By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island rescheduled for conference on May 22—not included; Anti-Second Amendment lobbying Groups comment upon Trump Administration: FRT Settlement; United States v. George Peterson: Case No. 24-30043: a suppressor case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; New York: Second Circuit: Christian v. James: Case No. 1:22-cv-00695: Oral Arguments are set for June 25, 2025, before a three-judge panel.
SCOTUS
Conferences through the end of the 2024-2025 term
For the rest of the 2024-2025 term, the scheduled conference dates are May 28, June 4, 11, 18, and 25. Several Second Amendment cases involving felon-in-possession charges are before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) for certiorari.
Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island were rescheduled for the conference on May 22, 2025, and again, the Court has not acted upon either.
Wolford v. Lopez: Case No: 24-1046: Scheduled for June 4 conference:Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii’s ban on carrying guns on private property open to the public without express permission. See Dave Workman’s article concerning the State Attorney General’s signing an amicus brief.
NRA v. Glass: Circuit Court Case No. 21-12314: We discussed this lawsuit last week. It is awaiting a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on certiorari. Jake Fogelman of The Reload has an interesting column on it this week.
Anti-Second Amendment lobbying Groups comment upon
Trump Administration: FRT Settlement
The Trump administration’s settlement on forced reset triggers (FRTs), discussed in last week’s Judicial Report, drew sharp criticism from anti-Second Amendment lobbying groups including Giffords, Brady, and Everytown for Gun Safety. The settlement, resolving litigation with Rare Breed Triggers and the National Association for Gun Rights, prevents the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing the machine gun ban against FRTs, The allege that these devices significantly increase a semi-automatic firearm’s firing rate. Below are the key comments from these groups:
- Giffords: Vanessa Gonzalez, Vice President of Government and Political Affairs at Giffords, condemned the settlement, stating, “The Trump administration has just effectively legalized machine guns. Lives will be lost because of his actions.” Giffords further emphasized that the move endangers communities, asserting, “Machine guns have no place on our streets.” The group highlighted the settlement’s alignment with a February 2025 executive order by President Trump, which directed the Attorney General to review actions infringing on Second Amendment rights, framing it as a dangerous rollback of gun safety measures.
- Brady: Kris Brown, President of Brady, called the settlement a “secret deal with the gun lobby” that turns “already deadly firearms into weapons of mass destruction.” She described it as an “astonishing abuse of power” that undermines decades of gun safety policy, putting communities at “immediate serious risk.” Brady emphasized that FRTs, classified as machine guns by the ATF in 2022 under the National Firearms Act of 1934, can now be purchased anonymously without background checks, increasing the risk of unregulated proliferation. The group vowed to oppose the action “with every means at our disposal.”
- Everytown for Gun Safety: The group stated, “This move puts our communities in danger. Machine guns have no place on our streets,” echoing Giffords’ sentiment and highlighting the public safety risks posed by the settlement.
These groups collectively argue that the settlement prioritizes gun industry profits over public safety, bypassing public rulemaking processes and ignoring the ATF’s prior classification of FRTs as illegal machine guns. They warn of increased risks of mass violence due to the devices’ ability to mimic machine gun firing rates, citing historical precedents like the 2017 Las Vegas shooting involving bump stocks.
Court of Appeals
Louisiana: Fifth Circuit
United States v. George Peterson: Case No. 24-30043: This case centers on whether firearm suppressors (also known as silencers) are protected “arms” under the Second Amendment and whether the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) taxation and registration requirements for suppressors are constitutional. In a motion filed by the Trump Department of Justice, the U.S. government argues for the first time that suppressors are “arms.” For the first time, the federal government has explicitly conceded that suppressors are “arms” under the Second Amendment. The brief details the practical benefits of suppressors, including reducing hearing damage, improving communication, and enhancing accuracy. It notes that even the U.S. Marine Corps issues suppressors to its troops.
In a YouTube.com video, attorney and legal scholar Mark W. Smith further explains the legal strategy of the Trump DOJ. Many Second Amendment supporters are unhappy that Trump’s DOJ still argued that the NFA’s registration and taxation requirements are constitutional. In the video, Smith explains that this acknowledgement is a deliberate legal strategy. It is a way of not setting legal precedent with the anti-Second Amendment panel decision as binding precedent. By maintaining a live controversy, the DOJ ensures the Fifth Circuit can reconsider and potentially overturn the anti-gun precedent, benefiting Second Amendment jurisprudence in the long run.
Background: In 2022, the United States Government criminally charged Mr. George Peterson, a resident of Louisiana, with possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor (i.e., “silencer”) in violation of federal law. Peterson challenged the NFA’s constitutionality regarding its regulation of suppressors, arguing that it was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. In 2023, he entered a conditional plea of guilty, reserving the right to have the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit review the district court’s denial of his motions to dismiss the Indictment. In February, a 3-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of Mr. Peterson’s motion to dismiss. Now the defendant has petitioned the Fifth Circuit for en banc rehearing, a reversal of the panel decision, and a conclusion that the NFA’s registration and taxation regulations are unconstitutional concerning firearm suppressors. The case was initially argued by the Biden administration, which defended the NFA and its suppressor regulations. On March 17, 2025, an interim motion was filed that reiterated the Biden administration’s anti-gun arguments. However, in April, the Trump administration filed a motion to delay the proceedings for 30 days to reassess its stance. Now we have the “new motion” from the Trump Administration.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
New York: Second Circuit
Christian v. James: Case No. 1:22-cv-00695: Oral Arguments are set for June 25, 2025, before a three-judge panel. On Jan. 3, the state of New York issued its first memorandum; on May 2, the plaintiffs published their memorandum, followed by a rebuttal from New York on May 21. The appeal will consist of two parts: one addressing the restriction on carrying firearms on private property open to the public and the other addressing carrying firearms in public parks.
District Court
Background: Case No: 22-2987: The Christian v. James case from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal stems from the district court’s Oct. 10, 2024, ruling by Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr., which struck down New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) restriction on carrying firearms on private property open to the public (N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-d) as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The state defendants, represented by New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James, sought to stay the ruling pending appeal, but the district court denied the stay on Oct. 23, 2024. Judge Sinatra also noted that related issues, such as carrying firearms in public parks, are being addressed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and thus were not ruled on in this decision.
