By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New —SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court had two cases and they were decided in favor of the Second Amendment, and ended the term announcing two “assault weapons” cases for the 2026-2027 term. Department of Justice sues California and Virginia: United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia and United States of America v. State of California; Court of Appeals: Poway Weapons & Gear (PWGG) v. Bonta: oral arguments heard June 23; Michigan: Sixth Circuit: Moser v. Nessel, a challenge to a Michigan law requiring most adults without a Concealed Pistol License to obtain a License to Purchase, Carry, Possess, or Transport a Pistol (LTP) before buying a handgun; Tennessee: State Court: Hughes v. Lee: Trial court unanimously granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring both statutes unconstitutional and void; Tennessee at the Appeals level arguing that court selection improper; Virginia Supreme Court: A three‑judge panel appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia under the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act considered and denied the Commonwealth’s application to consolidate and transfer four challenges.
Department of Justice sues California and Virginia
When I decided to write about DOJ Deputy Assistant Harmeet Dhillon, who is in charge of the Civil Rights Division, in this week’s legislative report, I did not have any prior knowledge that these lawsuits were being filed imminently. But here we are with not one, but two, Department of Justice lawsuits against gun bans in the states of Virginia and California brought by the Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section. The DOJ has filed both lawsuits under 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (the “pattern or practice” provision of the Violent Crime Control Act), not as a standard § 1983 civil rights action, which would be the normal manner for a citizen or a group of citizens.
Both suits were filed just days after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Wolford v. Lopez (June 25), which reaffirmed that the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right,” and they bring the total number of DOJ Second Amendment lawsuits to seven.
United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., Docket No.: 3:26-cv-00610; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division; Filed: July 1. The suit challenges Virginia’s newly enacted assault‑weapons and magazine ban (Senate Bill 749), alleging that it unconstitutionally prohibits the sale, purchase, manufacture, import, and transfer of commonly owned semi‑automatic rifles and certain magazines. The DOJ argues the law bans an entire category of firearms that are in “common use” by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes, making it unconstitutional under the Bruen standard. The complaint is narrow — just 13 pages — and focuses squarely on the commercial purchase and sale prohibition. Notably, by the time the DOJ filed, state courts had already issued two separate preliminary injunctions blocking enforcement of the law in certain jurisdictions.
United States of America v. State of California, et al.; Docket No.: 8:26-cv-01697; U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Filed: July 1. The California suit has two prongs. First, it challenges the so-called “Glock Ban,” which prohibits sale of virtually all Glock and Glock-style pistols on the theory that their trigger design makes them easily convertible to machine guns. Second, it challenges California’s “Handgun Roster” — a regulatory list that limits which handgun models may legally be sold in the state, which critics argue effectively freezes the market for new handguns. Like the Virginia suit, the DOJ frames the case not merely as a Second Amendment challenge but also as a statewide pattern or practice by law enforcement of depriving citizens of their constitutional rights — a legally significant framing that invokes federal civil rights enforcement authority.
US Court of Appeals
Poway Weapons & Gear (PWGG) v. Bonta: Case Number 25-2509 before a three-judge panel of is a Second Amendment challenge brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition against California’s age-based firearms restrictions on 18- to 20-year-olds. It is currently on Appeal before the Ninth Circuit with oral arguments heard June 23. The plaintiffs — led by Poway Weapons & Gear (PWGG), individual adult plaintiffs, FPC, SAF, and others — challenge California Penal Code § 27510(a)–(b) as a violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Core Legal Questions—he case presents two distinct issues:
- Hunting license prerequisite — Whether California can require adults aged 18–20 to hold a hunting license before purchasing any firearm from a licensed dealer
- Semiautomatic rifle ban — Whether California can categorically prohibit 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing semiautomatic centerfire rifles entirely
District Court Ruling: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California upheld California’s restrictions, reasoning on two alternative grounds:
- First, the court held that acquisition of arms does not implicate the Second Amendment’s plain text because the laws are not a total ban on buying guns
- Second, even if plain text is implicated, historical restrictions on people under 21 entering into contracts at the founding provide adequate analogical justification
Oral Arguments: Arguments were heard before a Ninth Circuit panel that includes Judge Wardlaw. SAF’s counsel Will Bergstrom countered the district court on both points:
- He argued plain text is clearly implicated because any restriction on arms purchases constitutes a “meaningful constraint” — relying on the Ninth Circuit’s own Nguyen v. Bonta precedent, which struck down California’s one-gun-a-month law on similar reasoning
- He challenged the historical analogy by pointing out that 18-year-olds at the founding were required to acquire arms for militia service, and that contract law disabilities for those under 21 never extended to firearm purchases
- He also invoked Hemani to argue that the founding-era drunkard laws are far more analogically relevant than contract law as a historical comparator
SCOTUS Backdrop
Several related young-adult firearms cases were pending at SCOTUS. The Court’s across-the-board denials on June 30 leave the circuit split fully intact — the 4th, 10th, and 11th Circuits uphold age-based restrictions; the 3rd, 5th, and 8th have struck them down. Justice Thomas was the lone voice indicating he would have taken one of the cases. The issue remains unresolved at the national level and will almost certainly return to SCOTUS in a future term. Let us hope it is soon.
District Court
Michigan: Sixth Circuit
Moser v. Nessel, Case No: 1:26-cv-01850, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, filed on June 14. This is a Second Amendment challenge targeting two of the state’s core gun-control mechanisms: its pistol purchase permit (LTP) system and its statewide handgun registry.
The LTP Challenge
Michigan law requires most adults without a Concealed Pistol License to obtain a License to Purchase, Carry, Possess, or Transport a Pistol (LTP) before buying a handgun — even if they already pass a federal NICS background check. The complaint frames this as an unconstitutional, discretionary licensing regime under Bruen‘s text-and-history test, arguing there is no historical tradition supporting a government-issued permission slip as a prerequisite to exercising a Second Amendment right. Plaintiffs also challenge the denial standard, which allows issuing authorities to reject an LTP based on “probable cause” that the applicant poses a threat — a standard they argue is vague and subjective.
The Registry Challenge
The lawsuit extends to Michigan’s pistol sales record system, which requires transaction data to be submitted to the Michigan State Police for entry into a statewide database that links individual purchasers to specific firearms. Plaintiffs argue this constitutes a de facto gun registry unsupported by any historical tradition, as required under Bruen.
Relief Sought
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring both schemes unconstitutional, blocking further enforcement, halting data collection, and — notably — requiring the destruction or deletion of records already compiled under the challenged system. The case is still in its early stages, filed just nine days ago as of today.
Bruen Significance
This case is a direct application of NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), testing whether Michigan’s two-step permitting and registration apparatus survives the historical-tradition framework. It joins a growing line of post-Bruen challenges to state-level purchase permit laws, and the registry-destruction demand is an unusual part of such cases.
State Courts
Tennessee
Trial Court Ruling (Aug. 22, 2025)—Hughes v. Lee: The three-judge panel unanimously granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring both statutes unconstitutional, void, and of no effect under Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution and the Second Amendment. The panel applied the Bruen framework: once plaintiffs showed their conduct fell within the text of the Second Amendment, the burden shifted to the State to demonstrate a historical tradition supporting the restriction — a burden Tennessee could not meet. The panel issued declaratory relief only, having earlier determined it lacked authority to enjoin a criminal statute.
The laws that were challenged:
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a) — The “Going Armed” statute, which criminalizes carrying a firearm “with the intent to go armed.” Plaintiffs argued this effectively criminalizes everyday carry for self-defense, including inside one’s own home, with constitutional rights treated as an affirmative defense only after being charged
- Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a) — The “Parks Statute,” which prohibits carrying certain weapons in public parks, greenways, playgrounds, civic centers, and other government recreational facilities.
Appeals Court (June 23)
Hughes v. Lee; Judges: Chancellor Michael Mansfield, Judge M. Wyatt Burk, and Judge Lisa Nidiffer Rice
The State of Tennessee — at the urging of AG Jonathan Skrmetti — appealed. On Sept. 30, 2025, the Court of Appeals stayed the trial ruling pending appeal, meaning both statutes remain fully enforceable today. Oral arguments before the Court of Appeals were held on June 23. No ruling from the bench was issued. The case is widely expected to reach the Tennessee Supreme Court regardless of outcome at the Court of Appeals.
The State’s appeal has focused heavily on procedural arguments — contending the case belonged in circuit court rather than chancery court and that the three-judge panel overstepped its authority — rather than engaging the Second Amendment merits directly.
Virginia
Virginia Supreme Court: A three‑judge panel appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia under the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act considered the Commonwealth’s application to consolidate and transfer four challenges (Santolla/Santo v. Katz, Crump v. Katz, Curtis v. Katz, and Black v. Hook) and on July 6, it denied the application. This was an attempt to consolidate and transfer four challenges to its new “assault weapon” and magazine ban to a venue more favorable to the state. The cases remain in their current venues and will be litigated individually.
Panel’s reasoning on consolidation
- The panel found that common questions of law or fact did not “predominate” across the actions; each case raises different legal theories and causes of action, despite some overlap.
- The judges rejected the notion that these separate civil actions involve sufficiently common questions arising from the same transaction or series of transactions to justify consolidation.
- On party convenience, the panel emphasized that plaintiffs would face significant burdens traveling to another forum during work hours and paying for travel and lodging, while the Commonwealth did not claim inconvenience to its own employees.
- Regarding judicial resources, the panel found no evidence of strain on particular courts or calendars and noted that hearings have been proceeding in a timely manner; at this stage, consolidating would not prevent inconsistent rulings and might generate duplicative decisions.
Status of the four underlying cases
- Three of the four cases have already had preliminary‑injunction hearings: in Crump v. Katz and Santo v. Katz, the courts enjoined enforcement of the new law; in Curtis v. Katz (Cuccinelli’s case with a militia‑clause argument), the court denied preliminary relief.
- Black v. Hook is still awaiting a ruling on preliminary‑injunction motions.
- The panel underscored that separate cases have already presented arguments and declarations on injunction issues, and three courts have ruled; it is “too late” to use consolidation as a tool to manage potential inconsistencies.
Practical impact on FFLs and HB21
- Despite injunctions in two cases, many Virginia gun stores are still refusing to sell the banned items to avoid exposure under HB21, which authorizes civil suits against gun stores for alleged “unfair business practices” or “nuisance” activities.
- As the current Attorney General is anti-gun, it is highly possible he would leverage HB21 to sue any FFL that starts selling banned firearms or magazines while the litigation is pending, potentially “suing them into bankruptcy.”
