GOA Sues Pennsylvania After Veteran Denied Carry License Over 1994 Marijuana Conviction

GOA and GOF are challenging Pennsylvania’s lifetime denial of a carry license to Air Force veteran Craig Philips over a minor marijuana conviction from 1994. iStock-2196791813

In light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Hemani, Gun Owners of America (GOA) has filed a lawsuit challenging a Pennsylvania law that permanently bars residents with a minor misdemeanor drug conviction from obtaining a license to carry a firearm.

The case centers on Pennsylvania resident and United States Air Force veteran Craig Phillips. In 1994, Phillips was arrested and convicted for possessing a small amount of marijuana. His offense occurred long before shifting public attitudes led many states to reduce or eliminate penalties for cannabis possession.

The lawsuit, Philips v. Bivens, attacks a Pennsylvania statute that permanently denies a License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) to anyone convicted of an offense under the state’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act—even when the offense was minor, nonviolent, and committed decades ago.

A 1994 Misdemeanor Became a Lifetime Carry Ban

Phillips has not used any drugs since that single incident more than three decades ago. Yet Pennsylvania’s outdated law has stripped him of his constitutionally protected right to bear arms ever since. Despite evolving public opinion and scientific understanding of cannabis, the Commonwealth has refused to modernize its statutes. Now, this law-abiding gun owner and longtime GOA member has teamed up with the organization to sue and restore his God-given Second Amendment rights.

In 2024, Philips applied for a Pennsylvania carry license in Butler County. His application was denied solely because of the 1994 marijuana conviction. That denial does more than prevent Philips from carrying concealed. Without an LTCF, Pennsylvania law substantially restricts his ability to carry a handgun in a vehicle, carry openly or concealed in Philadelphia, or remain armed on public property during a declared emergency.

In other words, Pennsylvania allows Philips to own a handgun but blocks him from practically bearing that handgun for self-defense throughout much of his daily life.

Hemani Puts Pennsylvania on the Defensive

The timing of the lawsuit is no coincidence. Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous 9-0 ruling in Hemani. That case addressed a federal law criminalizing firearm ownership by “unlawful users” of marijuana. Prior to the decision, it was a federal offense for individuals to possess guns while being classified as unlawful marijuana users, even if their use was infrequent or in the distant past.

The Supreme Court took up the case after the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the federal prohibition was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court struck down the restriction.

Under the Bruen test, courts must first examine whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct at issue.

In Hemani, the plaintiff was indisputably a member of “the people”—the class protected by the Amendment—having reached the age of majority. The same holds true for Phillips. The conduct in Hemani involved keeping arms, while Phillips seeks to exercise the right to bear arms. Both are explicitly protected by the Second Amendment’s text.

The second step of the Bruen analysis shifts the burden to the government to demonstrate that the challenged law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This requires the state to identify relevant historical analogues, typically from the Founding era.

In Hemani, the government’s primary analogues were racist “Black Codes” enacted during the Reconstruction era to disarm newly freed Black citizens. The Supreme Court soundly rejected these as improper historical comparators. Instead, the justices noted that many of the Founding Fathers themselves consumed alcohol regularly, sometimes heavily, without forfeiting their right to keep and bear arms. The unanimous decision made clear that only those who are actively intoxicated can have their rights restricted on that basis. Passive or historical drug use does not justify a lifetime ban.

Pennsylvania Must Produce the History

This ruling creates a significant roadblock for Pennsylvania in defending its law. The Commonwealth will struggle to produce Founding-era analogues that support permanently disarming someone for a decades-old minor misdemeanor. Legal experts believe Phillips v. Bivens could become one of the first major cases to apply the Hemani standard to strike down a state-level restriction.

Beyond historical analogues, Pennsylvania faces another glaring inconsistency: the state already deems individuals like Phillips safe enough to own firearms, yet it prohibits them from carrying those same firearms for self-defense. This distinction lacks logical or constitutional support under the Bruen framework, which treats the right to keep and bear arms as a unified whole.

GOA’s involvement underscores the organization’s commitment to defending the rights of veterans and everyday Americans against government overreach. For Phillips, this lawsuit represents more than just legal advocacy—it is a fight to reclaim a fundamental liberty denied for over 30 years because of one youthful mistake.

The outcome of Phillips v. Bivens could have far-reaching implications. A victory would not only restore Phillips’ rights but also set a powerful precedent for challenging similar restrictions across the country. As post-Bruen and post-Hemani litigation continues to reshape the legal landscape, courts are increasingly forcing states to justify their gun control measures with history rather than modern policy preferences.

Gun rights advocates see this as a critical step toward ensuring that the Second Amendment’s protections are not eroded by outdated statutes or selective enforcement. For veterans like Craig Phillips, who served their country honorably, the right to self-defense should not end with a decades-old minor conviction.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/W1sDtd3
via IFTTT

Silence Is Defeat: Why Gun Owners Must Flood ATF Comment Dockets Now

Gun owners can use ATF public comment periods to build the legal record against bad regulations and support pro-Second Amendment rollbacks. IMG Jim Grant

We’ve all seen the headlines. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announce a new proposed rule change. Under hostile administrations, these rules threaten to turn millions of law-abiding citizens into felons overnight. Under pro-Second Amendment leadership, they are common-sense rollbacks of bureaucratic red tape designed to relieve heavily burdened Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and gun owners.

Yet, a dangerous myth quietly circulates within the Second Amendment community: “The ATF is going to do whatever they want anyway, so why bother writing a comment?”

Let’s set the record straight right now. That defeatist attitude is exactly how we lose.

If we remain silent when a public comment window is open, we hand the anti-gun lobby an uncontested victory. Your voice is a critical weapon in this administrative dogfight, here is exactly how the system works, why it matters, and how we use it to win.

This Isn’t a Vote—It’s a Legal Paper Trail

When the ATF proposes a rule change, federal law requires them to open the docket to public scrutiny. Many gun owners mistake this for a popularity contest or a simple digital ballot box. It isn’t. The ATF doesn’t just tally up the “yes” and “no” votes to declare a winner.

Instead, the agency is strictly bound by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Under the APA, regulators are legally mandated to read, analyze, and address every single unique, substantive argument submitted.

This creates a high-stakes dynamic depending on which way a rule is cut:

• For Restrictive Rules: If anti-gun organizations flood the registry while we stay silent, the administrative record becomes completely one-sided. The ATF will use that uncontested noise as empirical justification to push through crushing restrictions.
• For Favorable (Deregulatory) Rules: If a pro-Second Amendment administration proposes rolling back red tape but gun owners don’t show up to support it, hostile groups will dominate the docket, forcing the agency to withdraw the proposal entirely due to “overwhelming public opposition.”

But when we flood the portal with high-quality, unique, and legally sound comments, we build a wall of resistance. If a hostile ATF tries to ram a bad rule through anyway while ignoring our valid, detailed objections, they hand us the ultimate weapon. Our comments become the exact, undeniable evidence pro-gun attorneys use in federal court to strike the rule down as “arbitrary and capricious.”

Proof from the Front Lines: How Comments Sink Rules

If you think public comments lack teeth, look no further than the massive victory that just occurred on July 6, 2026.

The ATF attempted a bureaucratic shortcut by pushing through a “direct final rule” regarding Licensee “eZ Check” Verification (Docket No. ATF-2026-0009). This fast-tracks process allows the agency to bypass standard administrative hurdles unless they receive adverse public comments.

1.The Fast-Track Attempt: June 2026.

The ATF issued a direct final rule to quietly alter the eZ Check system, assuming it would slide through without major friction.

2.The Opposition Flood: Open Window.

Gun control groups and hostile commenters flooded the federal register, lodging massive, coordinated opposition during the open window.

3.The Agency Capitulation: July 6, 2026.

The ATF officially broke. Recognizing the legal barrier created by the adverse comments, they published a formal notice withdrawing the rule entirely.

This proves the mechanics of the playbook work and right now, the stakes are higher than ever. Under Director Robert Cekada, the ATF has proposed nearly three dozen regulatory rollbacks, including crucial efforts to undo the highly restrictive “engaged in the business” and stabilizing brace rules.

Gun-control apparatuses like Everytown and Giffords are actively using this exact blueprint to bury these pro-gun rollbacks in hostile commentary. If we stay silent and let them dominate the dockets, they will kill these pro-gun rollbacks before they ever see the light of day.

How to Write a Comment That Cuts Through the Noise

Form letters and copy-pasted templates have their place for showing bulk numbers, but agency lawyers can easily bucket thousands of identical entries into a single generic response. To make your comment count double, you must make it unique.

• State Your Credibility: Start by explaining who you are. Are you a competitive shooter, a veteran, a hunter, an FFL holder, or a self-defense advocate?
• Focus on Real-World Impact: Explain exactly how the proposed rule impacts you practically or financially. Will it cost you compliance fees? Will it force you to destroy or register legally acquired property? Will it slow down your business operations? Lived experience is highly persuasive to a federal judge reviewing the record later.
• Point Out Flawed Logic: Did the agency use skewed data? Are they ignoring common sense or overstepping their statutory authority? Point it out clearly.
• Keep It Professional: Leave the insults and emotional rants at the door. Coarse language or vague threats allow agency lawyers to easily dismiss your input. Professional, firm, and fact-based comments cannot be ignored.

Recapturing the Founders’ Intent

The fight to protect the Second Amendment is no longer waged exclusively in the halls of Congress or the chambers of the Supreme Court. The modern battlefield is administrative, buried deep within the bureaucratic machinery of the Federal Register. Every single time an ATF comment window opens, gun-control groups mobilize their base to flood the portal. They want us quiet, compliant, and defeated. If we choose inaction, we choose defeat.

Our Founders never intended for unelected technocrats to hold veto power over a fundamental, God-given right. To dismantle this unconstitutional overreach and recapture the true intent of the Constitution, we cannot afford to cede a single inch of ground. We must engage in the trenches of the administrative process, leverage the law to our advantage, and play to win.

When the next ATF comment period opens, do not scroll past the alert. Go to Regulations.gov, type in the number of the docket, and take five minutes to write your comment. Those five minutes build the legal shield that protects our rights in court.

Gear up, get on the registry, and hold the line. Our liberties depend on it.

---

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/XZfGkam
via IFTTT

Seventh Circuit Upholds Illinois AR-15 Ban Days After Supreme Court Takes Up Same Fight

The Seventh Circuit upheld Illinois’ AR-15 ban just days after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a major challenge to semiautomatic rifle bans. IMG Travis Pike

The Seventh Circuit just upheld Illinois’ ban on AR-15s and standard 30-round magazines, but the ruling may have a very short shelf life.

In Barnett v. Raoul, a divided panel reversed Judge Stephen McGlynn’s permanent injunction against Illinois’ so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act, allowing the state to keep enforcing its ban on America’s most popular rifle. The decision landed just days after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, two cases that ask whether the Second Amendment protects common semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15.

In other words, the Seventh Circuit just doubled down on Bevis while SCOTUS is already preparing to review the same fight.

AmmoLand readers have been following this fight for years. Barnett was never just another Illinois gun-ban case. It has long been one of the cases that could force the Supreme Court to finally confront whether the Second Amendment protects modern semiautomatic rifles. Justice Clarence Thomas previously warned that if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allowed Illinois to ban “America’s most common civilian rifle,” the Supreme Court “can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.” AmmoLand covered that warning when the case moved toward trial as well as the oral arguments last September.

Well, here we are with a decision and it is a decidedly anti-gun decision from the Seventh Circuit.

Court Leans On Bevis And Rahimi

The majority opinion, written by Judge Amy St. Eve and joined by Judge Frank Easterbrook, leaned heavily on the Seventh Circuit’s earlier Bevis ruling. In Bevis, the court claimed AR-15s are close enough to M16s to fall outside full Second Amendment protection, even though AR-15s fire only one round per trigger pull and are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes.

After a full trial record in Barnett, the district court found that ordinary citizens choose AR-15s, standard magazines, and related accessories for self-defense. The district court also found that AR-15s are materially different from military-issued M16 rifles because AR-15s are semiautomatic, while M16s are capable of automatic or burst fire.The Seventh Circuit was not interested.

Instead, the majority said Rahimi supported its prior approach because the Supreme Court rejected the idea that modern gun laws need exact historical twins. The court also pointed to what it described as a unanimous circuit consensus, noting that other federal appeals courts to reach similar AR-15 or magazine-ban questions have upheld them.

That sounds impressive until you look at the list. The First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits are not exactly known as Second Amendment strongholds.

Calling that a national constitutional consensus is like polling a gun-control conference and declaring the debate over. The more honest framing is that anti-gun circuits have built a wall around AR-15 bans, and now the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether that wall stands or falls.

Viramontes Changes Everything

That is what makes the timing of Barnett so important. On June 30, 2026, just days before this Seventh Circuit ruling, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and consolidated it with Grant v. Higgins. The Court allotted one hour of oral argument, and the question presented asks whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect semiautomatic rifles in common use for lawful purposes, including “the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15.”

In other words, the Seventh Circuit is doubling down on Bevis while the Supreme Court is already preparing to take up the same core issue.

The majority also cited Wolford v. Lopez, but it did not seriously grapple with what Wolford demands. Wolford made clear that courts evaluating historical analogues must look at how many jurisdictions adopted them, whether they were well accepted, and whether they are similar in both “how” and “why.” That is a much tighter inquiry than grabbing old Bowie knife restrictions and stretching them into a permission slip for banning commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

Brennan’s Dissent Gets It Right

Chief Judge Michael Brennan’s dissent cut straight through the noise.

“Illinois has banned the best-selling rifle in America and its standard magazine,” Brennan wrote. He warned that after “perhaps the most comprehensive trial record in any Second Amendment case to date,” the court simply repeated its Bevis error.

Brennan got it right. Heller protects arms commonly owned by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes. The AR-15 clears that bar with room to spare. Courts do not get to relabel a commonly owned rifle as too dangerous simply because politicians and gun-control lawyers do not like it.

For Illinois gun owners, Barnett is a loss. But it may also be the Seventh Circuit’s final defense of Bevis before the Supreme Court finally answers the AR-15 question directly.

The Seventh Circuit has made its position clear. Now it is SCOTUS’ turn.

---

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/vL86Gp7
via IFTTT

Soros Money Shows Gun Owners Must Not Dismiss Blue Threat to Texas

Texas gun owners should not assume the Lone Star State’s pro-gun reputation will protect them from a well-funded political push against the Second Amendment. IMG Jim Grant

“Soros Continues To Pump Money into Efforts to Turn Texas Blue,” Texas Scorecard reported Wednesday. “According to Transparency USA, Soros has already funneled over $1 million into the Texas Majority PAC. The federal American Bridge PAC, long aligned with Soros, has contributed $7.57 million to the Texas Majority PAC… The Texas Majority PAC exists to turn Texas into a blue state by electing Democrats to statewide offices.”

“Don’t mess with Texas,” some may scoff, relying on the state’s “Come and take it” reputation on guns formed from Hollywood fiction. In actuality, Texas passed “An Act Regulating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms” back in 1870, essentially banning the carrying of arms in public places.

And don’t forget that a century later, Texas Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968.

In 1993, Democrat Gov. Ann Richards vetoed a concealed carry permit bill.  It was finally signed into law by George W. Bush in 1995, marking “the first time since frontier days.”

Still, the “Wild West” mythos has been perpetuated, and not just by American gun owners, but by opinion influencers around the world.

“I can’t recall the exact number of times I have eaten a meal in the immediate company of a man, or men, with shooters on their hips in plain view. For me, I am always equal parts spellbound and queasy,” a New Zealand “journalist” wrote back in 2010. “Spellbound because there is something so fundamentally cowboy and western about it. Guns, freedom, country music and the Second Amendment. It is Texas after all. Yeeha!”

It’s true: She couldn’t recall the exact number of times. That’s because Texas, at the time, still outlawed open carry. She made it up – and rather than apologize, the paper she wrote for doubled down with changed stories, insults, denials, and lies.

It wasn’t until 2016 that open carry of holstered handguns became legal for License to Carry holders, and permitless carry,  allowing adults to carry handguns openly or concealed, wasn’t enacted until 2021.

The bottom line is just because it’s Texas hardly means that “gun rights” can be taken for granted. And we’ve seen plenty of Texas Democrats making it clear that they can’t wait to eviscerate laws recognizing the right to keep and bear arms just as soon they think they have the power to make it happen, from Beto O’Rourke’s  “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” to Sheila “Heavy as 10 boxes” Jackson Lee. And now, of course, Giffords/Everytown-endorsee James Talarico is vying for the Senate seat of outgoing Republican disappointment John Cornyn.

“Texas Gun Rights is warning that Texas Majority PAC-backed candidates, including James Talarico, Gina Hinojosa, Vikki Goodwin, Nathan Johnson, Sarah Eckhardt, Jon Rosenthal, and Clayton Tucker, support radical anti-gun policies such as red flag laws, raising the age to purchase guns, gun-registration schemes, and the outright banning and seizure of common semi-automatic firearms,” Texas Scorecard warns. And, of course, those aren’t the only radical cultural transformations Democrats intend to impose should they attain the power to force them.

Talarico’s in “a dead heat” against NRA/Gun Owners of America-endorsed Ken Paxton. And what happens in Texas will be a pretty good indicator of what happens in other states, especially noting “The Soros family has poured a staggering $103 million nationwide into the 2026 election cycle so far.”

Gun owners — and not just in Texas — know what they must do. They still have options the heroes of the Alamo did not. Will they use them?

---

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/tGVLdRj
via IFTTT

The Uncomfortable Truth for Antis as Semi-Auto Rifle Cases Loom at SCOTUS

A single paragraph in a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court could have a significant impact on how two gun ban cases already accepted by the high court could guide the legal arguments. IMG Jim Grant

Buried 18 pages into a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Calce v. City of New York is an uncomfortable truth the gun prohibition lobby and its congressional and legislative allies want to avoid as two cases challenging bans on modern semiautomatic rifles are on the court’s docket for the term beginning in October.

By no small coincidence, both of those cases were also brought by SAF, and the outcome will almost certainly bring its sister organization—the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)—out of the shadows, where it has dwelt for too long, and into the spotlight. More about this in a moment.

SAF’s Calce Petition Puts the Burden Back Where It Belongs

In SAF’s petition for Supreme Court review of New York City’s “recalcitrant” behavior regarding its stubborn refusal to obey the spirit, if not the letter, of the high court’s previous ruling on stun guns in a 2016 case known as Caetano v. Massachusetts, in which the Court rejected lower court rulings that said stun guns are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Instead, the Court reminded the nation that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

And this brings the saga around to Page 18 of the Calce petition, where it states, “The Second Amendment enshrines a right to keep and bear arms free from the interference of the government, outside of narrow, long-recognized exceptions. It makes no more sense, in this context, to permit the government to ban whatever it wants and require rights holders to come to court and prove the arm they wish to possess is worth the protection, than it would to allow the government to place a prior restraint on publishing unless a writer can affirmatively prove his content is not defamatory or obscene.”

Viramontes and Grant Put Semi-Auto Bans in the Crosshairs

Whether upcoming motions and/or amicus briefs expected in the dual gun ban cases—Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins—quote that passage, it is now part of the bedrock supporting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the definition of which goes beyond firearms, and by the time the high court convenes Oct. 4—the first Monday of the month—that paragraph will have been widely read.

Of particular importance to the CCRKBA is the fact that Grant v. Higgins is a case that has been fought and pursued over the past five years by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. CCDL has been the lead organizational plaintiff in the Grant case since its inception, and is a CCRKBA state affiliate, and now SAF’s ally in this case.

Leading this legal effort is CCRKBA Director Holly Sullivan, who is also CCDL president. These facts combined literally bring the Committee into the battle.

In a recent CCRKBA statement to the media about her direct involvement in the Grant case, she said, “Gun owners in staunchly anti-second amendment states have felt forgotten for too long. SCOTUS has restored our faith in the system that the little guy can still fight back in this great country. This case isn’t just about restoring our rights in Connecticut, it’s about ensuring that no other citizens will face similar infringements regardless of which state they call home.”

As noted by CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb in a recent news release, “Because CCDL is a plaintiff in the Grant case challenging Connecticut’s rifle ban, it essentially puts the Committee on the playing field. Frankly, we wouldn’t have it any other way.”

Meanwhile, joining SAF in the Viramontes case is the Firearms Policy Coalition. The significance of the Supreme Court’s decision to take both Viramontes and Grant, with the likelihood they will be consolidated, cannot be overstated.

A 2027 Ruling Could Reshape Gun Bans Nationwide

As Gottlieb mentioned in a chat with AmmoLand, Grant deals with a local government ban while Viramontes addresses a statewide ban. The ruling, which will likely arrive in June 2027, could be a blockbuster because it will literally cover the bases.

After all, some observers have hinted, the Court would not take two such cases if it intended merely to preserve the status quo.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a SAF news release. “The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.”

The outcome may not be for all the marbles, but it could easily come close to filling the legal glass jar.

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

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

Mark Smith Was Right: Supreme Court’s AR-15 Move Was Strategy, Not a Snub

“Several weeks ago, I explained that the U.S. Supreme Court’s silence on the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle question did not demonstrate hostility to the Second Amendment, but rather constituted a rationing of the high Court’s docket space. Now the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in two consolidated AR-15 cases proves my point: the Court’s decision to push the AR-15 question to the Fall of 2026 was deliberate all along. Here are my receipts.” – Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two consolidated AR-15 cases — Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois, No. 25-238, out of the Seventh Circuit, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, out of the Second Circuit — setting up oral argument in the October 2026 with a decision expected by June 2027. I am not revisiting that news here. I am writing this because I told you it was coming, in print, more than a month before it happened, and I explained then exactly why the Court’s silence on the AR-15 question earlier this Term was strategy rather than retreat. My prediction has now been vindicated, and the reasoning behind it tells you more about how this case will be decided than the bare fact of the grant does.

What I Wrote in Early May 2026

In an AmmoLand article published in May, I addressed a frequent question: why had SCOTUS passed over an AR-15 case this Term? I wrote then: “The Supreme Court did not skip the AR-15 case this term out of hostility or neglect. They ran out of bandwidth on a generational docket, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already telegraphed that the AR-15 case is coming as soon as October 2026.”

I made the same point in a video a few weeks later, walking through the reasoning in more detail: “I’m often asked why the Supreme Court did not take an AR-15 or large-capacity-magazine case this term. The implication is usually that the Supreme Court is dodging the Second Amendment, but there is another, more basic explanation. The justices have one of the most packed precedent-setting dockets in living memory, and Chief Justice John Roberts decided to ration the Court’s political capital for now.”

A Court Docket Rationed, Not Refused

The Supreme Court decides roughly seventy cases a year on the merits, drawn from every corner of federal and constitutional law — criminal procedure, intellectual property, environmental regulation, tax issues, tort questions, ERISA, the death penalty, civil rights and more. In a single SCOTUS Term, the Court can typically absorb only one or two cases in any given subject area, and this Term’s docket was extraordinarily heavy with high-stakes executive-power, tariff, and immigration disputes. That left room for two Second Amendment cases at most.

And the Court used its 2A allotment on Wolford v. Lopez, the Hawaii “vampire rule” no-carry default carry case, and United States v. Hemani, the drug-user firearm-prohibition case brought at the U.S. Solicitor General’s own urging.

An AR-15 case would have been a third, and that would have been too much given this Term’s politically-charged docket. Chief Justice Roberts manages the docket the way any institution with finite political capital manages risk: he spends it deliberately. Reading that restraint as hostility to the Second Amendment mistook institutional bandwidth for institutional intent.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Chessboard

The clearest previous signal came from Justice Kavanaugh, whose forecasting record on this Court is difficult to ignore. Roughly eighteen months before the Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), he had already indicated publicly that the Court needed to resolve whether the right to bear arms extended to public carry — and it did, in Bruen.

Justice Kavanaugh had since signaled that the AR-15 question would come before the Court “in the next term or two.” That is precisely the sequence that has now unfolded: the cert grants in Viramontes and Grant lands squarely in the October 2026 Term, exactly the window Kavanaugh identified.

I also read the Court’s decision this Term in Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 (U.S. June 25, 2026), a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Alito, as a preview: its treatment of the Second Amendment’s text against the historical record reads like a dress rehearsal for the Court’s AR-15 analysis to come.

WW II Island Hopping Metaphor and SCOTUS

The same order list that granted certiorari in the rifle cases held two magazine-ban petitions — Duncan v. Bonta, No. 25-198, out of California, and State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc., No. 25-153. That sequencing is deliberate, and I view it as good news rather than a snub. Litigating an AR-15 ban and a magazine ban before the Court in the same Term risks handing a justice inclined toward the middle the room needed to split the difference — striking the rifle ban while upholding the magazine restriction. Keeping the cases apart forecloses that compromise.

Relatedly, this incremental approach to restoring our Second Amendment rights mirrors America’s World War II island-hopping campaign in the Pacific theatre: resolve the semiautomatic-rifle question first, let the reasoning in Viramontes and Grant settle (reaffirm) the governing legal framework, and then bring the magazine and suppressor questions forward on a foundation the Court has already built. I expect the Court to hold Duncan and Gator’s Custom Guns for roughly a year and then remand them via a GVR in light of the AR-15 decision, not deny them outright.

The Record So Far Supports the Bet

The anti-gun lobby has poured enormous resources into defending assault-weapons bans precisely because the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. A ruling that the Second Amendment protects it would be the most significant restoration of the right to keep and bear arms since Heller itself, and it would supply lower courts with language they can use against the pending magazine and suppressor bans in due course. The Supreme Court’s caution earlier over the last year or two was not evasion. It was preparation, and the timing has run exactly the course I described weeks before the cert grants.

---

About Mark W Smith

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

• @fourboxesdiner
• On The Web

---

from https://ift.tt/Orem4yf
via IFTTT

Virginia Court Blocks Spanberger’s Semi-Auto Rifle and Magazine Ban Statewide

Virginia gun owners scored another major Second Amendment win after a court blocked enforcement of Spanberger’s semi-auto rifle and magazine ban statewide. IMG Tim Potter

A Washington County judge has issued a universal injunction—meaning a court order that prohibits enforcement statewide—against Virginia’s bans on so-called “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines, marking another setback for the anti-gun movement in the state.

This new injunction, in the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed case Santolla v. Katz, is scheduled to take effect on July 21, 2026. It forbids any law enforcement agency or Commonwealth’s Attorney in Virginia from enforcing laws that prohibit specific firearms, often referred to as “assault firearms,” and large-capacity magazines.

Statewide Injunction Stops Virginia’s New Gun Ban

This is the second injunction blocking the law, following a similar ruling by a judge in Lancaster County. Most people believed the first injunction blocked the law entirely, but some federal firearms licensees (FFLs) continued to follow it because it named only the state police.

“The NRA has secured a statewide injunction blocking Abigail Spanberger’s ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines,” John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said. “The Virginia court has made it unmistakably clear: this blatant violation of constitutional rights cannot be enforced by any law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth. This is a historic victory for gun owners and the rule of law. It ensures that law-abiding Virginians will not have their rights stripped away while our challenge proceeds. The NRA and our world-class legal team will continue fighting in court until this unconstitutional measure is permanently removed from the books.”

Judge Rejects Patchwork Enforcement Scheme

The July 21 effective date was set to give local law enforcement and the Commonwealth’s Attorneys time to be notified. Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones had sought to limit the scope of the injunction to allow the law to take effect. The judge in the case, Jeffrey L. Campbell, pointed out that a limited injunction would not prevent harm to the plaintiffs.

The judge wrote: “Should this Court’s prior ruling be limited only to party defendants herein, a person could freely transport an AR-15 through Washington County without fear of running afoul of the law. However, if they crossed the county line into Grayson County, then, arguably, they could be charged for the same conduct since the coverage of the injunction would not extend therein. This Court has concerns about the treacherous patchwork of enforcement that this may lead to for the Plaintiffs and law enforcement alike and whether this ruling should be amplified to include, universally, all of the Commonwealth and law enforcement agencies within the same.”

The NRA called out Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger for trying to infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of Virginians in a statement following the victory.

“The NRA’s world-class legal team delivered a clear, powerful argument demonstrating that Abigail Spanberger’s gun ban is a blatant constitutional infringement on the rights of law-abiding Virginians,” said Commerford. “Our strategy has now secured a comprehensive statewide injunction, blocking enforcement of this law until the courts hear our full case. This is a major victory, but our mission is not complete. We will not rest until this unconstitutional measure is struck down in its entirety and added to the long list of gun control laws the NRA has removed from the books for good.”

Second Injunction Adds Pressure On Commonwealth

This is the second loss this week for the Commonwealth’s anti-gun plans. Earlier this week, the state tried to consolidate all the challenges to the “assault firearms” and magazine ban into a single case. The Supreme Court of Virginia rejected the move, meaning the Commonwealth will have to defend the law in multiple jurisdictions. These include challenges in both state and federal courts.

Other plaintiffs include Gun Owners of America (GOA), Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ).

The injunction is set to remain in effect through July 2027. By that time, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to have issued rulings in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, which many believe will declare all “assault weapons” bans unconstitutional.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

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