’ affected members.

The case, now captioned FPC v. ATF and formerly known as Reese v. ATF, concerns the federal ban preventing federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns and handgun ammunition to law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20.

Although young adults may acquire handguns through limited alternative means, the federal government bars them from using the principal lawful commercial market available to other adults. SAF and FPC properly describe that restriction for what it is: a federal handgun purchase ban targeting young adults.

Young Adults Already Won

In January 2025, a unanimous three-judge Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the federal handgun ban for young adults violates the Second Amendment.

The court held that 18-to-20-year-old adults are among “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected. It also found that the government produced “scant evidence” of any comparable Founding-era restriction. That should have ended the matter.

The federal government could have petitioned the Supreme Court to review the decision, but it declined. The case instead returned to the district court for entry of judgment consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.

That is where the government began fighting over who would receive the benefit of the victory.

The district court eventually entered an injunction protecting only members of the plaintiff organizations who live in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi, the three states within the Fifth Circuit. The injunction also covers only people who were members when the judgment was entered on January 27, 2026.

Every other affected SAF and FPC member remains subject to a federal handgun ban already held unconstitutional in litigation brought by their own organizations.

“What the government has said outright here is ‘we acknowledge that the Fifth Circuit has held the law to be unconstitutional, but we want to still enforce it against almost everyone,’” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said. “The government has done everything possible to keep disenfranchising thousands of adults through ridiculous demands on the plaintiff organizations, all to no avail.”

That blunt assessment accurately captures the government’s position. It lost on the Second Amendment but still wants to deny most successful plaintiffs any meaningful relief.

An Injunction Designed to Disappear

The January 27 membership cutoff makes the judgment even more absurd. Because the case concerns 18-to-20-year-olds, every person presently protected by the injunction will eventually turn 21. As those members age out, the protected population will steadily decline until the injunction provides relief to virtually no one.

Meanwhile, young adults who later join SAF or FPC will remain subject to the same unconstitutional ban.

The appellants argue that this arbitrary expiration mechanism defeats the purpose of associational standing. Organizations are allowed to sue on behalf of their members precisely because forcing every injured individual to file a separate lawsuit would be costly, inefficient, and unnecessary.

The Fifth Circuit previously allowed the organizations to establish their continuing standing by identifying a new member after the original individual plaintiffs turned 21. It makes little sense to recognize changing membership to keep the lawsuit alive, then deny relief to similarly situated members who join later.

Nationwide Relief Is Not Universal Relief

The government has attempted to place the requested injunction under the politically loaded label of a “universal injunction.” The appellants explain why that characterization is wrong.

SAF, FPC, and LSA are not asking the court to prohibit enforcement against every person in the United States. They are requesting protection for their affected members, the people on whose behalf they brought and won the case.

The Supreme Court made the distinction clear in Trump v. CASA. A universal injunction protects everyone, including nonparties. A traditional party-specific injunction may operate nationwide while protecting only the parties before the court.

In other words, the critical question is whom the injunction protects, not where those people live.

SAF and FPC have members throughout the country. Limiting relief to three states leaves the victorious organizations and most of their affected members without a complete remedy.

The government cannot escape a judgment simply because members of the organizations it lost to live outside the Fifth Circuit.

Government Wants a Paper Victory

The appellants warn that preserving the district court’s limitations would encourage repetitive litigation. Gun-rights organizations could be forced to file the same lawsuit in multiple jurisdictions and return to court repeatedly as young members age out and new members join.

That would waste judicial resources while allowing the government to keep enforcing an unconstitutional law.

“We have been fighting this absurd handgun purchase ban on adults who are 18-20 years old for more than half a decade now,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said. “There is no doubt adults in this age range are part of ‘the People,’ and it’s high time the government stopped fighting the inevitable.”

“The Trump Administration is fighting as hard as it can to continue violating the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. Even though the Fifth Circuit already held that these bans are unconstitutional, the government is trying to limit the decision’s reach so it can keep disarming peaceable adults across the country.” FPC President Brandon Combs said. “This is how the United States government celebrates 250 years of American independence—by acting like the tyrants we defeated. FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue Fighting Forward until this ban is eliminated and the rights of all peaceable adults are fully restored.”

The organizations are asking the Fifth Circuit to remove both limitations and protect every affected member, regardless of residence or when that person joins.

Young adults already won the constitutional argument. The federal government should not be permitted to turn that victory into a judgment that protects almost no one and eventually expires on its own.

---

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/BA2ln7q
via IFTTT

Pepper Spray Fails, Armed Texas Woman Shoots Ex During Alleged Home Attack

Fort Worth police say the woman tried pepper spray before shooting her alleged attacker. iStock-2234846058

A Fort Worth woman reportedly turned to her firearm after pepper spray failed to stop an ex-boyfriend who allegedly entered her home without permission and attacked her.

Fort Worth police responded to the 5500 block of Hidden Creek shortly after 7 a.m. on Saturday, June 13. The woman had called 911 and reported that she had shot someone inside her home.

According to police accounts provided to WFAA and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the woman’s former boyfriend entered the residence without her permission and began physically assaulting her.

She initially attempted to defend herself with pepper spray. When that failed to stop the alleged attack, she drew a firearm and opened fire, striking the man three times.

Emergency personnel transported him to a hospital in critical condition. Police have not publicly identified either person, and no updated information about the man’s medical condition was available as of June 22.

Authorities also have not announced any charges against the woman.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Springfield Armory Echelon 4.5F U-Notch Comp 9mm Luger Pistol 4.5" Barrel 10+1-Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 662.99
	Springfield Armory Echelon 9mm Optic Ready Pistol with Compensator - Black - 15rd - 4.5"	Primary Arms	$ 679.99
	Springfield Armory Echelon 9mm 4.50" 10rd Pistol, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 725.99 $ 653.99
	Springfield Armory Echelon 4.5F U-Notch Comp 9mm Luger Pistol 4.5" Barrel 15+1-Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 693.99

Pepper Spray Reportedly Failed to Stop the Attack

The shooting remains under investigation, meaning several important facts have not yet been released. Police have not disclosed how the man entered the home, whether the woman had previously obtained a protective order or whether investigators recovered other evidence supporting her account.

Reports describe a woman facing an unauthorized intruder and alleged attacker inside her own home. It also demonstrates why firearms remain an indispensable equalizer for people facing larger or stronger assailants.

Gun-control advocates often tell Americans that they should rely on police or use some supposedly less dangerous method of resistance. This woman reportedly tried exactly that. She used pepper spray before resorting to her firearm. It apparently did not stop the attack.

Pepper spray can be useful, but no defensive tool is guaranteed to work. An attacker may fight through it, avoid the spray or continue an assault before its effects become debilitating.

Police Cannot Arrive Before Every Attack

Police cannot be expected to arrive before every violent encounter unfolds. In this case, officers responded after the woman had already been forced to make that decision herself.

Texas law generally allows deadly force when someone reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to prevent death, serious bodily injury or certain violent crimes. State law also provides significant protections when an attacker unlawfully and forcibly enters an occupied home. Whether those protections apply will ultimately depend on facts established by investigators and prosecutors.

The basic lesson is difficult to ignore. The woman reportedly attempted to use pepper spray, but the alleged assault continued. Her firearm gave her another option when the first one failed.

A restraining order, locked door or canister of pepper spray may provide some protection. But when an attacker refuses to stop, a firearm may be the only tool capable of ending the threat before it is too late.

---

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/WQBuCTr
via IFTTT

After Hemani, Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’ Faces a Bruen Reckoning

The Supreme Court’s Hemani ruling may influence how the justices evaluate Hawaii’s default ban on licensed carry in Wolford v. Lopez. iStock-2281848066 (L) iStock-1367537836 (R)

If you want to understand how firearms laws survive or die in America today, you have to throw out the old way of thinking. Courts are no longer allowed to balance public safety against individual rights. Instead, under the landmark Bruen standard, the Supreme Court uses a strict “History and Tradition” test.

Think of this test as a two-step formula. First, does the plain text of the Second Amendment protect the person and what they are doing? If yes, the burden shifts entirely to the government. To keep a modern gun law on the books, the government must dig through American history (specifically around 1791 or 1868) and prove that the Founders had a well-established, similar regulation. If there is no historical twin or close cousin, the modern law is unconstitutional.

The Drug User Gun Ban (United States v. Hemani)

In a striking 9-0 unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court completely upended how federal gun laws apply to regular drug users, using cannabis as the primary example.

The Real-World Scenario

Imagine a person living in a state where recreational marijuana is legal. On a Friday night, they sit at home watching TV, completely sober. Upstairs in their nightstand, they keep a licensed handgun for self-defense and a small amount of marijuana.

Under the old rules: Because federal law bans any “unlawful user” of a controlled substance from possessing a firearm, this person was automatically committing a serious federal felony, even while sitting completely sober in their own living room.

How the History Test Blew It Up

The federal government tried to save the law by pointing to 18th-century “habitual drunkard” laws, arguing that the Founders restricted heavy drinkers from having guns. But the Supreme Court unanimously dismantled that comparison:

Active Impairment vs. Flat Bans: The Founders only regulated guns when someone was actively dangerous or publicly intoxicated (e.g., “You cannot fire a gun in town while drunk”).

The Verdict: The Court found absolutely no historical tradition of stripping sober citizens of their constitutional rights just because they occasionally or regularly use an intoxicating substance. Because the historical analogy failed, the modern blanket ban was ruled unconstitutional as applied to Hemani.

Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule” (Wolford v. Lopez)

With Hemani decided, the Court is turning this exact same history test toward Hawaii’s controversial “sensitive places” law, which treats public-facing businesses as default “no-gun zones.”

The Real-World Scenario

You are a law-abiding citizen with a valid concealed carry permit running errands. You pull into a gas station, walk into a pharmacy to pick up a prescription, and grab dinner at a local diner.

Under Hawaii’s Law: The moment you step onto the property of the gas station, pharmacy, or diner, you are automatically committing a crime unless that business has put up a sign explicitly saying, “Guns Allowed.” If there is no sign, it is a default criminal “No.”

How the History Test Applies Here

Hawaii is defending its law by pointing to 19th-century anti-trespass laws that banned people from carrying guns onto private plantations or farms without permission.

Commercial vs. Domestic Space: Gun rights advocates point out that the historical test requires looking at the intent of the old laws. 1800s trespass laws were meant to protect enclosed, private, domestic lands from intruders, not commercial businesses that throw their doors wide open to invite the general public in to spend money.

The Expected Verdict: If the court applies the history test as strictly as they did in Hemani, Hawaii’s rule will likely fail. While a private business owner always retains the right to put up a “No Guns” sign, the government cannot create a sweeping, default-closed setting for every public-facing business on the map.

Summary Comparison

250 Years of Freedom: A Patriotic Defense of the Second Amendment

This strict focus on “History and Tradition” isn’t just a dry academic exercise for lawyers; it is a vital shield safeguarding the fundamental liberties of every American. As our nation marks its historic 250th anniversary this year, we are reminded that the United States was born from a fierce, unyielding devotion to individual freedom.

When the Founders drafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776, they declared that our rights come from our Creator, not from the grace of a government. And when they ratified the Bill of Rights, they placed the Second Amendment right alongside freedom of speech and religion for a profound reason: the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is the ultimate guarantor of a free state.

As the Supreme Court holds the line against government overreach, these rulings ensure that the core tenets of American liberty survive intact. A quarter-millennium after our founding, the truth remains simpler than ever: a nation cannot remain truly free if its citizens are systematically disarmed. Embracing our heritage means protecting the absolute right of the people to defend their lives, their families, and their communities.

---

About Sean Maloney

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

---

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