By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—From Chuck Michel, CRPA President, on X (formerly known as Twitter):: Duncan update; Courts of Appeals (Circuit Court)—Florida: Eleventh Circuit: United States v. Ayala: Case No. 24-10462: federal law regarding guns in post offices; New York: US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit: NSSF v. James: state statute bypassing federal PLCAA; NRA v. Vullo Case No. 21-2434: A First Amendment case that began in 2018 has resulted in an NRA loss; New Jersey: Third Circuit: Padua v. Platkin: a case against NJ suppressor ban; California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated; The Second Amendment Foundation; Gun Owners of America, Inc.; Gun Owners Foundation; Gun Owners of California, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; Case 2:23-cv-10169-SPG-ADS: In a landmark victory for California gun owners, a significant ruling was secured against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) in a U.S. District Court case addressing delays in concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit processing; Pennsylvania: Third Circuit: Shreve v. United States Postal Service: Case No. 3:25-cv-00214: Thislawsuit was filed by Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation in Pennsylvania, challenging a 1927 federal law that prohibits ordinary citizens from mailing handguns through the U.S. Postal Service, a restriction not applied to long guns.
Trump Administration (DOJ)
The Biden Pistol Brace Rule is DEAD
Texas: Fifth Circuit
Mock v. Garland: case no. 4:23-cv-00095: Judge Reed O’Connor of the federal district court in Texas found in a 2024 decision that the ATF lacked the statutory authority to make this rule, calling it both “unconstitutional and illegal.” The judge’s ruling relied on the Administrative Procedure Act, asserting that when an administrative agency like the ATF changes a longstanding regulation, it must provide clear justification and must not ignore established reliance interests. O’Connor found that the ATF had failed to justify its abrupt shift in policy and had not provided adequate notice or explanation, making their actions “arbitrary and capricious.” As a result, his ruling invoked vacatur, a legal remedy that voids the rule entirely as if it never existed, rather than simply enjoining it.
In 2024, the Biden Justice Department sought an appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but with the change to the Trump administration, the DOJ agreed to dismiss its appeal. This left Judge O’Connor’s vacatur decision in place permanently, preventing the enforcement of the pistol brace rule nationwide
SCOTUS
From Chuck Michel, CRPA President, on X (formerly known as Twitter):
“Duncan update-We’ve extended the deadline to file our petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court until August 18. This is necessary to give our supporters at other pro 2A groups and in the various red states and the Trump administration time to prepare their own Amicus briefs supporting our request so that the likelihood of the Supreme Court taking the case is increased. Please continue to support our efforts. Our work will not stop just because we got an extension on the filing deadline. We have lots of work to do to get our supporters locked in and to assist them in putting persuasive briefs together. We will also be working with the Second Amendment Law Center to coordinate these efforts. Please be a part of history by donating to support our efforts. Thank you!”
I mentioned in the June 25 Grassroots Judicial Report that legal scholar Mark W. Smith is not a proponent of sending machine gun cases to the Supreme Court. Since legal experts disagree, I think Second Amendment supporters should take the time and effort to understand opinions they may not support. So, I am summarizing Smith’s video here.
The case in question is United States v. Morgan: Case No.: 24-3141. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit heard the oral arguments on July 8, 2925.
Judge John Broomes, a district court judge in Kansas, issued a surprising ruling that machine guns qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment’s text. He stated that the federal government had failed to show a historical tradition that supports banning or heavily regulating machine guns, putting the burden of proof on the government to justify such restrictions. Smith discusses the oral arguments that happened on July 8. He is concerned about the lack of firearms’ technical knowledge and the meaning of terms such as “in common use.” Smith emphasizes the need for detailed technical knowledge of firearms in court debates and underscores the strategic legal landscape for gun rights supporters, advising caution in pursuing certain cases at the highest judicial levels given the current composition of the Supreme Court. He believes that as of 2025, there are not enough votes on the Supreme Court to protect machine guns under the Second Amendment.
Courts of Appeals (Circuit Court)
United States v. Ayala: Case No. 24-10462: The government appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit on Feb. 14, 2024. On June 28, 2024 the Biden DOJ filed a request for oral argument in which it stated:
“The district court wrongly held that the Second Amendment prevents the government from prohibiting postal employees from bringing firearms into post offices where they work.”
On July 3, 2024, Everytown for Gun Safety filed an amicus brief supporting the government. In September 2024, an amicus brief was filed by California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., and the Second Amendment Foundation. A second amicus brief was filed by the National Rifle Association, followed by a final one from the Firearms Policy Coalition. Ayala’s dismissal remains in effect unless overturned. On Dec. 9, 2024, after the Presidential election, the DOJ filed a reply brief arguing in favor of the federal law. Oral argument was scheduled for Sept. 12.
United States v. Ayala: Case No. 8:22-cr-00369:
Background: On Feb. 2, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, in the Middle District of Florida, dismissed the indictment against Emmanuel Ayala, a truck driver charged with carrying a handgun in a post office under 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and a related postal regulation. She ruled the ban unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen test, finding no sufficient historical precedent for banning firearms in post offices, distinguishing them from “sensitive places” like courthouses or schools.
New York: US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:
NSSF v. James: This case was filed by the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation), the Firearm Industry Trade Association, challenging the New York State statute that seeks to bypass the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). NSSF released the following comments on July 10, 2025:
“The Second Circuit’s decision is disappointing. We respectfully disagree with the court’s reasoning to uphold New York’s law. We earnestly believe this law is exactly what Congress had in mind when it passed PLCAA with a bipartisan majority. The PLCAA is designed to prohibit frivolous lawsuits against members of the firearm industry, and we continue to believe the New York statute is intended to evade the will of Congress,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “PLCAA is codification of bedrock tort law. It codifies common law and common-sense principles to prevent baseless litigation from bankrupting an entire industry, especially one that provides the necessary means for the lawful exercise of the Second Amendment.”
NSSF concluded with the thought:
“The law is preempted by PLCAA, violates the dormant Commerce Clause, and is so vague as to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
New York: Second Circuit
NRA v. Vullo Case No. 21-2434
The legal case National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo centers on allegations that Maria T. Vullo, former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS), violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights by coercing financial institutions to sever ties with the NRA due to its gun-rights advocacy. The case progressed through multiple courts, with each issuing distinct opinions. Below is a summary of the key rulings and opinions from the District Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Second Circuit’s post-remand decision, which essentially dismissed the case:
At the District Court (Northern District of New York (2021) Case No. 1:18-cv-00566-TJM-CFH.
The NRA filed a lawsuit in 2018 against Vullo, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, DFS, and others, alleging that Vullo’s actions—following the 2018 Parkland shooting—violated its First Amendment rights. Specifically, the NRA claimed Vullo used her regulatory authority to pressure banks and insurance companies (e.g., Lloyd’s, Chubb, and Lockton) to cut ties with the NRA to suppress its pro-gun advocacy. This included issuing guidance letters citing “reputational risks” of associating with the NRA and allegedly threatening enforcement actions against non-compliant entities. The District Court dismissed most claims (e.g., equal protection and state law claims) but allowed two First Amendment claims against Vullo in her individual capacity to proceed.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (2022) Case No. 21-2434
Vullo appealed the District Court’s denial of her motion to dismiss, arguing she was entitled to qualified immunity and that her actions were permissible government speech or legitimate law enforcement. The Second Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, dismissing the NRA’s First Amendment claims. U.S. Supreme Court (2024)
U.S. Supreme Court (2024) Case No. 22-842
The NRA appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on Nov. 3, 2023, to determine whether the NRA’s complaint raised a First Amendment claim. The Court heard oral arguments on March 18, 2024, and issued a unanimous decision on May 30, 2024, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The Supreme Court vacated the Second Circuit’s decision and remanded the case, holding that the NRA plausibly argued that Vullo violated the First Amendment by coercing DFS-regulated entities to terminate business relationships with the NRA to punish or suppress its gun-promotion advocacy.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Post-Remand, 2025) Case No. 21-2434
On remand, the Second Circuit reconsidered the case in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. A notable development was reported in a July 17 post on “X,” indicating the Second Circuit’s post-remand decision. The Second Circuit held that Vullo was entitled to qualified immunity, effectively dismissing the NRA’s claims again.
District Court
California: Ninth Circuit
California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated; The Second Amendment Foundation; Gun Owners of America, Inc.; Gun Owners Foundation; Gun Owners of California, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department; Case 2:23-cv-10169-SPG-ADS
CRPA President Chuck Michel posted on X.com about their landmark victory for California gun owners: the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), along with partners Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of California (GOC), and Gun Owners of America (GOA), secured a significant ruling against the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) in a U.S. District Court case addressing delays in concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit processing. This decision strengthens the rights of law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment protections by challenging systemic delays and bureaucratic obstacles in Los Angeles County.
The court’s 30-page ruling delivered several key wins. First, it upheld the standing of CRPA and its partner organizations to represent all members facing delays in CCW permit applications, amplifying the collective voice of gun owners and countering state efforts to limit pro-Second Amendment groups’ access to the courts. This ruling ensures that associations can advocate broadly for their members, enhancing their legal impact.
Second, the court declared that LASD’s practice of exceeding the statutory 120-day limit (or 30 days post-background check) for processing CCW permits is unconstitutional and actionable. This decision directly addresses the issue of prolonged delays, ensuring that applicants are no longer subjected to indefinite waiting periods without legal recourse.
Third, the ruling rejected the County’s claim of legislative immunity, holding it accountable for its own policies that cause delays. This clears the way for CRPA to seek monetary damages and injunctive relief, compelling LASD to adhere to timely processing of CCW applications. The court also recognized LASD’s pattern of delays as an unlawful policy, reinforcing demands for systemic reform and accountability.
Additionally, the court dismissed the County’s attempt to render the case moot by issuing permits to select plaintiffs after the lawsuit was filed. This ensures LASD cannot avoid responsibility by selectively resolving individual cases to sidestep addressing broader systemic issues.
This ruling marks a significant step toward fair and transparent CCW licensing in California. By affirming that bureaucratic delays are not unavoidable and can be legally challenged, the decision empowers CRPA to continue fighting for swift, equitable permit processing for all law-abiding members. The County now faces clear consequences for failing to meet legal time limits, paving the way for meaningful reform in CCW access.
New Jersey: Third Circuit
David Padua, Michael Glenn, Brian Weber, Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, Safari Club International, New Jersey Firearm Owners Syndicate, American Suppressor Association, and National Rifle Association of America v. Platkin: Case No. 25-cv-13527: The case will be known as Padua v. Platkin. On July 18, 2023, this case was filed seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the New Jersey state statute infringing the right of peaceable citizens to keep and bear firearm suppressors for lawful purposes.
This lawsuit represents one of the most comprehensive and persuasive challenges to suppressor bans. In a YouTube video, Second Amendment attorney Mark W. Smith concludes that the government is unlikely to demonstrate that suppressors are “dangerous and unusual,” which would make a ban unconstitutional under current Second Amendment jurisprudence. The episode encourages advocates and legal observers to follow this case for its potential national impact closely.
Pennsylvania: Third Circuit
Shreve v. United States Postal Service: Case No. 3:25-cv-00214: This lawsuit was filed by Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation in Pennsylvania, challenging a 1927 federal law that prohibits ordinary citizens from mailing handguns through the U.S. Postal Service, a restriction not applied to long guns. The lawsuit claims that mailing handguns is an implicit right under the Second Amendment, supported by recent court rulings on ancillary rights. The law’s exceptions for government officials and Federal Firearms Licensees are cited as discriminatory. The lawsuit aims to overturn this restriction, potentially shaping Second Amendment jurisprudence.
