By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New —SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court met on Thursday, May 28, to discuss cases. All five Second Amendment cases that had been relisted multiple times were still not considered; California: Ninth Circuit:
Carralero v. Bonta, No. 23‑4354 (9th Cir.) – California SB 2 “sensitive places”; case pending on the merits in district court under the Ninth Circuit’s framework; Maryland: NRA v. Moore; Case No. 1:26‑cv‑02074; U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Complaint filed May 26, 2026, immediately after Governor Wes Moore signed SB 334 into law. The complaint frames SB 334 as an outright ban on the acquisition of a category of handguns they argue are “arms” in common use for lawful purposes, and thus categorically protected under Heller and Bruen: Pennsylvania: Hornback v. Blanche; Case No. 3:26-cv-00979; US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. This is a facial and as‑applied Second Amendment challenge to the federal ban on guns in post offices and on postal property.
SCOTUS
The U.S. Supreme Court met on Thursday, May 28, to discuss cases. All five Second Amendment cases that had been relisted multiple times were still not considered. The next conference day is Thursday, June 4.
Court of Appeals
California: Ninth Circuit:
Carralero v. Bonta, No. 23‑4354 (9th Cir.) – California SB 2 “sensitive places”
Decisions: Carralero challenges California’s SB2, a comprehensive post-Bruen law that designates many locations—such as public transit, parks, playgrounds, medical facilities, public gatherings, places of worship, financial institutions, and most private property open to the public—as gun-free zones. The district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking several categories, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part: it upheld the preliminary injunction for medical facilities, public transportation sites, public gatherings, places of worship, financial institutions, and California’s private-property default rule, but allowed all other SB 2 sensitive-place provisions to take effect.
The court has since denied rehearing and rehearing en banc, so the case now proceeds with those partial injunctions in place while merits proceedings continue. This is one of the leading federal appellate decisions outlining a “middle‑road” approach to sensitive‑place analysis, drawing lines among different locations based on historical analogies.
Status: Preliminary‑injunction decision affirmed in part/reversed in part, rehearing denied; case pending on the merits in district court under the Ninth Circuit’s framework.
District Court
Maryland:
NRA v. Moore; Case No. 1:26‑cv‑02074; U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Complaint filed on May 26, 2026, immediately after Governor Moore signed SB 334 into law. The complaint characterizes SB 334 as an outright ban on the acquisition of a category of handguns they argue are “arms” in common use for lawful purposes, and thus categorically protected under Heller and Bruen.
Advocacy summaries place NRA v. Moore among other cases challenging Maryland gun laws, including Kipke v. Moore, which contests Maryland’s “sensitive place” carry restrictions under SB1.
Core constitutional theory
The complaint portrays SB334 as an outright ban on the acquisition of a category of handguns they argue are “arms” in common use for lawful purposes, and thus categorically protected under Heller and Bruen.
Key points from the pleading:
- SB 334 “functions as a ban on the sale, purchase, or transfer” of Glock and Glock‑style pistols to ordinary citizens in Maryland.
- Because these handguns are in “common use for lawful purposes,” plaintiffs cite District of Columbia v. Heller’s rule that arms in common use cannot be be banned.
- They also view the ability to acquire and purchase firearms as an essential part of the right to “keep and bear,” citing Heller’s recognition that the Second Amendment protects possession of commonly used arms for self‑defense in the home.
- Using Bruen’s text-and-history test, they argue there is no historical tradition of banning the sale or purchase of a whole class of widely owned semiautomatic handguns based on their potential convertibility; therefore, Maryland cannot meet its burden to justify SB334.
Pennsylvania:
Hornback v. Blanche; Case No. 3:26-cv-00979; US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
This is a facial and as‑applied Second Amendment challenge to the federal ban on guns in post offices and on postal property (18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l)), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief so that law‑abiding carriers can be armed in post offices and their parking lots.
Parties and posture
- Individual plaintiffs: three Pennsylvania residents (Hornbake, Bruno, Minichini) who frequently carry handguns for self-defense and regularly visit local post offices, including for personal errands, PO boxes, and an FFL’s firearm-shipping business.
- Organizational plaintiffs: NRA, GOA, and GOF, suing on behalf of members and supporters (including individuals like Bonita Shreve) who want to carry at post offices but avoid doing so out of fear of prosecution.
- Defendant: Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, sued in his official capacity as the federal official responsible for enforcing § 930(a) and the USPS regulation.
Laws challenged and theory
- Statutes/regs: § 930(a) criminalizes knowingly possessing a firearm in a “federal facility,” which includes post office buildings; 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) prohibits carrying or storing firearms “on postal property,” including parking lots, except for “official purposes.”
- Core claim: Under Bruen, carrying handguns in public for self-defense falls under the Second Amendment’s plain text, so these location bans are likely unconstitutional unless the government can demonstrate a well-established, representative historical precedent at the time of the founding.
Historical and doctrinal arguments
- No founding-era post-office gun bans: The complaint highlights that post offices existed before and after ratification and were often taverns where armed customers were common; there were even physical features for guns like hooks and shooting matches.
- Enforcement tradition: Starting in the 1790s, Congress strongly criminalized robbing or obstructing the mail and harming postal workers, including penalties like capital punishment and corporal punishment, but it never enforced general disarmament in post offices or on postal grounds.
- Late adoption: A federal ban specific to post offices did not emerge until 1972, more than 330 years after colonial postal service began and nearly 200 years after the founding, which the complaint considers too late to be seen as meaningful tradition.
Sensitive places and precedent
- Sensitive-places rebuttal: The complaint claims that historic “sensitive places” are limited to legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—locations of government deliberation with heightened security—none of which resemble regular post offices.
- Security argument: It asserts that post offices are not fully protected, do not serve as centers of democratic discussion, and therefore cannot be compared to historically recognized sensitive locations under Bruen.
- Supporting cases: Plaintiffs rely on United States v. Ayala (M.D. Fla.) and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. v. Bondi (N.D. Tex.), both of which found § 930(a) and, in Texas, § 232.1(l), unconstitutional as applied to post‑office carry under Bruen.
Relief requested
- Declaratory: A declaration that § 930(a) and § 232.1(l) violate the Second Amendment as applied to possession and carrying in post offices and on publicly accessible USPS property, and that they are unconstitutional on their face to that extent.
- Injunctive: A permanent injunction preventing enforcement of those provisions regarding carrying or possessing firearms in post offices and on USPS-controlled public property, including costs, fees, and any other appropriate relief.
