Old Dominion Terror Attack Exposes the Myth of Gun Tracing, iStock-945999932
The gun used in the terror attack on Old Dominion University was a stolen .22 caliber handgun that uses 10-round magazines. The pistol was untraceable for two common reasons. First, the gun was stolen. This breaks any chain of custody. A trace only goes to the first retail purchaser. When a gun is stolen, there is no link from the legal purchaser to the thief. From apnews.com:
The man charged Friday, Kenya Chapman, told federal agents in an interview that he stole the gun from a car in Newport News, Virginia, about a year before the shooting and recently sold it to Jalloh, according to an affidavit filed in court. Chapman said he met Jalloh at work and that Jalloh told him he needed the gun for protection as a delivery driver, the affidavit says.
The second reason the pistol was untraceable was that the serial number was partly obliterated. From unionbulletin.com:
Jalloh was still on supervised release from a 2017 prison sentence — and barred from carrying firearms — when he barged into an Army ROTC classroom at Old Dominion University on Thursday morning.
He was carrying a loaded Glock 44 .22-caliber pistol with a partially obliterated serial number, according to the newly filed court documents in U.S. District Court in Norfolk.
When a firearm’s serial number is obliterated or altered, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to trace. There are other common reasons why the firearms tracing system is almost never used to solve crimes of violence. The most common reason gun traces are not useful for solving violent crimes is that they are seldom found at the scene of the crime. When guns are found at the scene of a violent crime, they are often found with the person who used them, as happened in this case. When the person who used the firearm is already known, a trace does nothing to solve the crime.
Another common reason firearms become untraceable is their age. Once a firearm is more than ten years old, tracing becomes difficult. Guns are sold, change hands through estates, are given, traded, and stolen, as was the gun in this case. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the United States that are more than 10 years old. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in the United States that are untraceable. In 1987, almost 30 years ago, there were 198 million privately owned firearms in the United States.
The investigators in the Old Dominion Islamic terrorist attack did not find the person who sold the pistol to the terrorist through the tracing system. They found him through an analysis of the terrorist’s telephone records. It has become harder and harder to do anything without leaving an electronic trail that can be unwound.
The entire firearms tracing system is obsolete and cost-ineffective.
Registration systems are even more expensive and intrusive than the failed gun “tracing” system in the United States.
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.
A Springfield Armory Hellion semi-automatic rifle. Minnesota lawmakers are advancing legislation that would ban many rifles with similar features, including detachable magazines and pistol grips. IMG Jim Grant
The battle over the Second Amendment in Minnesota escalated dramatically on March 13, 2026, when the state Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee passed SF 3655, a comprehensive ban on semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines. The vote was 6 to 3, with all six Democrats supporting the measure and all three Republicans opposed. The bill now advances to the Senate Finance Committee, bringing Minnesota one step closer to enacting some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.
The MN Gun Owners Caucus, the largest gun rights organization in the state, immediately sounded the alarm on social media. In a tweet posted after the vote, the organization announced that the “SEMI-AUTO & MAG BAN PASSES SENATE JUDICIARY” and urged supporters to take action, sign petitions, and donate to fight the bill’s progress. The Caucus also reported that it had been blocked from testifying at the hearing, with committee staff telling them the schedule was “full” even as anti-gun groups were given time slots. The organization bluntly called this “rigging the hearing.”
SEMI-AUTO & MAG BAN PASSES SENATE JUDICIARY
Next stop: Senate Finance
SF 3655, authored by Senator Zaynab Mohamed of Minneapolis and introduced last month, targets semi-automatic rifles that accept a detachable magazine and have one or more features such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks, flash suppressors, or threaded barrels. This language effectively covers most modern sporting rifles, including AR-15 style platforms. The bill also bans all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.
The bill’s provisions extend far beyond a simple prohibition. Owners who possessed a banned firearm before August 1, 2026, may apply for a state-issued certificate of ownership from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension by February 1, 2027, at an unknown fee that must be renewed every three years. Perhaps most controversially, law enforcement may inspect a registered owner’s home for safe storage compliance without a warrant. Registered firearms may only be kept at the owner’s home or at a licensed firing range, effectively banning their use for hunting on public land. The firearms cannot be sold, gifted, or even inherited by family members. Violations constitute a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $25,000 fine.
Gun rights organizations have mounted fierce opposition. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action stated that SF 3655 “bans commonly owned gas-operated semiautomatic firearms and magazines in excess of 10 rounds, directly violating the Second Amendment’s ‘common use’ standard.” The organization also noted it would “become a crime to use any banned firearms for the purpose of hunting in the state.”
The National Shooting Sports Foundation published a detailed analysis calling the legislative push a politically motivated package lacking voter or crime data support. The NSSF stressed that modern sporting rifles, with over 32 million in civilian circulation, clearly meet the commonly possessed for lawful use standard established by the Supreme Court. On the magazine ban, NSSF estimated there are at least 717,900,000 such magazines in consumer hands, calling politicians’ reasonable compromise framing “blindly unsubstantiated at best and grossly misleading at worst.”
The Sportsmen’s Alliance called the bills “a direct assault on the tools and rights sportsmen use to put food on the table and to manage our state’s wildlife.” They highlighted that the use restrictions amount to a de facto hunting ban, since even registered firearms are confined to private property or a licensed range.
The MN Gun Owners Caucus argues the bill violates the Second Amendment’s common use standard established in D.C. v. Heller and reinforced by NYSRPA v. Bruen. The Caucus has announced a 2026 Rally to Defend the Second Amendment at the Minnesota State Capitol Rotunda on April 11, 2026. With the Minnesota House split 67 to 67 under a power-sharing agreement, the bill’s path through the full legislature remains uncertain. But gun owners across the state are preparing for what they see as the most significant threat to their constitutional rights in a generation.
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
Hollow point ammunition is the most commonly used self-defense handgun ammo in the United States and is at the center of a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s carry restrictions. iStock-944927240
A coalition of gun owners and Second Amendment advocacy organizations is asking a federal court to strike down New Jersey’s long-standing restriction on hollow point ammunition, arguing the law violates the Constitution and fails the historical test required by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, is being brought by New Jersey gun owner Heidi Bergmann-Schoch along with the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, Gun Owners of America (GOA), and Gun Owners Foundation. The plaintiffs are challenging New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(f)(1), which criminalizes possession of what the state calls “hollow nose or dum-dum” bullets in most public settings.
The plaintiffs recently filed a memorandum supporting summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the law is unconstitutional without requiring a full trial.
At the center of the dispute is a New Jersey law dating back to 1978 that bans ordinary citizens from carrying hollow point ammunition in public for self-defense. While residents may possess hollow points in limited circumstances, such as inside their homes or at shooting ranges, the state prohibits their use for everyday defensive carry.
The lawsuit argues that this restriction stands in direct conflict with modern Second Amendment precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“This case involves a constitutional challenge to New Jersey’s atextual and ahistorical ban on the transportation and carrying of widely available and commonly owned hollow point self-defense ammunition,” the plaintiffs wrote in their filing.
New Jersey, often considered one of the most anti-gun states, is an outlier with their hollow point law. Banning hollow point ammunition is widely regarded as one of the most idiotic and draconian firearm regulations in the United States.
Under the statute, possession of hollow point ammunition outside a narrow set of exceptions can be charged as a fourth-degree crime. Conviction can carry penalties of up to 18 months in prison and fines reaching $10,000.
The law does include limited exceptions. Residents may keep hollow point ammunition in their homes, transport it from the place of purchase, or use it at shooting ranges and while hunting. But the law does not allow licensed handgun carriers to carry commonly used ammunition in public for self-defense.
According to the plaintiffs, that prohibition effectively forces New Jersey gun owners to carry less effective ball ammunition in their defensive firearms.
The lawsuit relies heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which dramatically reshaped how courts evaluate firearm regulations.
Under Bruen, governments must demonstrate that firearm laws are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation. Modern policy arguments about public safety are no longer sufficient.
The brief argues that New Jersey cannot meet that burden.
“The Framers never restricted the types of ammunition people could carry,” the filing states. “The same is true of the Reconstruction generation, which saw the introduction of conical bullets, brass cartridges, and thereafter hollow point ammunition, but never banned any of it for public carry.”
According to the plaintiffs, there is no historical precedent for banning specific types of ammunition for defensive carry.
The document points out that hollow point bullets were introduced in the late 1800s, but were not banned in New Jersey until nearly a century later. That gap, they argue, undermines any claim that the restriction reflects a longstanding American tradition.
The lawsuit also addresses a question that has become increasingly important in Second Amendment litigation: whether ammunition is protected under the Constitution in the same way as firearms themselves.
The plaintiffs argue the answer is clearly yes.
Courts have repeatedly recognized that ammunition is protected by the Second Amendment. “Without bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless,” the brief notes while citing prior court decisions recognizing the obvious link between firearms and ammunition.
The filing further argues that bullets themselves fall within the historical definition of “arms,” since they are the projectile used in defensive weapons.
“Hollow point bullets are quite literally the ‘thing … cast at [and which] strike another,’ being projectiles which are fired from firearms in self-defense,” the plaintiffs wrote. “Thus, just as previous generations understood ‘bows and arrows’ to be “Arms,” so too are ‘firearms and bullets’ today.”
Ammunition is necessary to make firearms functional. The lawsuit contends that restrictions on ammunition must be treated as restrictions on arms themselves.
Another central argument in the case is the Supreme Court’s “common use” standard established in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that ruling, the Court held that weapons commonly used by Americans for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense, are protected under the Second Amendment.
The plaintiffs argue that hollow point ammunition clearly meets that definition. Interestingly, the lawsuit uses the approximate number of 200,000 stun guns in Caetano and compares that to the widespread and much more common use of hollow point bullets by not only civilians but also government and state agencies. Clearly, if 200,000 stun guns fall under common use, then the same must apply to hollow point ammo.
“Hollow point bullets are the most common bullet for law enforcement and civilian self-defense,” the brief states, emphasizing that they are widely available and widely used across the United States.
Retailers and manufacturers routinely market hollow point ammunition specifically as defensive ammunition. According to the lawsuit, this reflects a nationwide consensus among gun owners and law enforcement agencies about the effectiveness of the design.
Hollow point bullets are designed to expand upon impact, reducing the risk of over-penetration and increasing the likelihood of stopping a threat quickly. For that reason, many police departments issue hollow point ammunition as standard equipment. Gun owners across the country prefer the use of hollow point ammunition for those same reasons.
The plaintiffs argue that banning such ammunition for civilians while allowing it for police undermines the right to armed self-defense.
The lawsuit includes both individual and organizational plaintiffs. Heidi Bergmann-Schoch, a New Jersey resident and firearms instructor, says she regularly carries a handgun for self-defense but avoids carrying hollow point ammunition due to the state law. According to the filing, she would immediately begin carrying hollow points if the law were struck down.
The advocacy organizations involved in the lawsuit say they represent thousands of members affected by the restriction across the state.
The plaintiffs are seeking summary judgment, asking the court to rule that the law violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and permanently block its enforcement. If the court agrees, the decision could invalidate one of New Jersey’s worst firearm restrictions.
The case also has the potential to influence other legal challenges involving ammunition regulations and the broader scope of the Second Amendment after Bruen.
As courts across the country continue to apply the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, we will continue to see an erosion of the years of bad laws that states, such as New Jersey, have passed. For now, the question before the federal court is straightforward: whether a state can prohibit law-abiding citizens from carrying the most widely used self-defense ammunition in America.
Patrick “Tate” Adamiak is starting his third year of a 20-year prison sentence even though he committed no crime. (Photo courtesy Adamiak family).
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under President Donald J. Trump is now focused solely on arresting violent criminals—armedbadguys—not turning law-abiding gun owners into felons. That promise came from President Trump’s new ATF Director, Robert Cekada.
Unlike those Joe Biden picked to run the ATF, Cekada is not an outsider. He is a 20-year ATF veteran, and before that worked at the NYPD and two other local law enforcement agencies. His selection received strong backing from the country’s firearm community, which still hopes he can de-weaponize the powerful agency and stop targeting good folks who have done nothing wrong.
While Cekada’s new goal is certainly laudable, the ATF still faces a massive problem: What to do about the law-abiding gun owners who were falsely targeted and imprisoned by Joe Biden’s ATF, like Patrick “Tate” Adamiak.
Adamiak was a gun collector who only sold legal gun parts. He had no previous criminal history until a paid ATF informant—who was facing his own felony charges—falsely reported that Adamiak had a Mk-19 grenade launcher. The informant’s lies led to a search warrant and ridiculous charges.
Adamiak’s legal dispute centers on whether the ATF falsely classified replicas, inert training devices, display artifacts and unregulated gun parts as firearms under federal law.
Adamiak has already served more than three years of his 20-year federal prison sentence, even though he did nothing wrong. We have published more than 30 stories describing his innocence and how he was framed by the ATF after they found nothing illegal in his home.
Let’s return to Director Cekada. What is he supposed to do about Adamiak and the others whom his agency falsely charged and illegally imprisoned? How can he help these innocent Americans who were targeted by Joe Biden’s out-of-control ATF?
Here are some suggestions. Each one falls within Director Cekada’s authority. Each one could help Adamiak obtain some relief.
Order a new technical review of the evidence seized during the search warrant of Adamiak’s home. The reports would clearly show whether the evidence met the statutory definitions that prosecutors relied upon to get their conviction.
Send a letter to the Department of Justice regarding the prosecution, which outlines ATF’s concerns about how the government’s evidence may have been fabricated by ATF’s own staffers.
Endorse Adamiak’s bid for a pardon because of the false evidence presented during his trial.
Send a letter to Adamiak’s sentencing court explaining how the methods used by the prosecution were not consistent with ATF’s enforcement practices.
Send a letter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Department of Justice leadership agreeing to support Adamiak’s bid for relief, emphasizing that while the issues arose under the previous ATF leadership, the current ATF leadership strongly supports correcting them.
It is definitely time for ATF new leadership to take responsibility for Adamiak’s false arrest, fictitious prosecution and undeserved incarceration. If the ATF ever wants to become a respected federal law enforcement agency, they need to admit and correct their previous mistakes. They simply can no longer be ignored. ATF’s current leadership needs to do the right thing.
Patrick “Tate” Adamiak did nothing wrong. Each second he spends behind bars is undeserved and reflects poorly upon those who put him there, which was the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, regardless of who was in charge.
It is now time to see what, if anything, ATF current leadership is willing to do about it.
Robert Cekada testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing to lead the ATF. Screenshot via Senate Judiciary Committee video.
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.
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.
Gun-Free School Zone Act Challenge: Ninth Circuit Reverses Montana Indictment, iStock-1432295648
A deadly terrorist-linked shooting at Old Dominion University on Thursday has reignited questions about campus gun bans after an attacker opened fire inside an ROTC classroom before allegedly being stopped by a cadet who confronted him with a knife.
The attack occurred on March 12, 2026, inside Constant Hall on the Old Dominion University campus in Norfolk, Virginia. Authorities say the suspect, identified as 36-year-old Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, entered the classroom and asked whether it was an ROTC class. When someone confirmed it was, he opened fire.
A retired military officer, who was instructing the class, was shot and later died from his wounds. Two ROTC cadets were also injured during the attack but survived.
The violence was reportedly stopped by ROTC cadets who rushed the attacker and fatally stabbed him during the struggle, preventing further bloodshed. Officials say the cadet’s actions likely saved lives.
Terror-Linked Suspect
The suspect had a concerning history long before Thursday’s attack. Jalloh was a former member of the Army National Guard who had previously pleaded guilty in 2016 to attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State terrorist organization. He was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison in 2017 and was released inexplicably early in December 2024.
Federal authorities are now investigating the shooting as a possible act of terrorism.
The attacker is reported to have specifically targeted the ROTC class, raising further concerns about motive and whether the military affiliation of the victims played a role in the attack.
Anti-Gunner’s Immediately Blame the Gun
Since the attack, Norfolk’s Commonwealth Attorney Ramin Fatehi has blamed guns for the shooting at Old Dominion. The question is: what law would have prevented today’s incident?
Jalloh was a felon in possession of a firearm; he was previously charged with helping a terrorist organization. Reports say Jalloh was a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Sierra Leone in West Africa who was later radicalized. He was convicted to 11 years in prison for working with a terrorist organization and was then released from prison early.
The real question should be why he was out on the street at all.
Most importantly, ODU maintains a strict weapons policy that bans firearms as well as certain knives from civilian possession on campus. Students and teachers are effectively disarmed, while violent criminals can walk onto campus without a second thought about a campus ban.
Fatehi and other anti-gunners will look over all those facts and blame firearms and the cult of the gun.
Norfolk’s Soros-funded Commonwealth Attorney Ramin Fatehi blames Republicans and the “cult of gun absolutism” for the shooting at Old Dominion.
Like many colleges and universities across the country, Old Dominion maintains strict restrictions on firearms and other weapons on campus.
Under university regulations and the Virginia Administrative Code, the possession or carrying of weapons by anyone other than police officers is prohibited in academic buildings, residence halls, administrative offices, and university events.
The policy applies even to individuals who legally possess firearms or hold concealed carry permits. In practical terms, this means the campus functions as a gun-free zone.
Criminals, of course, do not obey such rules.
Carry Everywhere
AmmoLand readers know the only option is to carry everywhere that you can and always be prepared. The events at ODU and many other incidents highlight the insanity of gun-free zones and the necessity of armed citizens. The ROTC cadets who confronted the attacker did so at enormous personal risk, using the only means available during the chaotic moments of the attack. Their actions stopped the shooter before additional victims could be killed.
The incident highlights a hard truth about so-called gun-free zones: while they disarm law-abiding citizens, they do nothing to stop determined attackers.
When violence erupts, the first line of defense is often not law enforcement arriving minutes later, but the people already on the scene.
On Thursday at Old Dominion University, one of those people stepped forward. Because of that decision, the death toll was likely far lower than it might have been.
Photos released by state media in North Korea recently showed dictator Kim Jong Un standing at a shooting range with senior officials, personally test-firing a newly produced pistol from one of the country’s light-munitions factories. The images, first reported by international outlets including the Associated Press and CBS News, quickly circulated around the world.
But what caught the attention of many observers was not just the handgun itself. Standing next to Kim and firing the same pistol was his teenage daughter, widely believed to be Kim Ju Ae. Her appearance at the range continues a pattern of increasingly public appearances at military demonstrations, missile launches, and weapons inspections that analysts believe could signal she is being introduced as a future successor to the regime.
According to North Korean state media reports, Kim visited a factory responsible for producing pistols and other light arms for the country’s military and security forces. During the visit he reportedly inspected production lines and then moved to an indoor range where he fired the newly produced handgun at targets.
The official report praised the pistol as a successful design and described Kim as expressing satisfaction with its performance. State media also quoted him calling for expanded production capacity and modernization of small arms manufacturing facilities to better equip the country’s armed forces.
The images show Kim and his daughter wearing similar jackets as they fire the pistols side by side, with military officials observing. The daughter is clearly seen shooting the handgun in several photos. Both the father, the daughter, and the generals are seen closing one eye while firing the pistols. Notably, they did not provide eye protection for their glorious leader.
North Korea has a long history of copying or adapting foreign handgun designs.
One of the most common service pistols historically used by the regime is the Type 68, a locally produced clone of the Soviet Tokarev TT 33. Chambered in the powerful 7.62×25 cartridge, the Tokarev pattern pistol has been used by numerous communist states since World War II.
Another domestic design is the Type 70 pistol, introduced around 1970. This handgun appears to borrow heavily from European designs such as the Walther PP and the FN Model 1910. It is typically chambered in .32 ACP and issued to officers and security personnel.
More recently, North Korea has produced a pistol often referred to as the Baek Du San. This handgun strongly resembles the Czech CZ 75 design, a popular double action service pistol that has been widely copied around the world.
Because the regime rarely releases technical specifications, most of what the outside world knows about these firearms comes from captured examples or close analysis of propaganda photos.
The handgun Kim fired during the factory visit has not yet been officially identified. State media simply described it as a “new pistol” that recently entered production.
The available photos show a modern-looking semi-automatic handgun, but the images are not clear enough to confirm its design lineage. It could be an updated version of an existing domestic pistol or an entirely new pattern. There is no apparent slide cut for a red dot optic. Modernization might still be a few decades behind in this instance.
Analysts who study North Korean weapons will likely continue scrutinizing the images for clues about the slide shape, controls, and overall profile in hopes of identifying its origins. For now, the regime appears content to let the pistol remain something of a mystery while focusing attention on the broader message of modernization.
While the photos of Kim and his daughter shooting pistols may resemble a typical range day in the United States, the reality inside North Korea could not be more different.
Private firearm ownership is essentially nonexistent in the country. The regime maintains strict control over all weapons, and ordinary citizens have no legal ability to own firearms for self defense, hunting, or sport shooting.
Guns in North Korea exist almost exclusively in the hands of the state. Military personnel, police, and internal security forces carry them as tools of government authority rather than as instruments of personal liberty.
That stands in sharp contrast to the American tradition of civilian gun ownership protected by the Second Amendment. In the United States, firearms ownership is rooted in the idea that individuals possess the right to defend themselves and ultimately preserve their freedom.
In North Korea, firearms symbolize the exact opposite. They represent the power of the regime over its population.
Ultimately, the range photos serve several purposes for the North Korean government. They showcase a supposed improvement in domestic weapons production. They reinforce the image of Kim as a hands-on military leader. And they continue introducing his daughter to the world as someone closely tied to the country’s military establishment.
But for observers in the free world, the images also highlight a stark truth. In North Korea, guns are tools of the state.
The legal fight over so-called “large capacity” magazine bans and semi-automatic rifle restrictions may be heading straight toward the U.S. Supreme Court. A new round of filings from some of the nation’s most experienced constitutional litigators has added serious momentum to that possibility.
Constitutional attorney Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner explains the significance of newly filed supplemental briefs in two major Second Amendment cases. Those filings argue that a fresh appellate court ruling has created the kind of legal conflict the Supreme Court typically requires before stepping in.
The filings cite the recent decision in Benson v. United States, where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that the District’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.
That decision directly conflicts with rulings from other courts that have upheld similar bans. In particular, the federal Ninth Circuit previously allowed California’s magazine ban to stand in Duncan v. Bonta, while the Washington Supreme Court upheld its state’s restrictions in Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz.
This disagreement between courts is known as a “split of authority,” and it is one of the primary triggers that pushes the Supreme Court to grant review. When different courts interpret the Constitution in conflicting ways, the justices often step in to settle the matter once and for all.
According to the new briefs, that moment may have arrived.
The ruling in Benson did more than simply strike down Washington D.C.’s magazine restrictions. The court issued a detailed opinion explaining that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are commonly owned and widely used for lawful purposes.
Under the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The D.C. court concluded that bans on commonly owned magazines do not meet that test.
In other words, the court found that these magazines fall squarely within the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment.
That conclusion directly contradicts rulings from courts that have treated magazine bans as constitutionally permissible.
The stakes are particularly high for residents of states like California, New Jersey, and now Virginia, where restrictions on magazines holding more than 10 rounds remain in place.
If the Supreme Court declines to review Duncan v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling could leave millions of law-abiding Americans in legal limbo. Gun owners who legally purchased standard capacity magazines during previous injunction periods could once again face the possibility of becoming criminals simply for possessing common firearm accessories.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that this is precisely why the Supreme Court should act now. With a final judgment already issued in the Ninth Circuit and a direct conflict between courts now on the books, the legal conditions for Supreme Court review appear to be in place.
The magazine cases also intersect with a broader constitutional fight: bans on semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15.
The Supreme Court has so far declined several opportunities to take up challenges to these restrictions, but some justices have signaled that the issue is likely to reach the Court soon.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh previously wrote that the Court should address bans on commonly owned rifles in the near future. Many Second Amendment advocates believe that resolving the legality of magazine bans could naturally lead the Court to examine rifle bans as well.
After all, both issues revolve around the same fundamental question: whether governments can prohibit arms that are widely owned by ordinary Americans for lawful purposes.
The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions every year, but accepts only a small fraction. However, cases that involve clear constitutional questions and conflicting appellate rulings often rise to the top of the list.
If the justices grant certiorari in either Duncan v. Bonta or Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz, the Court could soon deliver one of the most consequential Second Amendment rulings since Bruen.
Such a decision would not only determine the fate of magazine bans but could also shape the legal future of AR-15-style rifles and other commonly owned firearms.
For gun owners across the country, the next few months could determine whether the Supreme Court is finally ready to resolve one of the most contentious constitutional battles in modern American law.
TAKE ACTION: 
SIGN A PETITION: 
JOIN THE FIGHT: 
BECOME A 2A DEFENDER:…
