By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: still on summer break; NRA v. Glass (previously NRA v. Bondi): NRA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on June 20; Wolford v. Lopez; Case 24-1046: This case was reviewed almost 5 months ago, but since the posted decision date on the SCOTUS website is Sept. 5, 2024, it is timely to review it again: Texas: Sixth Circuit: Firearms Coalition v. Garland: Case No. 4-24-cv-00565: no guns in Post Offices…the plaintiffs are seeking the restitution of their Second Amendment rights; Elite Precision Customs LLC v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: Case No. 4:25-cv-00044-P: The plaintiffs and the government have filed competing motions.
SCOTUS
NRA v. Glass (previously NRA v. Bondi): The National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in this case on June 20. This case challenges Florida’s law that prohibits 18- to 20-year-olds from purchasing firearms, questioning whether such restrictions violate the Second Amendment rights of young adults and highlighting the split between the circuits. Within the past two months, the following amicus briefs have been submitted by the Second Amendment Foundation, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Background and legal context: The Florida law in question was enacted after the Parkland school shooting, prohibiting adults aged 18 to 20 from purchasing firearms. The law has been upheld by lower courts, most notably by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision written by Judge William Pryor, a former NRA award-winning attorney. Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment attorney, @FourBoxesDiner on X.com and on the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com, criticizes this decision, arguing that it misapplies the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence, especially the “text, history, and tradition” test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. I have summarized his analysis below:
Circuit Split and Supreme Court Review
A central argument for Supreme Court review is the existence of a “circuit split”-different federal appellate courts have reached conflicting decisions on whether 18- to 20-year-olds are fully protected by the Second Amendment. The Eighth Circuit, in the Worth case, ruled that young adults have full rights, allowing them to carry firearms in Minnesota, whereas the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have upheld restrictions, such as Florida’s. The Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Worth, but Smith suggests the Glass case is distinct because it concerns the right to purchase, not just to carry, firearms.
Key Legal Questions
The petition asks the Supreme Court to resolve two main issues:
- Whether the Second Amendment fully protects the rights of 18- to 20-year-old adults, who are otherwise considered legal adults for voting, marriage, contracts, and military service.
- Whether the right to “keep and bear arms” necessarily includes the right to acquire or purchase firearms, even though the words “purchase” or “acquire” do not appear in the constitutional text.
Broader Implications
Smith argues that Supreme Court intervention is necessary to clarify these important constitutional questions and prevent lower courts from undermining Second Amendment rights through interest-balancing or public policy arguments, which the Bruen decision rejected. He emphasizes the need for consistent application of the Bruen methodology, focusing on constitutional text and historical tradition rather than modern policy debates.
He predicts that if the Supreme Court grants certiorari, it will render a favorable outcome for young adults and gun rights advocates, with the potential to establish that the right to purchase firearms is inherent to the Second Amendment. He underscores the urgency for the Court to resolve the circuit split and reaffirm its commitment to the constitutional framework established in recent precedents.
Wolford v. Lopez; Case 24-1046: This case was reviewed almost 5 months ago, but since the posted decision date on the SCOTUS website is Sept. 5, 2024, it is timely to review it again:
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Hawaii on Sept. 26, 2024, and the rehearing was denied on Jan. 15, 2025.Petition for a writ of certiorari filed on April 1, with response due May 5. Trump’s DOJ urged the granting of certiorari, as well. Additionally, Kostas Moros, an attorney formerly with Michel & Associates and now with the Second Amendment Foundation, wrote at that time: “So now 26 States AND the federal government are asking for cert in Wolford. The “interlocutory case” excuse, always unserious in constitutional disputes, would be even more untenable.
“At minimum, if the Court doesn’t want the case til final judgment, it should stay the Ninth Circuit and reimplement the district court injunction pending final judgment.”
Background: This case was filed challenging most of SB1230. SB1230 designated most of the islands of Hawaii as “sensitive places” where carry permits are not recognized and requires that signage be posted on the property to allow carry. The Hawaii legislature decided to copy NY, CA, and NJ, which also expanded their definitions of “sensitive places.” Our Legislative Alerts covered the legislative process that gave us SB1230, as well as the Honolulu County restrictions on carry permits.
District Courts
Texas: Sixth Circuit
Firearms Coalition v. Garland: Case No. 4-24-cv-00565: This case was filed on June 18, 2024, against 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), which prohibits knowing possession of firearms in federal facilities, including federal post office buildings, and against 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), which similarly bans carrying and storing firearms on “postal property.” This case is similar to United States v. Ayala::8:22-cv-00369, discussed in the Grassroots Legislative Report 2025-08-18. Unlike the Ayala case, the plaintiffs are not defendants in a criminal case but are seeking the restitution of their Second Amendment rights. Additionally, the Sixth Circuit, as opposed to the Twelfth Circuit, has historically been more favorable to Second Amendment rights. Currently, a hearing date has not been scheduled.
Elite Precision Customs LLC v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: Case No. 4:25-cv-00044-P is a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Jan. 20, before Judge Mark Timothy Pittman. The case challenges the constitutionality of the federal “Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban,” which prohibits federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) from directly selling handguns to out-of-state residents who are otherwise eligible to purchase and possess them. Instead, such sales must be routed through an in-state FFL, adding extra costs, delays, and logistical hurdles. The plaintiffs argue this violates the Second Amendment under the framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022),
In their July 14, 2025, brief supporting a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs rejected the defendants’ historical analogies (e.g., colonial-era gunpowder storage or quality-control laws) as irrelevant, arguing they do not compare to geography-based sales bans. They also oppose means-end scrutiny, emphasizing Bruen’s focus on history.
The defendants, the Trump Department of Justice, in their June 9 motion to dismiss and subsequent August 13 reply brief, defend the ban as a valid regulation with historical support from early American laws on firearm commerce and safety. They describe the burden as “modest” and argue it aligns with longstanding traditions of regulating interstate transfers to prevent circumvention of state laws.
Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment attorney, @FourBoxesDiner on X.com, and on the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com, has a very recent video discussing this case. Smith argues the government’s attempt to cite Founding-era prohibitions on selling arms to Native Americans and foreign powers does not hold water. He predicts the court will likely require the government to show a historical tradition of analogous regulation—a step the DOJ is, in Smith’s view, poorly positioned to satisfy.
