SCOTUS Once Again Punts On Duncan v. Bonta

SCOTUS Once Again Punts On Duncan v. Bonta img Jim Grant

In the realm of Second Amendment litigation, few cases have captured as much attention and endured as long a journey as Duncan v. Bonta. This challenge to California’s prohibition on standard-capacity magazines, defined as those holding more than 10 rounds, has ping-ponged through the federal courts for nearly a decade. As of February 2026, the case sits in limbo at the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly relisted for conference without a decision on whether to grant review. This pattern of delays underscores the justices’ cautious approach to post-Bruen gun rights cases, potentially signaling deeper divisions or strategic timing within the Court.

The origins of Duncan v. Bonta trace back to 2016, when California voters approved Proposition 63, which banned the possession of what the state called large-capacity magazines (LCMs).

The law was built on earlier restrictions that prohibited the manufacture and sale of such magazines, but allowed existing owners to keep them. Prop 63 went further, requiring owners to surrender, sell out of state, or destroy their LCMs, with criminal penalties for non-compliance. Proponents argued that LCMs facilitate mass shootings by enabling sustained fire without reloading. Opponents, including the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and individual plaintiffs like Virginia Duncan, contended that the ban infringes on the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense, as LCMs are commonly used in handguns and rifles for lawful purposes.

The litigation began in 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Judge Roger Benitez, a George W. Bush appointee known for his pro-Second Amendment rulings, struck down the ban in 2019, calling it an unconstitutional burden on law-abiding citizens. He emphasized that millions of LCMs are in circulation nationwide, estimates suggest over 100 million, and that they are “arms” protected under the Second Amendment. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in 2020, but the full en banc court reversed in 2021, upholding the ban under the then-prevailing “intermediate scrutiny” test. The en banc majority reasoned that the law advanced public safety without unduly restricting core Second Amendment rights.

This back-and-forth might have ended there, but the Supreme Court’s 2022 landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen reshaped the landscape. In Bruen, the Court rejected tiered scrutiny in favor of a history-and-tradition test: gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation to pass constitutional muster. Shortly after, the justices vacated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Duncan and remanded the case for reconsideration under the new framework.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Magpul PMAG GEN 2 MOE AR-15 30 Round Magazine (5 Pack) & 100 Rounds of PMC Bronze .223 Remington FMJ 55gr Ammo	The Mag Shack	$ 126.25 $ 89.99
	Magpul PMAG D-60 AR-15 .223 / 5.56 60-Round Polymer Drum Magazine	GunMag Warehouse	$ 119.99
	Magpul PMAG Minus 10 Round Limiter for 223/5.56 Magazines - Reduces Mag Capacity	Ammunition Depot	$ 13.99
	Magpul PMAG D-50 MP5 9mm 50 Round Drum Magazine, Black - MAG1181-BLK	Palmetto State Armory	$ 132.99 $ 118.99

On remand, Judge Benitez again invalidated the ban in September 2023, finding no historical analogue for prohibiting commonly owned magazines. He issued a permanent injunction, allowing Californians to possess LCMs freely during the appeal. The Ninth Circuit panel again affirmed, but the en banc court intervened again in March 2025, reversing the district court in a sharply divided 15-12 opinion. The majority held that LCMs are not “arms” but mere accessories, and even if they were, California’s ban aligns with historical regulations on dangerous weapons like Bowie knives or multi-shot firearms from the founding era. Dissenters, including Judges Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke, lambasted the decision as defying Bruen. Judge VanDyke, in a particularly scathing opinion delivered partly via video, accused the majority of recycling pre-Bruen reasoning under a historical guise.

With the en banc ruling in place, the plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari in August 2025. The petition poses two questions: whether banning possession of common ammunition-feeding devices violates the Second Amendment, and whether laws requiring divestment of lawfully acquired property constitute a constitutional taking. California Attorney General Rob Bonta responded, defending the ban as consistent with history. Amicus briefs poured in, including from 27 state attorneys general supporting the petitioners.

The case’s path at the Supreme Court has been marked by unusual delay. Initially distributed for the November 21, 2025, conference, it was rescheduled and then redistributed for December 5, December 12, January 9, January 16, January 23, and most recently, February 20, 2026. As of February 23, 2026, no decision has been announced following the February 20 conference, suggesting another relist may be forthcoming. The constant relisting indicates sustained interest without resolution.

Relisting, a practice in which a case is redistributed for a subsequent conference without action, is not uncommon but often signals that the justices are closely considering it. According to legal experts, relists can occur for various reasons: drafting a summary reversal, preparing a dissent from denial of cert, or awaiting developments in related cases. In Duncan’s case, the repeated relists may reflect internal debate over how to apply Bruen after the Court’s 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal gun ban for domestic abusers and clarified that regulations need not be identical to historical ones but analogous.

The Court may also be eyeing Duncan alongside similar challenges. Petitions in cases like Viramontes v. Cook County (Illinois assault weapons ban) and National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont (Connecticut LCM restrictions) are pending, some relisted as well. Analysts speculate the justices are selecting the best “vehicle” to address magazine bans broadly, given their prevalence in states like New York, New Jersey, and Washington. The delay could stem from strategic timing; with the 2025-26 term’s argument calendar nearly full, granting cert now might push arguments to the next term.

These relists have real-world implications. The district court’s injunction remains in effect, staying enforcement of California’s ban. Gun owners in the state can still possess LCMs, but uncertainty looms. If the Court denies cert, the ban could snap into place, forcing millions to comply or face penalties. A grant could lead to another major Second Amendment ruling, potentially invalidating similar laws nationwide and affirming that LCMs are protected “arms.” Critics of the ban argue it disproportionately affects law-abiding citizens, as criminals ignore such laws.

The prolonged relisting echoes other high-profile cases, like abortion or election disputes, where the Court treads carefully amid political sensitivity. The conservative majority, having expanded gun rights in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, may be weighing how far to extend protections. Dissenters like Justices Sotomayor and Kagan have criticized Bruen for unleashing chaos in lower courts.

As Duncan v. Bonta lingers, it exemplifies the Supreme Court’s deliberate pace on contentious issues. Whether the relists portend a grant, denial, or something else remains unclear.

Supreme Court Shake-Up? Alito Exit Could Hand Trump Critical 2A Appointment

Duncan v. Bonta: Supreme Court Poised to Decide the Future of Gun Rights

---

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 @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

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

GOA Backs West Virginia Bill to Allow State-Facilitated Machine Gun Transfers for Civilians

GOA Backs West Virginia Bill to Allow State-Facilitated Machine Gun Transfers for Civilians IMG Jim Grant

Gun Owners of America (GOA) announced its strong support for newly introduced legislation in West Virginia on February 20, 2026. The bill would establish state-run entities (like ABC stores in other states that sell liquor) to purchase and transfer fully automatic machine guns to qualified, law-abiding private citizens. This approach aims to utilize a specific exemption in federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), known as the Hughes Amendment, which has prohibited the registration of new machine guns for civilian ownership since 1986.

The press release from GOA, issued from its Springfield, Virginia headquarters, describes the proposal as a way to restore access to what supporters call constitutionally protected arms. It leverages language in the federal statute stating that the machine gun prohibition “does not apply with respect to … a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of” a state or its political subdivisions.

Under the bill’s framework, West Virginia would create authorized distribution centers. These state-operated facilities would acquire machine guns, potentially including newly manufactured ones, and conduct transfers “by” the state directly to eligible members of the public. Supporters contend this structure falls squarely within the statutory exception, allowing compliant transfers while complying with federal requirements such as background checks, the $200 National Firearms Act (NFA) tax stamp, and approval processes administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt emphasized the significance in a prepared statement: “For decades, Americans have been told that the 1986 machine gun ban permanently stripped them of access to modern arms. But Congress included an explicit exemption for transfers’ to or by’ a State, and that language matters. West Virginia is demonstrating that states have both the authority and the responsibility to defend the Second Amendment, restore parity between citizens and the government, and lead the way in dismantling unconstitutional federal overreach.”

Chris Stone, GOA’s Director of State Affairs, added: “The plain text of Section 922(o) makes clear that its prohibition does not apply to transfers conducted by a State. By carefully structuring this legislation within the existing statutory framework, West Virginia lawmakers are advancing a serious, legally grounded effort to vindicate the rights protected by the Second Amendment while exercising the State’s sovereign authority.”

The proposal draws on historical precedents for government-supplied arms to civilians. GOA points to the Militia Act of 1792, which required able-bodied men to equip themselves with military-grade weapons, and to periods of surplus military firearm sales to private citizens throughout U.S. history. Advocates argue that the Founding Fathers envisioned an armed citizenry capable of militia service, with access to arms comparable to those used by government forces.

The 1986 Hughes Amendment, attached to the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), closed the registry for new civilian machine guns after May 19, 1986. Only pre-1986 registered machine guns, roughly 200,000 to 300,000 transferable examples, remain legally available to civilians under the NFA process. These often command prices of $20,000 or more due to scarcity.

West Virginia has maintained a pro-Second Amendment legislative track record in recent years, including constitutional carry since 2016 and efforts to limit local gun restrictions. Related 2026 bills include House Bill 4185, which seeks to repeal the state’s own ban on machine gun possession (though federal law would still apply), and other measures like the Second Amendment Preservation Act (Senate Bill 850) and Second Amendment Reaffirmation and Protection Act variants that challenge federal overreach on intrastate firearm transactions.

If enacted, the GOA-backed measure could represent one of the most direct state-level challenges to the post-1986 civilian machine gun restrictions. Legal experts note that, while the statutory exemption exists, the ATF and the Department of Justice have historically interpreted § 922(o) narrowly, viewing state-facilitated transfers to private citizens as a potential circumvention of congressional intent. Such a program would likely trigger federal scrutiny, possible litigation, or enforcement actions.

Supporters say that qualified transfers would follow strict NFA protocols, including extensive vetting, and that law-abiding citizens should not face permanent disarmament relative to government entities that retain access to such firearms for law enforcement and military use.

GOA, a nonprofit lobbying group with millions of members and a reputation for an uncompromising stance on gun rights issues (often contrasting with more moderate organizations like the NRA), positions the West Virginia effort as part of a broader pushback against perceived federal infringements.

As of February 20, 2026, specific bill numbers, sponsors, or full legislative text for the state-transfer mechanism were not immediately detailed in public records beyond GOA’s announcement. The proposal arrives amid a busy 2026 West Virginia legislative session addressing various firearm-related measures, from concealed carry expansions for younger adults to broader preemption of federal gun laws.

The development underscores ongoing tensions between state sovereignty claims and federal firearms regulation. Whether West Virginia advances this novel approach and whether it withstands legal challenges could influence similar efforts in other gun-rights-friendly states.

West Virginia Introduces Bill to Repeal the State’s Machine Gun Ban

The Deadly Fraud of Forced Helplessness: Why “Gun-Free” Zones are a Gift to Killers

---

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 @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/gS8zhN6
via IFTTT

‘Non-Dangerous Felon’ Opinion Leaves More Immediate Danger Unresolved

Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. iStock-1135489412

“Christopher Morgan was convicted in Pennsylvania in 2007 after he was caught carrying a firearm without a state license. Fifteen years later, he was stopped by a Florida officer, whom he told of a pistol in the center console of his car,” Lee Williams notes in his opening summary to a report on “non-dangerous felons retain[ing] gun rights in Florida.”

“Morgan was charged in Florida with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,” Williams elaborates.  “He has no other criminal history.”

That a citizen exercising a clearly enumerated right can be adjudicated a felon and designated as a prohibited person, forever barred from keeping and bearing arms, shows how far the Founders’ Republic has strayed from the clear mandate “shall not be infringed.” Knowing that and still talking to police while admitting being in violation of such tyrannical edicts is another puzzler. It sounds like Morgan volunteered that information, along with the information that he was a “prohibited person.”

Florida does not have a statutory “duty” for a citizen to proactively inform police if he is armed, but state law does require a truthful answer if asked. In Morgan’s case, requiring such an answer would have required him to forfeit his Fifth Amendment-guaranteed rights. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on that in the case of Haynes v United States, where it decided that felons are essentially immune to National Firearms Act registration requirements applicable to everybody else, because to require them to admit they were in violation for possession would require them to self-incriminate. Similarly, requiring a citizen to answer if armed in a “no-guns zone” would have the same effect. That will make for an interesting challenge when it happens.

But the bottom line is Morgan’s case moved forward under “pro-gun” Republican Attorney General (now U.S. Senator) Ashley Moody. And he’s rightfully fighting it. Now, enter the current AG, who made an interesting observation in the State of Florida’s Notice Regarding Its Position and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief that some could consider a comment on his predecessor.

Acknowledging “It is the Attorney General’s duty to represent the State in criminal appeals before this Court,” Uthmeier adds an interesting qualifier:

“It is … the Attorney General’s duty to admit when he believes the State has obtained a conviction in violation of the Constitution. Indeed, although the Attorney General ‘ordinarily’ defends state law, he must also ‘exercise conscientious judgment’ in the discharge of his duties.”

He also made an interesting point about non-violent and violent felons being lumped together:

“The State previously filed an answer brief taking the position that Appellant Christopher Morgan was properly convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On further reflection, the Attorney General is of the view that the conviction violated Morgan’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Properly understood, the Second Amendment permits the government to dispossess felons whose convictions indicate that the felon is dangerous, but not merely all felons as a categorical matter.”

What Uthmeier’s opinion does not address is the disconnect between ineffective sentencing practices and reality. Put simply, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. He has proven himself dangerous to others through his crimes.

The late Robert J. Kukla made a brilliant observation in his 1973 classic, Gun Control, equating the release of violent misfits from prison with opening the cage of a man-eating tiger and expecting a different result.

If it has been proven that a known predator is a danger, how is it responsible for government, charged with protecting life, freedom, and property, to allow such a menace to have access to the rest of us before it can be established that he is no longer a threat? (And which scientific experts have the demonstrable, repeatable ability to give that assurance?) Does anyone think he couldn’t victimize others with something else, or with no weapon at all (the FBI says more people are killed with fists and feet than with all types of rifles)? Or, noting routine headlines from places like Chicago and Baltimore, that he couldn’t get a gun regardless of any laws?

As the Bureau of Justice Statistics notes in a 2019 prisoner survey:

“[M]ore than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.”

Making the issue about who is not “allowed” to own guns because they’re dangerous misses the real issue. They’re dangerous without guns, too. Why wouldn’t such proven menaces be separated from society (after being afforded real “due process,” with all appropriate protections of course) until and unless they can be trusted not to attack people?

As for the non-violent convicts, Uthmeier is spot on, noting “the lack of historical evidence supporting the dispossession of all felons.” But as for “the strong historical evidence supporting the disposition of dangerous felons,” it will be interesting to see him present what he’s got, and to note how many were either never let out or hanged after their Sixth Amendment-guaranteed “right to a speedy and public trial.”  Text, history, and tradition tell us people at the time of ratification weren’t big on waiting 30 years for justice to play out and then paying for a gourmet “last meal.”

As for federal prohibitions resulting from state convictions, 18 U.S.C. § 921acknowledges:

“What constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. Any conviction which has been expunged or set aside or for which a person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes of this chapter, unless such pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.”

The Department of Justice has cleverly gotten around appropriations limitations imposed by the “Schumer Amendment” that defunded ATF from working on rights restoration, by rescinding ATF’s delegation for that responsibility. Still to be determined is the criteria that the department will use, which it has to date declined and resisted to define, and is fighting in court to keep from disclosing to gun owners.

---

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.

---

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

CPRC Study Examines Transgender Representation in Active Shooting Attacks

Opinion

Red Flag Mental Health Watch List Mass Murder iStock-1050228748

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), created by John Lott, has published research on the ratio of active shooting attacks by people who are mentally confused about their gender identity, commonly referred to as “transgender.”  In 2024, according to the CRPC research, transgender individuals were 12 times as likely to commit an active shooting attack compared to the population as a whole.

In 2024, Politifact published an article claiming that mass shootings by transgender people is a small number of all mass shootings. As the CPRC research points out, this does not tell us if people who identify as transgender are more or less likely to engage in mass murder or attempted mass murder than the population at large. As is common in discussions of violence and statistics, the way you define the variables makes all the difference in how the numbers shake out.  Considering broad definitions of “terrorism” or “gun violence” will give a significantly different result than considering more precise definitions of active shooting attacks or mass killing. Another important variable is what time frame is considered.

The variables most important to determine if transgender people are over-represented in active shooting attacks are the total number of active shooting attacks, the number committed by transgender people, and the percentage of transgender people in the population as a whole. The numbers can be refined by looking at specific population subgroups if there is sufficient data. All of these numbers can be manipulated by changes in definition. When conducting statistical research, it is extremely important to use precise definitions.

The research published by the CRPC does a good job of carefully defining the numbers it uses and the definitions that are used. The CRPC study examines both active shooting and mass killing with the traditional FBI definitions. It uses estimates of the percentage of transgender people in the population from the Centers for Disease Control, a Gallup survey in 2021, and the Census.  The numbers vary from .5% to 1% in the period studied. The numbers appear to be rising. The study only looks at the period from 2018 through 2024. The study does not speculate about the causes of the increase in the percentage of people who identify as transgender.

The CRPC study also looks at the age distribution of transgender individuals, finding that most active shooters in this category are concentrated in age groups younger than 30 years old. The CRPC study cites research showing transgender people have much higher levels of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts, about 10-20 times higher than the rest of the population. That is not 10-20%. It is about 10 times the percentage of people considering suicide than the general population. It is about 20 times the percentage of attempted suicides compared to the percentage attempting suicide in the general population.

The research by the CRPC is a welcome counterpoint to articles that work hard to show people who identify as transgender as less violent than non-trans people.  The CRPC research does not examine the motives of people involved in active shooting incidents.

Analysis: It is not surprising that a population that takes significant amounts of powerful drugs, who are not happy with their bodies, who attempt suicide at 20 times the percentage of the population as a whole, could commit crimes against society at much higher levels than the general population.

---

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/qKgAGTc
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Shake-Up? Alito Exit Could Hand Trump Critical 2A Appointment

Opinion

As Rumors Spread About Justice Alito’s Retirement, We Look at Potential Replacements. iStock-1020504756

In the corridors of Washington, D.C., whispers of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s potential retirement have grown into a roar. At 75 years old and marking 20 years on the bench, Alito’s upcoming book release on October 6, 2026, just one day after the start of the Court’s new term, has fueled intense speculation that he may step down to ensure his conservative legacy endures under President Donald Trump’s second term. With Republicans holding the Senate majority ahead of the 2026 midterms, the timing appears strategic: a retirement now could allow Trump to appoint a like-minded successor before any potential shift in Senate control.

Alito’s Role in Bruen and the Modern Second Amendment Framework

Alito, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006, has been a cornerstone of the Court’s conservative wing, particularly on issues like gun rights. His input in the landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen revolutionized Second Amendment jurisprudence, striking down New York’s restrictive concealed-carry laws and establishing a history-and-tradition test for evaluating gun regulations. This ruling has led to a wave of lower-court decisions invalidating various gun control measures, from assault weapon bans to age restrictions on firearm purchases. Alito’s retirement would create an opportunity to solidify or potentially alter this pro-gun trajectory, depending on his replacement.

Why 2026 Timing Matters Politically

The political landscape in 2026 adds urgency to the speculation. Trump’s administration has prioritized judicial appointments, having already reshaped the federal judiciary with over 200 conservative judges in his first term. With no current vacancies on the Supreme Court, attention has focused on Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, both in their mid-to-late 70s, as likely to retire while Republicans control the confirmation process. Analysts suggest Alito’s book timing signals a desire to avoid the Court’s busy October docket, allowing him to promote his work post-retirement while ensuring a successor who aligns with his originalist views on the Constitution, including robust protections for gun owners.

Gun rights advocates are particularly attuned to this development. Alito’s input in the Bruen opinion emphasized that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry firearms for self-defense outside the home, invalidating laws without historical analogues from the Founding era. This has empowered challenges to modern gun laws, leading to rulings against bans on high-capacity magazines and restrictions on “ghost guns.” A replacement who deviates from this stance could tip the balance in future cases, such as ongoing disputes over red-flag laws or assault weapon prohibitions. Conversely, a staunch conservative could extend Bruen’s reach, further limiting state-level gun control efforts.

Best 2A Judges to Replace Alito?

Amid the buzz, three names have emerged as top contenders to replace Alito, each with strong conservative credentials and ties to Trump’s judicial philosophy. These potential nominees, Fifth Circuit Judges James Ho and Andrew Oldham, and D.C. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, have demonstrated varying degrees of commitment to expansive Second Amendment interpretations, as reflected in their judicial records, writings, and advocacy.

Judge James Ho

First among the frontrunners is Judge James Ho, 51, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appointed by Trump in 2017, Ho has quickly established himself as one of the most vocal defenders of Second Amendment rights on the federal bench. In United States v. Rahimi, before the Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit, Ho wrote a concurrence strongly criticizing any perceived erosion of Bruen’s history-and-tradition framework. He has repeatedly emphasized that the Second Amendment must be interpreted according to its original public meaning, rejecting what he calls “living constitutionalism” approaches to gun regulation.

Ho’s writings and speeches outside the courtroom further underscore his commitment to gun rights. He has criticized lower courts for what he views as resistance to Bruen and has advocated for broad protections of carry rights, including in public spaces. Gun rights organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) have praised his record, viewing him as someone who would not only preserve but potentially expand upon Alito’s legacy in this area. At 51, Ho would also bring decades of potential service to the Court, making him an attractive long-term pick for conservatives hoping to lock in a pro-Second Amendment majority.

Judge Andrew Oldham

The second leading contender is Judge Andrew Oldham, also 51, another Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit (confirmed in 2018). Oldham shares Ho’s originalist bent and has authored several opinions applying Bruen’s test rigorously. In United States v. Rahimi, Oldham joined the majority striking down the federal ban on firearms possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders, reasoning that the government failed to show a sufficient historical analogue. Although the Supreme Court later reversed that ruling in 2024, Oldham’s opinion demonstrated a strict adherence to the history-and-tradition methodology that Alito helped establish.

Oldham has also shown skepticism toward expansive interpretations of federal gun laws, particularly those that rely on modern policy concerns rather than Founding-era evidence. In cases involving bump stocks and other firearm accessories, he has pushed back against administrative overreach by agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Second Amendment advocates see Oldham as a reliable vote to continue limiting government restrictions on firearms, especially in challenges to state-level bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles often labeled “assault weapons.” His youth and judicial experience make him another strong candidate for a multi-decade tenure.

Judge Neomi Rao

Rounding out the top three is Judge Neomi Rao, 52, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Appointed by Trump in 2019, Rao previously served as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and has deep ties to the conservative legal movement. While her record on gun rights is less extensive than Ho’s or Oldham’s, given the D.C. Circuit’s docket, Rao has shown sympathy toward Second Amendment claims in several key cases.

In Worth v. Harrington, Rao joined a panel that applied Bruen to strike down Maryland’s ban on certain semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines, finding no adequate historical tradition justifying the restrictions. She has also written separately in other cases to stress the importance of textualism and originalism when interpreting constitutional provisions, including the right to keep and bear arms. Gun rights groups have noted her willingness to scrutinize government justifications for firearm regulations, and her administrative law background could prove valuable in future challenges to ATF rulemakings.

Rao’s confirmation would mark another milestone for diversity on the Court, as she would be only the third woman of South Asian descent to serve if confirmed. Her relative youth and prior experience in the executive branch also align with Trump’s preference for appointees who have demonstrated loyalty to conservative principles across government branches.

Cementing the Post-Bruen Majority

All three candidates, Ho, Oldham, and Rao, represent a continuation of the Trump-era judicial philosophy that produced Bruen and subsequent pro-gun decisions. Each has passed the history-and-tradition test, a framework that has already invalidated dozens of gun control laws nationwide. Their elevation would likely reassure Second Amendment supporters that the Court’s 6-3 conservative majority remains committed to protecting individual firearm rights against both state and federal encroachments.

Of course, speculation about Alito’s retirement remains just that, speculation. The justice has given no public indication of an imminent departure, and some observers caution that he may choose to remain on the bench through at least the 2028 election cycle. Still, the combination of his age, the strategic timing of his book, and the political incentives for a Republican Senate majority has kept the conversation alive.

For gun rights advocates, the stakes could not be higher. A near-term retirement would offer President Trump a rare chance to cement the post-Bruen landscape before any shift in Senate control or public opinion. Whether the replacement is Ho, Oldham, Rao, or another conservative jurist, the focus will remain on who can best carry forward, or perhaps even expand, the vision of a robust, historically grounded Second Amendment that Alito helped enshrine.

Duncan v. Bonta: Supreme Court Poised to Decide the Future of Gun Rights

Newsom Opposes Voter ID Laws, but Ignores Far Worse Abuses in California for CCW Permits

---

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 @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

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

Honolulu Police Department Responds to Request for Approved Firearm Instructors

Honolulu Police Department Responds to Request for Approved Firearm Instructors. Image generated with AI

“In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Hawaiʻi Legislature made significant changes to our state’s firearms laws,” Hawaii Firearms Coalition noted Feb. 13. “Among those changes was a requirement that firearm instructors in Hawaiʻi be approved by the county police departments.”

“Shortly after the law took effect, the Honolulu Police Department implemented its instructor approval process,” the post continued. “For a brief period, a list of approved instructors appeared on HPD’s website. Then, without explanation, it disappeared.”

This created a dilemma for Hawaii’s gun owners, the post explained, because it “left residents seeking lawful training with no independent way to confirm who was approved.”

HPD declined to provide a list, citing privacy concerns, the post elaborated. A formal request filed under the state’s Uniform Information Practices Act resulted in a list being shared, but “it was oddly redacted,” HFC claimed.

“Now, nearly two years later, we have requested the list again,” HFC announced, filing “another request under the Uniform Information Practices Act to obtain the current list of approved instructors.”

AmmoLand Shooting Sports News has amassed a comprehensive archive of enacted gun laws and initiated legal proceedings for Hawaii over the years, and this development is arguably of interest not just to Hawaiian gun owners, but to all, as what happens in one state is often tried in another, and ultimately such issues may end up being resolved (or ignored) in the federal court system. As such, this correspondent sent the following inquiry to the Honolulu PD:

Hawaii Firearms Coalition is telling its members a list of approved instructors has been taken down from HPD’s website.

They say residents seeking lawful training have no independent way to confirm who was approved and that HPD will not provide a list citing privacy concerns.

I am requesting a for-the-record comment for publication on HPD’s position on this and how firearm owners can make sure training they get complies with state approval and training mandates.

HPD sent the following response on Wednesday:

Please see the response below provided by Assistant Chief Carlene Lau.

Hawaii Firearms Coalition is telling its members a list of approved instructors has been taken down from HPD’s website. They say residents seeking lawful training have no independent way to confirm who was approved and that HPD will not provide a list citing privacy concerns. What is HPD’s position on this?

The HPD has not in the past, nor does it currently, publicly post a listing of verified firearm instructors for several reasons, including that HPD is prohibited from advertising private businesses. Additionally, the list is not published to protect the privacy of instructors and to prevent potential liability or confusion caused by a list that changes frequently due to new applicants, verifications expiring, and revoked verifications. 

How can firearm owners make sure the training they get complies with state approval and training mandates?

HPD is committed to transparency and recognizes the importance of those seeking lawfully required training from a verified instructor.  Anyone requesting assistance from HPD with locating a verified instructor is informed to:

• Use a search engine
• Check social media
• Get a referral from a 2nd Amendment advocate group
• Ask the instructor for a copy of their letter of verification from HPD

A list of instructors’ names and what they are verified to teach is also available upon request.

In a directly related development, HFC issued an update Tuesday:

“The Honolulu Police Department has responded to our UIPA request and provided Hawaii Firearms Coalition with the current list of instructors approved by the Chief of Police.”

A list, current as of Feb. 17, is included in that update, with the note that the list “changes on a weekly basis depending on when and/or if the instructor status of the named individuals [is] set to expire.”

Newsom Opposes Voter ID Laws, but Ignores Far Worse Abuses in California for CCW Permits

Adamiak Remains Behind Bars, Guiltless but Ignored by the Trump Administration

---

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.

---

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

Nondangerous Felons Retain Gun Rights in Florida

Nondangerous Felons Retain Gun Rights in Florida, iStock-1324734605

Christopher Morgan was convicted in Pennsylvania in 2007 after he was caught carrying a firearm without a state license. Fifteen years later, he was stopped by a Florida officer, whom he told of a pistol in the center console of his car. Morgan was charged in Florida with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He has no other criminal history.

Before his trial in Florida, Morgan’s defense team made a motion that the state firearm law, 790.23, is “unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him.” However, the trial court denied his motion. Morgan then pleaded no contest to the felon in possession Florida charges but appealed his conviction. He was sentenced to two days in jail and court costs.

Last week, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a response to Morgan’s appeal, which said that his conviction for possessing a firearm by a felon violates the Second Amendment.

AG Uthmeier actually agreed with Morgan’s legal team.

“On studied reflection, the Attorney General has concluded that the conviction does indeed infringe Morgan’s right, as a nondangerous felon, to keep and bear arms,” Uthmeier wrote. “The state must therefore confess error and urge this Court to reverse.”

In the court document, Uthmeier spells out that he is Florida’s “Chief Legal Officer,” and that he swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

“It is thus the Attorney General’s duty to admit when he believes the State has obtained a conviction in violation of the Constitution,” he wrote.

If the court permits him to file a brief for this case, Uthmeier’s team wrote, he will “discuss the lack of historical evidence supporting the dispossession of all felons as distinct from the strong historical evidence supporting the dispossession of dangerous felons.”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier. (Photo from Florida Attorney General’s Office.)

Solid Second Amendment history

This is not the first pro-gun move Florida’s Attorney General has made. In fact, the list is getting long.

Uthmeier recently intervened in a teen’s criminal case by asking a state appeals court to uphold the defendant’s right to carry—a move that even the anti-gun media admitted was a victory for Floridians’ gun rights. The issue involved a 1987 state law, which bars 18, 19 and 20-year-olds from carrying concealed firearms.

In September of last year, Uthmeier ended a Florida state law that criminalized open carry. He did it with a single post on X.

Once Florida’s First District Court of Appeals ruled the state’s open carry ban was unconstitutional in McDaniels v. State of Florida, Uthmeier posted an important announcement.

“I’m issuing guidance to Florida’s prosecutors and law enforcement in light of the 1st DCA’s decision in McDaniels v. State,” Uthmeier posted on X. “Because no other appellate court has considered the constitutionality of Florida’s open carry ban since the SCOTUS decision in Bruen, the 1st DCA’s decision is binding on all Florida’s trial courts. Meaning that as of last week, open carry is the law of the state.”

Uthmeier first joined Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as deputy general counsel in 2019. Within a year he became general counsel. One year later, DeSantis appointed him chief of staff. Last year, when DeSantis appointed Attorney General Ashely Moody to replace Senator Marco Rubio, he appointed Uthmeier to replace Moody as the state’s 30^th Attorney General.

Reaction

Eric Friday is general counsel for Florida Carry, Inc. He has been a pro-gun attorney in Florida for more than 20 years.

“James Uthmeier is the most intellectually honest Attorney General we’ve ever had in Florida, while I have practiced law in the state,” Friday said Thursday morning. “The real question going forward will be a process for people who want a determination of whether their prior conviction is still problematic.”

Florida’s clemency process, Friday said, has been broken for years. There are long delays after applications are submitted. Many states have a judicial restoration process, but Florida does not.

“That is the only path we have in Florida currently to restore felons in their right to bear arms,” he said. “New York has a better restoration process for felons to be able to bear arms than Florida.”

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

West Virginia Introduces Bill to Repeal the State’s Machine Gun Ban

New York Times Returns to Old Playbook in Attack on Lake City Ammunition

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

---

from https://ift.tt/YE0WN3l
via IFTTT