By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island no new information; Smith & Wesson v. Mexico: Case 22-1823: To be decided within the next two months; Trump Administration and Second Amendment Jurisprudence: Wolford v. Lopez; Case 24-1046: Alan Beck’s article in The Reload on the 11th Circuit decision;C.S. v. McCrumb: Case 24-1364; Guns Ave Lives (GSL) v. Kelly; Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC: Last week the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the federal PLCAA Act in the case of Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC.
SCOTUS
conferences through the end of the term
Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island do not have any further information as of May 6.
For the rest of the 2024-2025 term, the scheduled conference dates are May 14, 21, 28, and June 4, 11, 18, and 25.
Awaiting decision
Smith & Wesson v. Mexico: Case 22-1823: This case was granted certiorari on Oct. 5, 2024, was argued on March 4, 2025. We are looking forward to a decision in the next month or so.
Trump Administration and Second Amendment Jurisprudence
The YouTube channel, The Four Boxes Diner, host, Mark W. Smith, explains the methodology of the Trump Administration regarding judicial support for the defense of the Second Amendment. The Department of Justice (DOJ) led by Solicitor General John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, has filed a significant amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging it to grant certiorari in Wolford v. Lopez, a key 2A case from the Ninth Circuit.
Wolford v. Lopez; Case 24-1046: 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. It appears that Trump’s DOJ has urged the granting of certiorari. Additionally, according to @MorosKostas, who is an attorney with Michel & Associates: “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, which designates most of the islands of Hawaii as “sensitive places” where carry permits are not recognized and requires that signage be posted to allow carry. The Hawaii legislature decided to copy NY, CA, and NJ who also expanded their definitions of “sensitive places.” We have described in our Legislative Alerts the legislative process that gave us SB1230 as well as the Honolulu County restrictions on carry permits.
Alan Beck’s article in The Reload on the 11th Circuit decision
The 11th Circuit’s majority opinion in NRA v. Pam Bondi (No. 21-12314) claimed that, because 18- to 20-year-olds were considered minors at the time of the nation’s founding and could not enter into enforceable commercial contracts, it is historically justified to bar them from buying firearms today.
The chief litigator in this case, Alan Beck, writes in theReload.com about his research, which reveals that even in the founding era, minors could enter into binding contracts for “necessities”-a legal exception that included items essential to their station in life. Beck demonstrates, with historical legal cases and references to the Militia Act of 1792, that firearms were considered necessities, especially since young men were required by law to provide their own arms for militia service. Thus, even if 18- to 20-year-olds were minors, they would have been able to legally acquire firearms as a necessity.
Thus, he opines, the 11th Circuit’s decision misapplies both history and constitutional analysis, failing to meet the standards set by the Supreme Court in recent Second Amendment cases. Such an error could open the door to broader, unjustified gun restrictions if it lasts.
Circuit Court
Michigan: Sixth Circuit
Background: C.S. v. McCrumb: Case 24-1364: On Jan. 30, a three-judge panel heard oral arguments. Mark W. Smith, @thefourbaxesdiner, states in his video that the three-judge panel is “terrible.” And now the verdict has been handed down: It is a 3-0 troubling precedent decision against the student, as it allows rights to be curtailed due to hypothetical disruptions rather than actual evidence of harm.
Background: The case was filed on May 16, 2023, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the principal of Robert Kerr Elementary School for violating a third-grader’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The child wore a hat bearing the test “Come and Take It” with an image of an AR-15 firearm to the school’s “hat day.” That court DENIED C.S.’s motion and ruled in favor of the school district.In conjunction with the Firearms Policy Coalition, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 4, 2024.
State Courts
Illinois
Guns Save Lives (GSL) v. Kelly: April 29, the 4th District Appellate Court, IL in a 2-1 decision upheld the opinion of the trial court, finding in favor of the state of Illinois. Presiding Justice Harris delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justice Cavanagh concurred in the judgment and opinion and also added an opinion. Justice DeArmond dissented, with opinion.
Background: The Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card Act establishes a licensing system for the acquisition and possession of firearms in Illinois. Plaintiff, Guns Save Life, Inc. (GSL), brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the FOID Act under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ultimately, GSL and defendant Brendan Kelly, in his official capacity as acting director of the Illinois State Police sought competing motions for summary judgment. The trial court found in favor of Kelly. GSL appealed to the District Appellate Court.
Kansas
Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC: Last week, the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously upheld the dismissal of a product liability lawsuit against Bass Pro Outdoor World and Beretta USA/Beretta Italy, citing the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The case, Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, centered on a 2018 incident where a former college football player accidentally shot his teammate in the leg while attempting to disassemble a Beretta handgun purchased from Bass Pro Shops. The shooter mistakenly believed the gun was unloaded and that the trigger had to be pulled for disassembly, leading to a severe injury requiring amputation.
The injured party sued, arguing that the handgun lacked essential safety features that could have prevented the discharge and that both the manufacturer and seller were responsible. However, the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision focused on the PLCAA, which protects firearm manufacturers and dealers from liability when their products are misused in a crime. The key legal question was whether the lawsuit qualified as a “qualified civil liability action” under 15 U.S.C. § 7903(5)(A)(v), which would trigger PLCAA immunity.
The Court held that immunity applied because the shooter’s act-deliberately pulling the trigger-was a “volitional act,” and the discharge occurred on a public road, violating Kansas’s strict liability law against firing a gun in such a location. This constituted a criminal act, even though there was no intent to harm. The ruling reinforced that responsibility for the injury rested with the individual who pulled the trigger, not the companies that lawfully sold or manufactured the firearm. The decision was seen as a reaffirmation of the PLCAA’s role in shielding the firearms industry from lawsuits over third-party criminal misuse of their products.
