By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New – SCOTUS: Conference of Feb. 13, 2026: United States v. Ali Danial Hemani: Case No. 24-1234: This case has been scheduled for a March 2 hearing; Courts of Appeal; Texas: US District Court for the Northern District of Texas: Jensen v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: Case No. 2:25-cv-00233:; Massachusetts: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts: Granata v. Healey; Case. No. No. 25-1918. The appeal was filed on Sept. 26, 2025. On Jan. 26, the Trump DOJ filed an amicus brief siding firmly with the plaintiffs, who argue that the handgun roster is unconstitutional; State Court, New York: Supreme Court of the State of New York: County of New York, People Of The State Of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, v. Mean, LLC, In February 2026, Mean Arms agreed to a $1.75 million settlement
SCOTUS
Conference of Feb. 13, The Court received seven new cert petitions involving Second Amendment issues this week. Just like last week’s set of newly filed petitions, six of the seven this week are challenges to the federal felon-in-possession law. A few of the pending cases that we have been watching were relisted for discussion at the February 20th conference. Those are the challenges to semiautomatic weapons bans (Viramontes and National Association for Gun Rights) and Large Capacity Magazine bans (Duncan and Gator’s Custom Guns).
District Court
Texas: US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Jensen v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: Case No. 2:25-cv-00233: This lawsuit is a pre-enforcement constitutional challenge to continued National Firearms Act (NFA) regulation of certain firearms and accessories now untaxed under the 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” and to NFA regulation of suppressors and short‑barreled rifles under the Second Amendment. The litigants, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA‑ILA), joined by the American Suppressor Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation, and additional organizations such Texas State Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Hot Shots Custom LLC and three individuals, seek Declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of NFA registration and related provisions as to “untaxed” NFA firearms (suppressors, short‑barreled rifles and shotguns, and “any other weapons”), and separately as to suppressors and short‑barreled rifles under the Second Amendment. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue that once Congress eliminated the tax on most NFA “firearms,” the statutory basis upheld in Sonzinsky as a tax measure disappeared for those items, so the remaining registration and criminal provisions, as applied to untaxed items, exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.
This lawsuit follows an earlier related case, Brown v. ATF, filed on August 1 in the Eastern District of Missouri, which likewise contests the NFA after OBBB eliminated the underlying tax. Together, Brown and Jensen seek to invalidate what plaintiffs characterize as the NFA’s unconstitutional registry by targeting the surviving registration regime once its original tax‑based justification has been stripped away
The Jensen case has yet to be decided by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk.
Massachusetts: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Granata v. Healey; Case. No. No. 25-1918. The appeal was filed on Sept. 26, 2025. On Jan. 26, the Trump DOJ filed an amicus brief siding firmly with the plaintiffs, who argue that the handgun roster is unconstitutional. On Feb. 2, the appellants filed their brief and requested oral argument.
The DOJ’s brief argues that although Massachusetts may promote the law as a safety measure, it still violates the Second Amendment.
“Although the Commonwealth characterizes its regime as a set of safety regulations, the effect of the law is to bar ordinary citizens from acquiring widely owned and commonly used arms,” the brief stated. “Under Supreme Court precedent, a State may not accomplish indirectly what it is forbidden to do directly: prohibit arms that fall within the Second Amendment’s core protection.”
As the DOJ further pointed out in the brief, while the lower court recognized Bruen as its standard, it reasoned that the law was constitutional because it did not outright “ban” arms but only set certain safety standards for them. (Cont. Below)
Circuit Court
Massachusetts: US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Granata v. Healey; Case. No. 1:21-cv-10960: This is a Second Amendment challenge to Massachusetts’ handgun safety roster and attorney general sales regulations, litigated in the First Circuit, not the Second Circuit.
Original Case
Plaintiffs—two individual gun owners, a firearms retailer (The Gunrunner, LLC), and Firearms Policy Coalition—filed suit in the District of Massachusetts against then–Attorney General Maura Healey and other state officials. They challenged Massachusetts statutes and regulations that condition commercial handgun sales on compliance with safety features and inclusion on an Approved Firearms Roster. In 2022, the district court dismissed the complaint under the First Circuit’s pre-Bruen, two-step Second Amendment framework, characterizing the laws as imposing at most a modest burden on core self-defense rights and upholding them under intermediate scrutiny. While the plaintiffs’ appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn v. Bruen, which rejected means-end scrutiny in Second Amendment cases and replaced it with a text-and-history test. In April 2023, the First Circuit vacated and remanded for reconsideration under Bruen, without expressing a view on the merits.
Regulatory scheme and claims
Massachusetts requires that handguns sold by licensed dealers appear on an Approved Firearms Roster and comply with a series of safety requirements, including integrated safety devices, certain proofing or testing standards, and features such as load indicators and child‑safety mechanisms. The attorney general’s regulations further restrict the commercial sale of models lacking specified design and warning features, but the scheme does not directly regulate private, non‑dealer transfers. Plaintiffs alleged that these provisions, facially and as applied, violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by effectively banning the acquisition of numerous common semiautomatic handguns from dealers. They emphasized that the restricted models are in common use for lawful purposes and argued that the state’s safety justifications cannot survive Bruen’s history‑and‑tradition standard.
District court’s post‑Bruen analysis: The Court issued its opinion on Aug. 29, 2025
On remand, both sides submitted motions for summary judgment, and in August 2025, the district court again ruled in favor of the Commonwealth. Applying Bruen, the court first examined whether the “plain text” of the Second Amendment covers the proposed conduct—purchasing specific handguns from licensed dealers that do not meet roster and safety requirements. Relying on an “ancillary rights” approach, it held that the Second Amendment protects acquisition only to the extent that restrictions significantly limit the core right to possess arms for self-defense. Since plaintiffs already owned multiple handguns and could acquire additional models through other lawful channels, the court concluded the regulations did not substantially impair access to arms and therefore fell outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.
The court further held that, even assuming coverage, Massachusetts’ scheme fits within a historical tradition of regulating commercial arms sales and imposing safety‑related conditions. Surveying the founding era through late‑19th‑century laws, it found that regulations on proofing, marking, and dangerous weapons were adequate analogues supporting modern handgun‑safety requirements. On that basis, it denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the state, upholding the roster and attorney general regulations under Bruen.
New Jersey: Third Circuit:
Koons/Siegel v. Platkin; Case No. Nos. 23‑1900 and 23‑2043: The en banc panel held the hearing on February. 11, 2026, in the consolidated Coons and Siegel challenges to New Jersey’s sweeping “sensitive places” restrictions on public firearm carry. The Koons and Siegel matters were consolidated for purposes of the appeal by the time of oral argument on October 25, 2023, when the court heard them together in a single, extended session lasting roughly two hours and forty minutes before Judges Krause, Porter, and Chung.
The underlying Koons and Siegel district court actions had already been consolidated in the District of New Jersey before Chief Judge Renée Marie Bumb, who issued a single preliminary injunction opinion favorable to New Jersey on May 16, 2023, in the consolidated cases Koons & Siegel v. Platkin. On September 10, 2025, the Third Circuit panel issued its preliminary‑injunction decision in the consolidated Koons/Siegel v. Platkin appeal, upholding most of New Jersey’s post‑Bruen carry restrictions while leaving injunctions in place against several key provisions. That ruling was later vacated when the Third Circuit granted en banc rehearing in December 2025, so the September 10 panel decision no longer has precedential force, though it remains important for understanding the panel’s approach to Bruen and “sensitive places.”
Mark W. Smith, a Second Amendment attorney, (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com], who reviews current cases, covered the hearing and in his video he highlights a pointed question from Chief Judge Michael Chagares, who presses New Jersey’s lawyers on why they claim Reconstruction-era history should control when Bruen says late-nineteenth-century evidence has “minimal probative value” where it conflicts with earlier evidence. He maintains that there is affirmative founding-era evidence beyond the text about public carry. He cites the English Statute of Northampton and American “affray” and “shay” (shy) laws, which he says consistently distinguished peaceable public carry of arms for self-defense from misuse of arms to terrorize the public. Under that tradition, he argues, simply carrying a firearm into places like a zoo was historically permissible, while brandishing or using it to frighten others was not. He accuses modern “anti-gunners” of erasing this distinction because their objective is to block carry altogether.
As with all court hearings, the judges’ decision will be rendered “in due time.” Additional public reporting of the hearing identifies several judges as especially active in the en banc argument:
- Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares – presiding as chief of the court and author of the order granting en banc rehearing.
- And the three judges who were the original Koons/Siegel panel: Judges David Porter, Cheryl Ann Krause, and Cindy Chung
- In addition, commentary on the en banc grant emphasizes that newly added Trump‑appointed judges Emil Bove and Jennifer Mascott were widely viewed as significant votes in the rehearing and thus important voices on the enlarged court at the February 11 sitting.
State Court
New York: Supreme Court of the State of New York: County of New York
People Of The State Of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, Plaintiff, -v-
Mean LLC, d/b/a Mean Arms, James V. Underwood, and L Larry Cullen Underwood
This case was brought by Attorney General Letitia James following a racist mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, on May 14, 2022. In preparation, the shooter purchased a Bushmaster XM-15 with a pistol grip that came installed with a 10-round magazine fixed with an MA Lock, a product manufactured by MEAN. These actions collectively allege that MEAN claimed the MA Lock converts an illegal assault weapon in New York into a rifle that complies with the New York SAFE Act. These actions also allege that the shooter followed the instructions MEAN provided on the MA Lock’s packaging and removed the MA Lock from the rifle. These actions further allege that MEAN marketed, advertised, and sold a product, the MA Lock, that the company claimed would lock a 10-round detachable magazine in place and prevent the rifle from accepting a detachable magazine; however, these actions allege that MEAN knew, as the shooter did, that the MA Lock could be removed and, when removed, it did not actually prevent the rifle from accepting a detachable magazine once the user installed a new magazine release.
Settlement (February 2026):
In February 2026, Mean Arms agreed to a $1.75 million settlement that includes:
- $1.75 million in restitution to victims’ families, injured individuals, and traumatized survivors
- Permanent ban from selling the MA Lock in New York
- Removal of any claims that the MA Lock is legal in New York
- Required labeling stating the product cannot be sold in New York
- Notification to all businesses that they cannot sell the product to New York customers
The settlement resolved both the Attorney General’s lawsuit and all civil claims brought by victims and their families.
Jake Fogelman, writing in this past week’s The Reload has the whole story of a firearms accessory manufacturer implementing a bad product.
