Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination to lead the Justice Department permanently advanced from the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 12–10 party-line vote. iStock-1312189737
Todd Blanche’s nomination to become the next attorney general of the United States cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, moving President Donald Trump’s nominee one step closer to taking permanent control of the Department of Justice.
The committee advanced Blanche on a 12-10 party-line vote, with every Republican voting in favor and every Democrat voting against him. His nomination now moves to the full Senate, where a final confirmation vote has not yet been scheduled. For gun owners, however, the confirmation drama surrounding Blanche is mostly background noise.
The important question is whether he will use the power of the Justice Department to dismantle unconstitutional gun-control policies—or merely oversee them while issuing friendlier press releases.
Republican Holdouts Clear Blanche’s Path
Blanche’s nomination had been stalled by Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Their objections centered on a controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” compensation fund connected to the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit over the leaking of his tax records.
Blanche formally rescinded the fund, clearing the way for Cornyn and Tillis to support moving his nomination out of committee. Democrats remained united against him, focusing on his prior work as Trump’s criminal-defense attorney and allegations that he had allowed politics to influence the department.
Those issues will dominate Beltway coverage. Gun owners should be watching something else.
Blanche is already serving as acting attorney general while retaining his confirmed position as deputy attorney general. That means he currently oversees more than 100,000 Justice Department employees, including the FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshals Service and 93 U.S. attorneys’ offices.
He is not asking for an opportunity to prove himself from scratch. He is asking the Senate to make permanent the authority he is already exercising.
Bondi Left More Announcements Than Victories
Blanche replaced Pam Bondi after Trump removed her as attorney general in April. Bondi presided over a department that continued defending federal gun restrictions and Biden-era legal positions in court. Even as the administration promised relief, Justice Department lawyers remained willing to argue for infringements against young adults, gun owners, and manufacturers. This eventually led major gun rights organizations to call for Bondi’s removal.
AmmoLand was already asking just 60 days into Bondi’s tenure why DOJ attorneys were still advancing anti-gun arguments. By the time she left office, the central problem remained: the administration talked about defending the Second Amendment while federal lawyers continued defending restrictions that violated it.
The Second Amendment Section may become a useful weapon against state and federal gun control. Its creation, however, does not erase Bondi’s record or entitle her to credit for victories that had not yet been won.
A new nameplate on a Justice Department door does not restore a right.
Blanche Must Decide Which Side DOJ Is On
Blanche has taken several actions that suggest the department may finally be moving in a better direction. During his time as acting AG, the DOJ has challenged state restrictions on commonly owned rifles and handguns, announced ATF regulatory reforms and said federal power should no longer be weaponized against lawful gun owners. Yet the record remains mixed.
The administration has allowed portions of the Biden-era frames-and-receivers rule to remain in place, and federal attorneys have continued defending National Firearms Act restrictions and other gun-control positions that cannot be squared with the Second Amendment’s text or original meaning.
The attorney general does not get to pick which constitutional rights are politically convenient to defend. The Second Amendment commands that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” It does not authorize the Justice Department to preserve infringements because government lawyers have defended them for decades.
Blanche’s nomination advancing is not a victory for gun owners. It is an opportunity, and a test.
Gun owners do not need another attorney general who praises the Second Amendment from a podium while DOJ attorneys undermine it in court. Blanche has shown signs that he may be willing to change course. If confirmed, he will have the authority and responsibility to prove it.
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.
The Third Circuit is allowing New Jersey to keep enforcing rifle and magazine bans while the state appeals to the Supreme Court. IMG Jim Grant
New Jersey may continue enforcing its bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines while the state asks the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse its historic Second Amendment defeat. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit granted New Jersey’s motion to stay its mandate on August 4, ending several weeks of contradictory state guidance over when the court’s July 17 ruling would take effect.
New Jersey State Police had previously told firearm retailers that the decision was effective July 31 and that officials were preparing compliance instructions. The Attorney General’s Office later claimed the mandate would not issue until August 7. On July 31, the state moved to prevent the mandate from issuing at all.
The Third Circuit has now granted that request.
A Constitutional Victory Gun Owners Still Cannot Use
The en banc Third Circuit ruled July 17 that New Jersey’s ban on covered semiautomatic rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment. Ten of the court’s 15 judges joined the judgment. The court held that semiautomatic rifles are plainly “Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment and that New Jersey failed to establish a historical tradition supporting its sweeping prohibition.
The court also recognized that magazines are not mere accessories or “accoutrements” existing outside the Constitution. They are essential ammunition-feeding devices that facilitate the ordinary operation of semiautomatic firearms.
The Third Circuit concluded that New Jersey could not ban commonly possessed rifles and magazines simply because lawmakers dislike their features, capacity, appearance, or popularity.
That ruling remains the judgment of the court. The August 4 order does not withdraw it, vacate it, reconsider it, or suggest that the majority has changed its view of the Second Amendment. What the order does is prevent the mandate, the formal instruction putting that judgment into effect, from issuing.
For New Jersey gun owners, that distinction carries criminal consequences. The state’s bans remain enforceable for now. Dealers cannot treat the July ruling as authorization to begin ordinary sales of the affected rifles and magazines, and residents should not assume that possession prohibited under current New Jersey law has suddenly become lawful. The court declared the laws unconstitutional, then allowed the state to continue enforcing them.
New Jersey Asked to Preserve Its Infringement
New Jersey filed its stay motion on July 31, arguing that allowing lawful commerce in AR-15-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines would cause the state “irreparable harm.” The state warned that thousands of rifles and magazines could enter New Jersey and become difficult to retrieve if the Supreme Court later reversed the Third Circuit.
As AmmoLand previously reported, that argument turned constitutional rights upside down. New Jersey treated the restoration of an enumerated right as an injury to the government while treating continued enforcement of unconstitutional criminal laws as a minor inconvenience for the citizens whose rights were violated.
The state’s filing even included screenshots and social-media posts from dealers and firearm companies preparing to serve New Jersey customers once the mandate was issued. Those exhibits were offered as proof of an emergency. In reality, they demonstrated common use.
The rifles and magazines at issue are ordinary commercial products possessed by millions of Americans for self-defense, competition, hunting, training, and other lawful purposes. New Jersey calls their return to the lawful market a “flood.” Gun owners would call it the end of an unconstitutional state-enforced ban.
The Third Circuit has now given the state the delay it requested, a move some in the Second Amendment community saw coming.
Bummer, but expected. This is pretty normal. The only reason they may have denied it was NJ’s delay in seeking the stay, but I guess that wasn’t enough. https://t.co/sRW4XVslze
New Jersey Created Confusion Over When the Ruling Would Take Effect
Before obtaining the stay, New Jersey officials sent conflicting messages to firearm retailers and gun owners about when the Third Circuit’s decision would become effective. The New Jersey State Police notified Garden State firearm retailers that officials were preparing guidance following the court’s ruling.
“We are aware of the Third Circuit’s decision in ANJRPC v. Platkin, which is effective July 31, 2026,” the State Police email said. “We are working with the Office of the Attorney General to develop practical guidance for New Jersey residents and businesses in light of that decision.”
That message reasonably led retailers and gun owners to believe the state was preparing to comply with the Third Circuit’s judgment by July 31. The Attorney General’s Office then changed course. After initially appearing to recognize the July 31 date, a spokesperson said July 31 was actually the deadline for seeking rehearing and that the decision would become effective when the mandate issued on August 7.
New Jersey then filed its motion to stay the mandate on July 31. The filing automatically prevented the mandate from issuing while the Third Circuit considered the motion. The August 4 order now extends that delay. The mandate will remain stayed while New Jersey prepares its anticipated Supreme Court petition. If the justices grant review, the stay remains in effect until the Supreme Court finally resolves the case.
The state therefore moved from telling dealers that the decision was effective July 31, to announcing an August 7 mandate date, to asking the court to prevent the judgment from taking effect at all. New Jersey imposes serious criminal penalties on people who possess the rifles and magazines covered by its bans. When constitutional rights and potential felony charges are at stake, citizens should not have to decipher contradictory announcements from the same government that is fighting to preserve the restrictions.
There will be no immediate New Jersey equivalent of California’s “Freedom Week.” The bans remain enforceable while the Supreme Court process unfolds, despite the Third Circuit’s holding that those laws violate the Second Amendment.
The Magazine Fight Is Already at the Supreme Court’s Door
The timing of the stay is especially important because the national fight over magazine bans is already moving toward the Supreme Court. On August 3, the petitioners in Duncan v. Bonta filed a supplemental brief urging the justices to review California’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds. They pointed directly to the Third Circuit’s New Jersey decision, which created an acknowledged split with the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit held that California may prohibit magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The Third Circuit reached the opposite conclusion, holding that magazines are protected “Arms” and cannot be banned when commonly possessed for lawful purposes.
The same magazine can now be treated as constitutionally protected in Pennsylvania and prohibited contraband in California. The Bill of Rights is not supposed to change when an American crosses from one federal judicial circuit into another.
The Third Circuit expressly rejected the Ninth Circuit’s theory that magazines are mere accessories outside the Second Amendment’s text. It also rejected the suggestion that a ten-round magazine can be a protected arm while an otherwise identical eleven-round magazine is not. There is no ten-round exception written into the Second Amendment. There is no Founding-era tradition establishing ten rounds as the constitutional limit for an ammunition-feeding device. Ten is an entirely arbitrary number selected by anti-gun lawmakers.
The Ninth Circuit also tried to justify California’s ban by asking how often citizens fire more than ten rounds during documented defensive gun uses. But the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. It does not protect only the ammunition capacity a judge believes citizens are statistically likely to need.
Americans do not have to prove that they will fire every round in a magazine before they may lawfully possess it.
Several Second Amendment Cases Are Converging
The Supreme Court has already granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, cases challenging bans on AR-15-style rifles. The Duncan petitioners are asking the Court to hear the magazine question alongside those rifle-ban cases. A related Washington case, Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, also presents a challenge to a magazine-capacity restriction.
New Jersey’s anticipated petition could place both issues before the justices in a single case: whether states may ban commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and whether they may ban the standard magazines used with them.
Gun-control states have followed the same strategy against both. They attach politically loaded labels to ordinary arms, call AR-15s “assault weapons,” call standard magazines “large-capacity magazines,” and then argue that the terminology places those arms outside the Constitution. It does not.
The original meaning of the Second Amendment does not depend on which arms modern politicians find acceptable. Nor does a state’s claimed sovereign interest supersede the federal Constitution. The Supremacy Clause leaves no room for New Jersey to exercise a supposed sovereign right to violate the Second Amendment.
New Jersey Won a Delay, Not the Case
The Third Circuit’s order is a procedural victory for New Jersey, but it is not a constitutional vindication. The state remains the losing party and continues to act like the losers they are. Their historical arguments failed. Claims that commonly owned rifles and magazines fall outside the Second Amendment failed. Their attempt to defend a politically selected ten-round limit failed. What New Jersey has secured is more time.
For gun owners, however, time spent under an unconstitutional law is not harmless. Every additional day means continued restrictions on acquiring, possessing, and carrying arms the Third Circuit has already recognized as constitutionally protected.
The state argued that allowing citizens to exercise their rights could make its bans difficult to restore later. That concern reveals the real nature of the alleged injury: New Jersey fears that lawful citizens will obtain arms that the government wants the power to confiscate, prohibit, or permanently exclude from the state.
The Third Circuit has allowed that unconstitutional regime to survive while the Supreme Court decides whether to intervene.
New Jersey may have postponed the consequences of its defeat. It has not rewritten the Second Amendment, erased the circuit split, or transformed commonly owned rifles and magazines into unprotected contraband.
The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to end that contradiction nationwide.
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.
The Justice Department says Montgomery County’s overlapping 100-yard firearm exclusion zones make lawful public carry nearly impossible and violate the Second Amendment. iStock-901657484
Montgomery County did not merely pass another unconstitutional gun law. According to the United States Department of Justice, county police and sheriff’s deputies who enforce it are engaging in a pattern or practice of civil-rights violations. That is the remarkable argument at the center of the federal government’s newly filed lawsuit against Montgomery County, the Montgomery County Police Department, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff Maxwell C. Uy.
The complaint challenges Montgomery County’s recently enacted Bill 23-26, which prohibits the possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition, and undefined “major components” at broadly defined places of public assembly and within 100 yards of them. DOJ says those restrictions violate the Second Amendment and that enforcing them constitutes unlawful police misconduct under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, the federal statute authorizing the Attorney General to sue government agencies engaged in a pattern or practice of depriving people of constitutional rights.
In other words, the Justice Department is not asking Montgomery County politely to reconsider. It is accusing the county’s law-enforcement agencies of violating federal civil rights law every time they enforce the challenged provisions.
In @MontgomeryCoMD, Bill 23-26 broadly bans citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives—this is unconstitutional. The @CivilRights Division will protect Second Amendment rights in line with the Supreme Court’s holding in Wolford.…
AmmoLand previously reported that Maryland Shall Issue and five Maryland carry-permit holders filed Barreto v. Montgomery County after the county council rebuilt its carry restrictions following an earlier loss in Maryland’s highest court. The DOJ complaint repeatedly relies on evidence developed in Barreto, including a detailed map showing the enormous reach of the county’s firearm exclusion zones.
The United States has not joined Barreto. It filed a separate lawsuit, opening a second federal front against Bill 23-26.
The county’s ordinance defines “places of public assembly” to include publicly or privately owned parks, houses of worship, schools, libraries, recreational facilities and multipurpose exhibition facilities. It also covers government buildings open to the public, polling places, courthouses and legislative assemblies. The definition extends to associated property, including parking lots and grounds. Then Montgomery County adds another 100 yards.
That turns supposedly discrete “sensitive places” into sprawling gun-free bubbles that reach neighboring sidewalks, homes, businesses, parking lots and roads.
More Than 10,000 Parcels Before Adding the Buffers
DOJ calls the resulting exclusion zone “breathtaking in scope.” Montgomery County records identify 605 houses of worship, 693 public parks, 42 public recreation centers, ten colleges and universities, 45 post offices, 38 fire stations, 15 public swimming pools, 13 Metro stations and 11 MARC commuter-rail locations. According to the complaint, the mapped locations already cover at least 10,000 parcels and more than 7,900 acres—over 26 percent of Montgomery County. Those numbers do not include the 100-yard buffers.
Once those buffers are added, the actual area covered by the ban becomes considerably larger and far more difficult for an ordinary person to identify.
That is the trap. A citizen does not need to walk into a courthouse or school while armed to violate the ordinance. He can become a criminal by walking down a sidewalk one block from a park, leaving a restaurant near a library, or parking too close to a recreational facility. The county has created thousands of invisible lines backed by criminal punishment.
A Gun Owner Can Become a Criminal in His Own Backyard
DOJ asks the court to consider a gun owner whose home sits within 100 yards of a park. Bill 23-26 contains an exception allowing him to possess a firearm inside his home. But step into his own backyard while armed, and he becomes a criminal. Consider a church with a neighboring parsonage. The pastor may possess a firearm in his residence, but walking from his home to the church can violate the ordinance.
The situation becomes even more absurd if the pastor has a spare magazine. The home exception covers firearms and ammunition, but not firearm “components.” Under the ordinance’s language, DOJ argues, he could be prosecuted for possessing the magazine even inside his own home.
Those examples expose Bill 23-26 for what it is. This is not a carefully drawn sensitive-place law. It is an ordinance written so broadly that ordinary, peaceable conduct becomes a crime depending on which side of an unmarked line a citizen happens to stand.
Montgomery County’s Law Is Worse Than Hawaii’s
The Justice Department grounds its challenge in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wolford v. Lopez. In Wolford, the Court struck down Hawaii’s default ban on carrying firearms on private property open to the public without the owner’s express permission. The Court held that Hawaii had “hobbled” the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense while conducting their daily lives.
Montgomery County’s law suffers from the same constitutional defect, but DOJ says it is even more restrictive. Under Hawaii’s law, a carrier could at least seek permission from the property owner. Montgomery County does not care whether the owner consents.
A church cannot authorize armed congregants to provide security. A recreational facility cannot permit a licensed visitor to carry. A private owner whose property falls within one of the county’s exclusion zones cannot override the county’s command. The carrier remains a criminal despite having both a state carry permit and the owner’s express permission.
The complaint goes further than the DOJ press release by openly challenging the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Kipke v. Moore. In Kipke, the Fourth Circuit majority upheld firearm restrictions in parks. DOJ acknowledges that decision and then states plainly that the court was wrong. The United States is asking the district court to overturn that part of Kipke.
DOJ relies on Judge G. Steven Agee’s dissent, which concluded that governments at the Founding did not broadly prohibit firearms on public lands, urban green spaces or comparable locations. That creates a significant procedural fight because a federal district court ordinarily remains bound by circuit precedent. At a minimum, DOJ appears to be preserving the parks issue for appeal and arguing that Wolford has undermined the Fourth Circuit’s analysis.
The complaint separately challenges firearm prohibitions at houses of worship, libraries, recreational facilities and multipurpose exhibition facilities. For houses of worship, DOJ says the historical record contains no tradition of banning firearms.
For libraries, the government notes that libraries existed at the Founding and that the 1850 Census counted 1,217 public libraries, yet no state categorically prohibited firearms in them.
The same problem applies to recreational and exhibition facilities: Montgomery County has identified a modern policy preference, not a historical tradition supporting its ban.
Ammunition, Optics, Barrels, and Maybe a Detent Pin
Bill 23-26 does not stop with guns. It also prohibits ammunition and “major components” within the exclusion zones. The phrase “major components” is not defined.
DOJ asks the obvious questions: Does it include a barrel? A trigger? A pistol grip? An upper receiver? An optic? Could it include something as small as the detent pin holding a safety selector in place? Nobody knows. That is a serious problem when violating the ordinance carries criminal consequences.
The Second Amendment would be meaningless if government could claim that citizens may possess firearms while separately prohibiting the ammunition and functional components necessary to use them.
DOJ cites Duncan v. Bonta for the principle that the right to bear arms necessarily includes components and accessories required for a firearm’s ordinary operation. It also relies on precedent recognizing ammunition as a necessary corollary to the right itself. Montgomery County cannot evade the Second Amendment by banning the pieces that make an arm work.
DOJ Uses Federal Police-Misconduct Law
The most important part of the complaint may be the vehicle DOJ chose to bring the case. Section 12601 makes it unlawful for a governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law-enforcement officers that deprives people of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law.
That statute is commonly associated with federal investigations of police departments over excessive force, unlawful searches, or discriminatory enforcement. DOJ is now applying it to the Second Amendment. The complaint alleges that Montgomery County police officers and sheriff’s deputies have a duty to enforce Bill 23-26 and are either enforcing it or will continue to enforce it unless stopped by a federal court.
Each enforcement action, DOJ argues, deprives a law-abiding citizen of the right to keep and bear arms.
The United States is asking for a declaration that enforcement of the challenged provisions constitutes a pattern or practice of unconstitutional law-enforcement conduct. It also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the county, police department, sheriff’s office and Sheriff Uy from enforcing them.
That turns the usual gun-control litigation on its head. For years, local officials have treated the Second Amendment as a second-class right and forced gun owners to finance lawsuit after lawsuit merely to make government follow Supreme Court precedent. This time, the Civil Rights Division is treating the enforcement of an unconstitutional gun law as the civil-rights violation it is.
Montgomery County Built a Criminal Trap
Bill 23-26 leaves the right to bear arms nominally intact while making its exercise almost impossible.
A licensed citizen can carry in Montgomery County, provided he remains in his vehicle, avoids thousands of properties, stays more than 100 yards from each one, never enters an invisible buffer by mistake, and does not carry an ammunition magazine or firearm part that county officials later decide qualifies as a “major component.”
That is not regulation of a constitutional right. It is a criminal trap designed to discourage people from exercising it.
Maryland gun owners challenged the law first. Now the United States has accused Montgomery County’s law-enforcement agencies of engaging in a pattern or practice of violating the Second Amendment.
Montgomery County tried to erase the right to bear arms 100 yards at a time. DOJ is now asking a federal judge to stop the county police from enforcing the eraser.
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.
Second Amendment attorney Stephen Stamboulieh has accepted a position with the U.S. Department of Justice. iStock-1055139516
“Second Amendment attorney Stephen Stamboulieh (@Stambo2A) “has accepted a position with the Department of Justice,” Second Amendment legal reporter Rob Romano announced Monday to his followers on X. He included a link to Court Listener, And Stamboulieh’s Aug. 3 “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel” in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
“Stephen D. Stamboulieh respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d), for leave to withdraw his appearance as counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants Larry Morse and Theodore Ray Buck, Jr. in the above captioned appeal.” (Larry Morse and Theodore Ray Buck, Jr. v. Kwame Raoul, et al., challenges the state’s ban on the sale and possession of silencers.)
The reason for his withdrawal will no doubt surprise many in the Second Amendment community who have been following Stamboulieh’s groundbreaking work against federal and state infringements of the right to keep and bear arms. He has represented this correspondent in numerous Freedom of Information Act requests and legal complaints for years, some, including against the DOJ that are still pending. Having known his withdrawal was coming because of that, options for going forward with new representation are being explored.
Rights restoration/ decision-making for firearms disability relief
ATF and Secret Service involvement in the Hunter Biden case
Bump stocks
NICS permanent entry consent
Prior DOJ statements of interest
Obtaining Air Force court martial records for Sutherland Springs shooter
And much more, not to mention actions undertaken for others on butterfly knives, stun guns, etc.
With his pending assignment at DOJ, any public comments at this time by Stamboulieh about this career development will be understandably limited. Just bear in mind, having been at the receiving end of his work, they are as aware of his fierce pro-2A advocacy as anyone (he was once dismissed by US attorneys as part of “a small cadre of firearms activists and their efforts to recover fees through largely unsuccessful FOIA litigation”), and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s previously unheard of work enforcing the right is a good indicator that current Justice management views his uncompromising principles as an asset.
Looking at the work Stamboulieh has done on gun owners’ behalf over the years, those who know him have full confidence that he is not switching sides but will now be positioned to be even more effective at advancing justice.
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.
The petitioners in Duncan v. Bonta are urging the Supreme Court to review California’s magazine ban after the Third Circuit created a direct split with the Ninth Circuit. iStock.com/[SolidMaks]The challengers to California’s magazine ban are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Duncan v. Bonta after the Third Circuit expressly rejected the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning and struck down New Jersey’s nearly identical restriction.
In a supplemental brief filed Monday, August 3, attorneys for Virginia Duncan, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the other petitioners told the justices that there is now an open and acknowledged split between two federal appellate courts sitting en banc.
The Ninth Circuit says California may criminalize possession of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. The Third Circuit says magazines—including those holding more than ten rounds—are “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned when they are commonly possessed for lawful purposes. The Duncan petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to settle the question.
Third Circuit Rejects the Ninth Circuit’s Magazine-Ban Logic
On July 17, 2026, the en banc Third Circuit ruled 10-5 that New Jersey’s ban on magazines holding more than ten rounds violated the Second Amendment. The court also struck down New Jersey’s prohibition on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. More importantly for Duncan, the Third Circuit directly addressed and rejected the Ninth Circuit’s defense of California’s magazine ban.
The Ninth Circuit’s primary theory was that magazines are not “Arms” at all. Instead, it treated them as accessories or “accoutrements” outside the Second Amendment’s plain text.
The Third Circuit rejected that argument as inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s instructions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
A magazine facilitates the use of a firearm for armed self-defense. A semiautomatic firearm cannot perform its ordinary repeating function without an ammunition-feeding device. Calling that essential component an “accessory” does not remove it from the Constitution. The Third Circuit therefore concluded that magazines are “Arms” and are presumptively protected by the Second Amendment. That conclusion applies to all magazines, not merely those holding ten rounds or fewer.
The Constitution Does Not End at the Eleventh Round
The Third Circuit was particularly critical of the Ninth Circuit’s alternative suggestion that a ten-round magazine might be constitutionally protected while an eleven-round magazine is not. As the Third Circuit explained, it cannot be that a magazine holding ten rounds is an “Arm” covered by the Second Amendment while one holding eleven rounds falls outside the constitutional text.
There is no ten-round limitation in the Second Amendment. There was no such dividing line in the Founding-era understanding of the right to keep and bear arms. Ten rounds is a political number selected by anti-gun legislators, not a constitutional boundary.
The Ninth Circuit also reasoned that larger magazines could be banned because firearms remain capable of operating with smaller ones. The Third Circuit properly rejected that claim as well. The Second Amendment does not protect only the minimum equipment necessary to make a firearm function. The government cannot avoid constitutional scrutiny by arguing that citizens should make do with a less capable substitute.
That theory could be used to justify nearly any arms restriction. A state could argue that a five-round magazine is sufficient because a firearm still operates. It could then reduce the limit to three rounds or one.
The right to keep and bear arms would become a privilege to possess whatever reduced-capacity equipment lawmakers decide is acceptable for ordinary citizens. That is not how enumerated rights work.
Common Use Does Not Mean Rounds Fired
The Third and Ninth Circuits also disagree over how the Supreme Court’s common-use standard should be applied. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the common-use test as too simplistic and focused on whether people frequently fire more than ten rounds during individual defensive incidents. That badly misunderstands the constitutional inquiry.
The question is whether an arm is commonly possessed or used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, not whether its full capacity is regularly expended during a shooting. Millions of Americans own firearms they hope never to fire in self-defense. They carry spare magazines they may never need. They keep ammunition reserves that may never be used. None of that makes those arms or components constitutionally unprotected.
A person does not lose the right to possess an effective defensive tool merely because he successfully resolves most confrontations without firing every available round. The Third Circuit held that magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are in common use for lawful purposes regardless of how frequently defenders fire more than ten rounds.
Its conclusion was direct: “Bans on weapons in common use for lawful purposes are unlawful.”
That is consistent with District of Columbia v. Heller. The Ninth Circuit’s preferred test is not.
Gunpowder Storage Laws Do Not Justify Magazine Bans
The Ninth Circuit also relied on Founding-era gunpowder-storage regulations to defend California’s magazine ban. Those historical laws generally regulated where large quantities of gunpowder could be stored to reduce the danger of accidental fires and explosions in populated areas. They did not prohibit ordinary citizens from possessing common weapons or impose ammunition-capacity limits.
The Third Circuit correctly found that gunpowder-storage laws are not relevantly similar to a modern ban on magazines.
This is where many lower courts have attempted to water down Bruen. Instead of requiring the government to identify a genuine historical tradition supporting the modern restriction, courts reach for any old law involving firearms, gunpowder, public safety, or dangerous conduct. But historical analogies must be more than vaguely related. The government must show a comparable burden imposed for a comparable reason.
A fire-prevention rule governing bulk gunpowder storage is not a historical analogue for banning possession of standard-capacity magazines that are commonly owned in the millions by law-abiding citizens.
Constitutional Rights Should Not Change at the State Line
The result of the split is that the same magazine may be constitutionally protected in Pennsylvania but prohibited in California. Residents of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware are now protected by the Third Circuit’s conclusion that magazines holding more than ten rounds are covered by the Second Amendment. Residents of California, Oregon, Washington, and the rest of the Ninth Circuit remain subject to the opposite rule.
The Bill of Rights is not supposed to change when an American crosses from one federal judicial circuit into another.
The Supreme Court exists in part to resolve precisely this kind of conflict. When two federal courts of appeals issue irreconcilable en banc decisions concerning the scope of an enumerated constitutional right, only the Supreme Court can provide a nationally controlling answer.
The Duncan petitioners argue that the Court should grant their case, or the related Washington magazine case, Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, and consider the magazine question alongside Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. The Supreme Court granted review in Viramontes and Grant on June 30, 2026, to address whether states may ban AR-15-style rifles consistent with the Second Amendment.
Gun-control states have pursued the same strategy against both categories. They relabel commonly owned rifles as “assault weapons” and standard magazines as “large-capacity magazines,” then insist that politically charged terminology removes ordinary arms from constitutional protection. It does not.
Gun Owners Have Waited Long Enough
The Duncan litigation has continued for more than a decade. The petitioners warn that merely holding the case until after Viramontes and Grant could lead to another procedural loop. The Supreme Court might later vacate the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and send the case back for reconsideration, allowing the Ninth Circuit to produce another decision and forcing the challengers to file yet another petition.
California gun owners should not have to endure another round of judicial delay while the state continues enforcing a ban against arms that another federal appellate court has already recognized as constitutionally protected.
The Third Circuit has exposed the weakness of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning. The Supreme Court now has a clear circuit split, fully developed legal arguments, and an opportunity to resolve rifle and magazine bans together.
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.
Jordan Salinas did not know that a Saturday lunch stop at an In-N-Out Burger would place him in the path of a mass murderer. But when rifle fire erupted outside the crowded Twin Falls, Idaho, restaurant, Salinas had something most of the people trapped there did not: a firearm, training, and the willingness to move toward the threat.
Salinas, 35, has come forward as the armed citizen who returned fire at a 24-year-old Chad Williams during the August 1 attack. An off-duty Idaho State Police trooper also engaged Williams.
Twin Falls Police Chief Matthew Hicks said their return fire helped drive Williams away from the restaurant and prevented additional casualties. Twin Falls County Sheriff Jack Johnson went further, saying the two defenders “without a doubt saved many lives.” Williams later died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Three innocent people were killed and seven others wounded.
A Lunch Stop Turns Into a Gunfight
According to Salinas’ detailed account to the Idaho Statesman, he and his girlfriend were heading out for a horseback-riding date when they stopped at the recently opened restaurant for lunch. Salinas initially saw people rushing out of the building and thought there might be a kitchen fire. Then he heard the unmistakable rhythm of gunfire. His response, he said, became “automatic” and “mechanical.”
Salinas drew a suppressed FN Five-seveN pistol from a shoulder holster and moved toward the shooting. Video from the scene shows him advancing cautiously behind signs and other available concealment while searching for the source of the gunfire. Near the drive-through, Salinas saw Williams shoulder a rifle and fire toward vehicles.
“OK, this is the guy,” Salinas recalled thinking.
He raised the pistol with both hands and fired. It was the first time, he told the Statesman, that he had pointed a firearm at a living target.
“He did not like it when bullets started firing both ways,” Salinas said.
Williams had been firing on people who could not effectively resist him. Once an armed citizen and an off-duty trooper began returning fire, the equation changed. The killer withdrew from the restaurant area. Salinas stopped engaging when responding officers arrived, recognizing that his role was finished and police were taking control.
Trained Because “It Could Happen Here”
Salinas is a healthcare worker and the full-time caregiver for his brother, who uses a wheelchair. He told the Statesman that he began taking firearms training more seriously after the 2021 Boise Towne Square mall shooting. That attack taught him an uncomfortable lesson: killers seek vulnerable people and supposedly safe public places.
A wheelchair user and the caregiver standing beside him could be precisely the kind of “soft targets” an attacker might select. Salinas therefore trained in the Idaho desert, practicing not merely how to fire a handgun but how to observe, orient, decide, and act under pressure.
“Everyone says, ‘It’s not going to happen here,’” he told the Statesman. “But what if it does?”
On Saturday, it did.
The Suppressed FN Five-seveN
The handgun Salinas carried was reportedly an FN Five-seveN equipped with a suppressor. A widely circulated copy of an October 2024 Facebook training post attributed to Salinas identified the pictured setup as an FN Five-seveN USG fitted with a Tactical Solutions Axiom suppressor and firing Vanguard 55-grain subsonic 5.7x28mm ammunition. That older post does not establish which ammunition or suppressor Salinas used during the August 1 confrontation.
Salinas’ earlier training post ended with words that now appear painfully prophetic:
“Train like your life depends on it. Because God forbid, one day it might.”
“There’s a Task That Needs to Be Done”
Salinas said he experienced no fear during the engagement. His training narrowed his attention to the immediate problem.
“There’s a task that needs to be done, and we’re the ones who need to do it,” he told the Statesman.
After his identity became public, Salinas posted on Facebook that the response had been overwhelming. He thanked family, friends, and strangers for their prayers and support, while directing attention back toward the victims and their families. He said he would provide a fuller account when he was able.
The right to keep and bear arms exists for moments exactly like this one. The Second Amendment does not promise that police will always arrive before innocent people are murdered. It protects the pre-existing right of the people to possess and carry the means of defense themselves.
Salinas and the off-duty trooper were already there. They were armed. They acted immediately.
When bullets began traveling in both directions, the killer retreated—and lives were saved.
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.
Flock Safety’s Alpha platform combines autonomous flight, aerial license plate recognition, thermal imaging, and live video with the company’s existing police surveillance network. iStock-980888462
Flock Safety has been all over the news in recent years, sparking intense debates about its widespread network of automated license plate reader cameras used to track the movements of ordinary Americans. Critics argue the technology creates a persistent surveillance grid that records where people drive, when they travel, and who they associate with, often without individualized suspicion or a warrant. Yet a greater threat to privacy is already taking shape through Flock, and companies like it. The firm’s aggressive expansion into aerial platforms threatens to transform static street-level monitoring into a mobile, nearly invisible mesh of airborne surveillance.
In October 2024, Flock Safety acquired Aerodome for more than $300 million. Aerodome, a young startup focused on Drone-as-a-first-responder technology, developed an NDAA-compliant, American-made drone system now marketed under the Flock Alpha name.
Flock Alpha Combines Plate Readers, Thermal Imaging, Live Video, and Gunshot Detection
The Alpha functions as a mobile flying extension of Flock’s existing camera network, but its capabilities far exceed those of any stationary pole-mounted unit. According to company materials and independent reporting, the drone can read license plates from up to 2,000 feet away using a multi-sensor payload that includes high-resolution optics, thermal imaging, and low-light performance. It integrates directly into the Flock network and software suite, allowing plate reads captured in the air to feed the same databases and hot-list alerts that ground-based Falcon cameras already populate.
The Alpha does not stop at automated license plate recognition. It also includes a gunshot-detection capability that can trigger automated launches when sensors detect potential gunfire. This technology is conceptually similar to systems such as ShotSpotter, which has faced sustained criticism over accuracy. A 2021 report from the Chicago Office of Inspector General examined tens of thousands of ShotSpotter alerts and found that evidence of a gun-related criminal offense was documented in only about 9 percent of police responses. Independent analyses and city data from other jurisdictions have similarly questioned whether acoustic gunshot detection consistently delivers actionable results or simply generates large volumes of responses that yield little evidence. Pairing an imperfect acoustic system with a rapidly deployable aerial platform risks amplifying false positives while expanding the geographic reach of the response.
Beyond plate reading and gunshot alerts, the Alpha can transmit live high-definition and thermal video feeds directly to a real-time crime center or control room. Operators can observe streets, parking lots, and public spaces in real time, directing the aircraft as needed. Unlike traditional police helicopters, which are loud and highly visible, drones operating at altitude can be remarkably quiet. This reduces the chance that people on the ground will even know they are being watched. The combination of range, quiet operation, and seamless data integration means law enforcement can maintain persistent visual coverage of areas without the logistical and financial burden of manned aviation.
Rooftop “Hives” Could Provide Around-the-Clock Coverage
Police departments are already installing automated docking stations, often called “hives,” on station rooftops and at other fixed locations. These docks allow drones to launch autonomously when an alert is received, navigate to coordinates, stream video, and then return home when battery levels drop. Once back at the hive, the aircraft lands, swaps or recharges batteries, and is ready for the next mission—often in under 90 seconds. Agencies can operate multiple hives across a jurisdiction, enabling near-continuous aerial coverage at a fraction of the cost of maintaining helicopter fleets. The result is a system that can keep eyes in the sky around the clock without requiring a pilot on every flight.
Flock is not alone in this space. Skydio, another major player in public-safety drones, produces aircraft with similar autonomous docking and flight capabilities. Skydio systems can integrate live video feeds into Flock’s software platform, enabling agencies that use both vendors to view drone footage alongside fixed-camera footage, license plate data, and other sensors in a single interface. Company materials and deployments describe networks of docks arranged in “hives,” sometimes envisioned on buildings throughout a city. While proponents emphasize beneficial uses such as locating missing persons or providing rapid situational awareness during emergencies, the same infrastructure that enables those missions also creates a flexible surveillance blanket whose coverage can shift in seconds.
Taken together, these systems allow government agencies to construct a mesh of surveillance that is far harder to detect or map than today’s fixed Flock cameras. Stationary ALPR units are visible; their locations can be noted, photographed, and sometimes challenged in court or through public records requests. Drones, by contrast, can be repositioned rapidly. A neighborhood that had no aerial coverage one hour can have multiple aircraft overhead the next, triggered by an LPR hit, a gunshot alert, a 911 call, or a manual command. The mobility itself becomes a feature that complicates oversight and public awareness.
From License Plates to Electronic Device Fingerprints
An even more concerning evolution is already visible on the technological horizon. While no widely deployed police drone is yet publicly known to carry a system exactly like SignalTrace, the concept is under active development and marketing. SignalTrace, offered by Leonardo’s ELSAG division, is designed as an add-on for license plate reader infrastructure. It passively collects wireless signals broadcast by nearby devices—smartphones, smartwatches, earbuds, fitness trackers, and vehicle infotainment systems- and correlates those identifiers with ALPR data. The system creates, the company says, an electronic fingerprint that links devices that travel together with a particular vehicle. Investigators can then track the device signatures even if plates are changed or obscured.
If a similar signal intelligence capability were integrated into a drone platform, the implications would be profound. An aircraft could fly a neighborhood grid, capture license plates, and simultaneously map the wireless signatures associated with homes, vehicles, and individuals, all without entering private property or obtaining a warrant based on particularized suspicion. The data harvested could reveal not only who owns which cars but which electronic devices routinely travel with them, effectively turning everyday consumer electronics into tracking beacons. For gun owners and others concerned about government overreach, this fusion of aerial mobility, plate reading, acoustic detection, and device fingerprinting represents a qualitative leap beyond current surveillance tools.
The companies involved frame these systems as force multipliers that improve response times, officer safety, and crime-solving rates. Flock materials highlight rapid arrival times, reduced need to dispatch patrol units for certain calls, and successful recoveries of missing persons. Autonomous docks and multi-drone coordination are presented as efficient, scalable solutions to the resource constraints faced by many departments. Yet efficiency and capability do not automatically equate to constitutional restraint. The same features that allow a drone to reach a shooting scene in under two minutes also allow it to linger over residential streets, follow vehicles for extended periods, or systematically collect data across entire communities.
Why Gun Owners Should Pay Attention
Legal and policy frameworks have not kept pace with the technology. Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches were developed in an era of physical intrusions and limited technological capability. Courts have begun to grapple with prolonged vehicle tracking and bulk data collection, but the combination of autonomous aerial platforms, real-time multi-sensor fusion, and potential device-signal correlation raises novel questions. When does continuous or on-demand aerial observation of public spaces cross into a search? How long may data be retained, and who may access it? What limits, if any, exist on correlating plate reads with wireless device signatures? Absent clear statutory rules or robust judicial oversight, the default trajectory appears to favor expanding collection first and litigating the boundaries later.
Gun owners have a particular reason for vigilance. Firearms-related data already appears in various law-enforcement systems through background checks, registration regimes in some states, and investigative databases. Layering mobile aerial surveillance capable of reading plates from significant distances and potentially linking vehicles to personal devices increases the risk that lawful activity, traveling to a range, a gun store, or a political event, becomes part of a permanent digital record. Even if individual officers act in good faith, the existence of searchable, long-term repositories of movement and association data creates opportunities for mission creep, political targeting, or simple error.
The path from fixed ALPR cameras to autonomous drone fleets and potential signal-intelligence add-ons has unfolded rapidly. Flock’s acquisition of Aerodome in 2024, the subsequent development and marketing of the Alpha platform, integration pathways with competitors such as Skydio, and the parallel emergence of systems like SignalTrace illustrate how commercial technology vendors and public agencies can jointly expand the surveillance perimeter with limited public debate. Each incremental capability, quieter flight, longer range plate reading, automated launch, live video sharing, and device correlation can be justified in isolation as a public-safety improvement.
Collectively, they form something closer to a continuous, adaptive observation system whose presence is difficult for ordinary citizens to detect or challenge.
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.
New Jersey filed a July 31, 2026, motion asking the Third Circuit to stay its mandate after the en banc court struck down the state’s bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds. iStock-2281848084
New Jersey has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to keep enforcing the state’s bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines—even after the en banc court ruled those laws violate the Second Amendment. The state filed a motion July 31 asking the Third Circuit to stay its mandate while New Jersey prepares a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
The Third Circuit issued its decision July 17, striking down New Jersey’s restrictions on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds. The mandate, the formal order putting that judgment into effect, would otherwise issue no sooner than August 7.
New Jersey says its Supreme Court petition is due October 15. It wants the Third Circuit to keep the bans enforceable until the Supreme Court rejects the petition or, should the justices accept the case, until they issue a final decision. Filing the motion itself temporarily pauses issuance of the mandate while the Third Circuit considers the request.
New Jersey Claims Restored Rights Would Cause ‘Irreparable Harm’
The state argues that it will suffer irreparable harm if gun stores begin selling AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines before the Supreme Court acts. That turns the Constitution upside down. New Jersey treats the continued denial of an enumerated right as a temporary inconvenience for gun owners. At the same time, it characterizes lawful commerce in constitutionally protected arms as an injury to the government.
The state warns that thousands of rifles and magazines could enter New Jersey and become “near-impossible to retrieve” if the Supreme Court later reinstates the bans.
That language deserves attention. New Jersey is not merely concerned about administrative confusion. It is worried that citizens will acquire arms the state may later want confiscated, surrendered, destroyed, or permanently removed from lawful commerce.
The state also warns that people who purchase the affected firearms and magazines could face criminal exposure if the law changes again. That is not an argument for keeping unconstitutional laws in force. It is an admission that New Jersey’s regulatory scheme creates a legal minefield for otherwise law-abiding gun owners.
The State’s Exhibits Prove Common Use
Nearly half of New Jersey’s filing consists of screenshots and social-media posts from gun stores, customers, and firearms companies. The state included posts involving gun stores in the Garden State that allegedly showed sales of standard-capacity magazines after the Third Circuit issued its opinion.
One exhibit reproduces an Instagram post announcing the first sale of what New Jersey calls a “large-capacity magazine” after the ruling. Another includes a report that a store sold a standard-capacity magazine. While another allegedly advertised that the magazines were “back” and available to order.
New Jersey also collected posts from dealers preparing to sell AR-15s and magazines as soon as legally permitted. The state specifically cited Palmetto State Armory’s announcement that it intended to begin shipping AR-15s to New Jersey “the moment” the mandate issued. New Jersey presents these exhibits as evidence of an emergency. They prove something else.
The rifles and magazines at issue are ordinary commercial products. Dealers stock them. National retailers ship them. Customers want them. Millions of Americans lawfully own them for self-defense, competition, training, hunting, and other lawful purposes. That is not evidence that the arms fall outside the Second Amendment. It is evidence of common use.
New Jersey calls the expected sales a “flood.” Gun owners might call it a lawful market returning after decades of government suppression.
Thirty-Six Years of Infringement Is Not a Defense
Throughout its motion, New Jersey repeatedly invokes the “36-year-old status quo.” The state’s theory is that because its restrictions have existed since 1990, the court should leave them in place for a few more months—or perhaps considerably longer—while Supreme Court litigation proceeds. The age of an unconstitutional law does not make it constitutional.
Thirty-six years of enforcement does not create a historical tradition dating to the Founding. It does not rewrite the Second Amendment. It does not give New Jersey a vested right to continue denying its citizens access to arms commonly possessed throughout the country.
The state also faults the plaintiffs for waiting years to challenge the restrictions. Some plaintiffs did not request preliminary injunctions, and the parties previously agreed to maintain portions of the legal status quo while earlier appeals proceeded. New Jersey argues that this conduct shows gun owners will suffer little harm from another delay. That argument is particularly weak. Constitutional rights are not forfeited because the government successfully infringed them for a long time. Nor does litigation strategy transform a prohibited law into a legitimate exercise of state power.
The government cannot spend decades burdening a right and then argue that the victims must not have needed the right very badly because they did not win sooner.
The Supreme Court Factor Is Real
New Jersey does have a serious procedural argument that the Supreme Court may become involved. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, which asks whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-style and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Third Circuit’s decision directly addresses that issue.
New Jersey also argues that the magazine ruling created a circuit split because other federal appellate courts have upheld similar restrictions. The state cites decisions from the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits. That division makes further Supreme Court review plausible.
But a collection of appellate judges agreeing with gun control does not create the historical tradition required by Bruen. Courts cannot manufacture an originalist justification by counting modern judicial opinions.
The constitutional question remains rooted in text and history: Are AR-15-pattern rifles and standard-capacity magazines “Arms” commonly possessed for lawful purposes, and can New Jersey identify a historical tradition supporting their prohibition? The Third Circuit concluded that the state could not carry its burden.
State Sovereignty Stops at the Constitution
New Jersey also argues that preventing it from enforcing a law causes sovereign injury because the law was enacted by the people’s elected representatives. States have legitimate sovereign interests. They do not have sovereignty superior to the federal Constitution. The Supremacy Clause resolves that question. State legislatures cannot vote away rights protected by the Constitution, and courts do not owe continued deference to a statute merely because politicians enacted it.
New Jersey’s elected officials may dislike the AR-15. They may prefer magazines holding ten rounds rather than 15, 17, 20, or 30. Their policy preferences do not control the meaning of the Second Amendment. New Jersey’s motion asks the Third Circuit to treat lawful possession and commerce as irreparable government injuries while treating the continued denial of constitutional rights as a manageable delay. That is precisely backward.
The Third Circuit has already ruled that New Jersey crossed the constitutional line. The question now is whether the court will allow that judgment to protect the citizens who won—or keep an unconstitutional regime alive while Trenton searches for a more favorable answer.
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.
Summit County Fair officials are routing visitors through an enclosed entrance with security screening, effectively forcing lawful gun owners to disarm before entering. iStock-1166005919
“Ohio State Fair Building Gun Ban Fails All Tests for Constitutionality,” my recent AmmoLand article notes. While lawfully armed visitors may carry in outdoor areas, the fair’s firearms policy bars them from entering buildings while armed, putting all enclosed exhibits and indoor restrooms off-limits to them.
Fox 8 Cleveland WJW reports Summit County Fair citizen disarmament measures will go even further. By requiring all attendees to enter via a newly built enclosed exhibit hall, fair management is essentially saying, “Hold our beer.
Citizen disarmament, enforced by “a bag checks and a mag meter” at the entrance and an increased police presence, will mandate a “gun-free zone” for the 50,000 estimated fairgoers (with law enforcement being the “Only Ones” excepted, of course).
“We’ve increased the count of deputies; we’re going to have drones in the air. The SWAT team will be here if needed,” Fair Director Howard Call declared. “And plus, the mounted patrol will be here just to ensure that everyone has a good time.”
“We’re not going to put up with any mischief,” Call added. “You know, if people don’t obey the deputies, they will be escorted out.”
Armed enforcers coercing citizens into surrendering a fundamental right, leaving them defenseless to protect themselves and their families…? Mr. Call has a pretty cognitively dissonant definition of a good time.
So, why are they doing this?
Last year a 17-year-old was shot in the parking lot. Per a police report, “The suspect has been described as a black male wearing a Nike t-shirt with dreadlock-style hair and a tattoo on his neck. The suspect fled the scene in an unknown vehicle.”
Meaning, in order to get into the Summit County Fair, citizens, many with children, will need to leave their guns locked in their cars and proceed unarmed to and from the fair entrance in the lot where the shooting took place. Once more, criminals who don’t obey any laws will be used as an excuse to force peaceable people who observe the law into surrendering their rights.
As we’ve noted about the Ohio State Fair building ban, it is unconstitutional by any standard, particularly using the text, history, and tradition criteria the Supreme Court established in the Bruen decision. But that said, even if a strict scrutiny means-end evaluation test were to be invoked, just common sense says it should still fail, because the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and there’s no compelling state interest that says guns are okay on one side of a door but need to be banned for public safety on the other.
Or in the case of the Summit County Fair, on one side of the enclosed entrance or the other. According to fair prohibitionists, with no evidence but just personal biases, armed citizens they encounter, mostly unknowingly, in daily life are the problem. That’s just bull.
Call and the Fair Board are imposing their own prejudices to thumb their collective noses at the Bill of Rights and at Ohio law to impose an unconstitutional ban that ignores the Supreme Court’s findings. As the fair opened July 28 and will close on Sunday, they’ll probably get away with it, for this year anyway, unless someone can figure out a way to get an emergency injunction.
That’s something that’s got to change for next year, though. The Framers never intended for a small group of biased, unelected (by the people) bureaucrats to be able to overrule all three branches of government and deny rights to everyone. If it persists, it’s the type of civil rights violation AAG Harmeet Dhillon should put a stop to, that is, if Ohio Republicans in the legislature don’t step up first to do their job and end the fair building ban.
Perhaps they’re afraid to rock the boat before the midterms, as if Democrats aren’t going to vote against them regardless of any duties they abdicate or concessions they offer. If that’s the case, they should consider bold leadership and action could only help stoke the fires in gun voter’s bellies, whereas cowardice and inaction will only demoralize them and stifle it.
Perhaps if Mr. Ramaswamy pledged to sign such a bill…?
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.
![Magpul PMAG 30 Round magazines. iStock.com/[SolidMaks]](https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/AR-15-Magazine-Magpul-Pmag-iStock-1401617033-600x400.jpg)
