By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New —SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court met on Thursday, May 21, to discuss cases. All five Second Amendment cases that had been relisted multiple times were still not considered; Virginia: Fourth Circuit: United States v. Speed, No. 23‑4380: NFA silencers limits left intact, textual step only; Colorado: Tenth Circuit: National Association for Gun Rights v. Polis, No. 24‑1209 – Standing and scope in Colorado ghost‑gun law challenge.
SCOTUS
The U.S. Supreme Court met last Thursday, May 21, to discuss cases. All five Second Amendment cases that had been relisted multiple times were still not considered. On Thursday, May 28, SCOTUS is expected to release some decisions.
Novotny v. Moore (consolidated with Kipke v. Moore); Case numbers: 25A1140 and 25‑1206. The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition have just sought certiorari in a Fourth Circuit case out of Maryland (Moore/Novotny v. Kipke), challenging Maryland’s 2023 SB1 and related provisions that severely restrict where licensed individuals may carry handguns in public. The district court issued a preliminary injunction (later converted to a final judgment) enjoining several locational bans. The Fourth Circuit largely reversed this decision in a January 20, 2026, opinion, and the plaintiffs then sought certiorari and a stay of the mandate from the Fourth Circuit to preserve the injunction during Supreme Court review.
The Question Presented in the Novotny/Kipke petition for a writ of certiorari (No. 25‑1206) is:
“Whether a State may enact a law that prohibits carrying a firearm on private property open to the public unless the property owner or occupant gives express permission, consistent with the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, where the default rule at the Founding and throughout American history allowed peaceable carry on such property absent an express prohibition.”
This question is closely related to the same issue the Court is reviewing in Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24‑1046. Therefore, we can expect that once the Wolford decision is announced, SCOTUS will grant GVR and send this case back to the Fourth Circuit for further proceedings.
Appellate Courts
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Virginia: Fourth Circuit
United States v. Speed, No. 23‑4380: May 5– NFA silencers limits left intact, textual step only
- The Fourth Circuit rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on silencers, holding that the defendant had not demonstrated that the NFA’s “shall‑issue” permit system for silencers is unconstitutional, and refusing to decide whether silencers qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment.
- The panel instead resolved the case at the Bruen/Rahimi “text” step, with separate concurrences by Judge Wilkinson (arguing silencers are categorically unprotected) and Judge Richardson (criticizing existing circuit precedent but agreeing the challenge fails).
- This matters because it maintains federal silencer regulation after Bruen without definitively deciding if silencers are covered by the Second Amendment, leaving open the possibility for future cases on the question of what constitutes an arm. The ruling applies to federal courts in the Fourth Circuit (MD, VA, WV, NC, SC).
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Colorado: Tenth Circuit
National Association for Gun Rights v. Polis, No. 24‑1209 – Standing and scope in Colorado ghost‑gun law challenge
- The Tenth Circuit ruled that plaintiffs have standing to challenge Colorado’s ban on possessing or acquiring unserialized firearms, frames, receivers, and parts kits, but do not have standing to challenge the law’s manufacturing ban (such as through 3D printing), sending the case back for further proceedings under Bruen. The panel also rejected the district court’s description of the law as merely a “condition or qualification on the commercial sale of firearms,” noting that broader limits on possession and acquisition more directly involve the Second Amendment.
- This is legally significant because it frames “ghost gun” restrictions as potentially burdensome on core protected conduct, while also limiting challenges to only those contexts where plaintiffs can demonstrate concrete injury. The decision applies to Colorado and other Tenth Circuit states and was issued in early 2026.
- National Assn for Gun Rights v. Polis is an appeal to the Tenth Circuit from the District of Colorado challenging Colorado’s “ghost‑gun” serialization law; the panel issued a mixed decision on standing and merits and remanded for further Bruen analysis.
- By contrast, the panel concluded that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the law’s restrictions on the possession and acquisition (including purchase) of unserialized firearms, frames/receivers, and parts kits because those provisions directly regulate their intended activities.
- The court rejected the district court’s description of the restrictions on possession and acquisition as merely conditions on selling, emphasizing that the law governs possession “no matter how a person previously acquired the frame or firearm.”
District court proceedings (D. Colo.)
- The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado as National Association for Gun Rights, et al. v. Polis, No. 24-cv-00001-GPG-STV.
- Plaintiffs (NAGR, several individual gun owners, and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners) challenged Colorado’s 2023 law that bans the purchase, sale, transfer, and possession of unserialized firearms, frames/receivers, and parts kits, as well as restricting the manufacture of frames/receivers from raw materials.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in January 2024. After a briefing and a hearing on March 14, 2024, Judge Gordon P. Gallagher denied the motion on May 2, 2024.
- The district court viewed the challenged provisions as likely lawful “conditions or qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms,” determined they did not violate the plain text of the Second Amendment, and concluded that most claims were non‑justiciable under Article III.
- The district court determined that only one aspect of the plaintiffs’ challenge was ripe and within Article III, dismissing the rest on jurisdictional grounds (standing/ripeness).
- Plaintiffs filed their appeal to the Tenth Circuit on May 16, 2024.
