By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New —SCOTUS: Novotny v. Moore; The suit targets Maryland’s SB1 (“Gun Safety Act of 2023”) and certain pre‑existing statutes that dramatically limit public carry even for licensed individuals. Case No. 25-1234: United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia and United States of America v. State of California; Illinois: Seventh Circuit: Court of Appeals: Barnett/Harrel v. Raoul, Case No: 23-1825, is a significant Second Amendment case challenging Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which bans the sale and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms, California: Ninth Circuit: Renna v. Bonta, No. 3:20-cv-02190-DMS-DEB—challenges California’s Unsafe Handgun Act and its “Handgun Roster.” Judge denies Temporary Restraining Order: Virginia: Santolla v. Katz: Case No. CL26-1139, Judge Jeffrey L. Campbell, Washington County Circuit Court— Judge Campbell issued a preliminary injunction against the law. A dispute over the scope of the injunction led to another hearing, after which he released a July 7 letter opinion stating that the injunction has “statewide application and enjoin[s] all law enforcement from enforcing the law
SCOTUS
Although SCOTUS is on its summer recess, there is another case that has petitioned for a Writ of Certiorari.
Novotny v. Moore; Case No. 25-1234: Novotny v. Moore (consolidated with Kipke v. Moore) is a Second Amendment challenge to Maryland’s “Gun Safety Act of 2023” and related statutes that restrict where licensed individuals may carry handguns. The application was submitted on April 10, 2026, but with a request for extra time due to other litigation commitments.
Case no. 1:23‑cv‑01295, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland; Judge George L. Russell
Gun Safety Act of 2023 challenged. The suit targets Maryland’s SB 1 (“Gun Safety Act of 2023”) and certain pre‑existing statutes that dramatically limit public carry even for licensed individuals. Key challenged features include:
- A “default rule” that forbids carry on privately owned property open to the public (stores, restaurants, museums, health‑care facilities) unless the owner affirmatively allows firearms.
- Bans on carrying firearms on all public transit controlled by the Maryland Transit Administration, and in large swaths of state parks, forests, and Chesapeake forest lands.
- A ban on carry in any establishment licensed to serve alcohol for on‑site consumption, except by the owner, and a 1,000‑foot perimeter ban around “demonstrations.”
- The plaintiffs characterize these locational rules as effectively nullifying the “general right to carry in public” recognized in Bruen by converting most ordinary public‑facing spaces into “sensitive places” where carry is prohibited.
A final injunction was issued on Aug. 2, 2024: the court enjoined enforcement of:
- The private‑property default rule for permit holders in privately owned buildings open to the public.
- The alcohol‑establishment carry ban (except by the owner).
- The 1,000‑foot buffer around demonstrations.
Fourth Circuit
The Fourth Circuit largely upheld Maryland’s post‑Bruen “sensitive places” carry law, reversing the district court’s injunction on the 1,000‑foot demonstration buffer while leaving most location‑based bans in place. On March 2, the Fourth Circuit stayed its mandate, leaving the district court’s injunctions in place pending potential Supreme Court review.
Department of Justice sues California and Virginia
In the past two Judicial Reports, we have discussed the ongoing story of the DOJ’s lawsuit against two new laws passed by the legislatures of California and Virginia. Reason magazine published an article by Jacob Sullum on July 6 explaining the lawsuits.
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, 2026. The suit challenges Virginia’s newly enacted assault‑weapons and magazine ban (SB749), 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 brief — just 13 pages — and concentrates 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 specific 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; Judge Anne Hwang; Filed: July 1: California’s Glock ban reply brief filed July 6 argues (1) DOJ waited too long to sue, (2) Section 12601 cannot be used against state firearm regulations, and (3) the Glock ban does not implicate the Second Amendment at all.
The reply brief argues the following:
- Unreasonable Delay: The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (Second Amendment section) filed suit on July 1, the day California’s Glock/“Glock‑style” ban took effect under AB 1127, using 34 U.S.C. § 12601 rather than 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
California’s brief begins by arguing that the DOJ unreasonably delayed seeking a TRO because the law was enacted months earlier, and that this delay negates any showing of irreparable harm under Ninth Circuit TRO standards.
Attorney William Kirk, in his video, explains this strategy as a laches argument—that the delay is unreasonable and has caused significant prejudice. Kirk also points out that § 12601 requires an “ongoing pattern or practice,” meaning the DOJ could sue only after the law began to be enforced on July 1, which is when the complaint was filed. - Second Amendment and “no ban” theory: California’s brief then asserts that AB 1127 neither facially violates nor even implicates the Second Amendment, despite banning the sale of Glock and Glock‑style semi‑automatic pistols in common use.
- Rahimi and the “distinctively modern” problem: California invokes Rahimi‑style reasoning, describing semi‑automatic pistols that can be easily converted with modern devices as a “distinctively modern problem” that warrants a more “nuanced” analysis of the historical tradition. The state validates that banning the sale of these popular pistols (or requiring them to be redesigned) falls within the lawful regulatory space under Bruen and Rahimi.
July 9, Judge Hwang in chambers denied the unreasonable delay allegation by California and the ex parte temporary restraining order, emphasizing the preliminary nature of its ruling and expressly reserving judgment on the statute’s ultimate meaning. The order acknowledges that AB1127 “bans the sale of Glock and Glock‑like handguns,” while noting exceptions and carve‑outs.
- It reasons there is no irreparable harm because, “given the exceptions established in AB 1127, it is not clear that California citizens are prohibited outright from acquiring Glock and Glock‑style pistols.”
Comment: No Selling, No Purchases
For ordinary Californians, retail dealers are the primary and more likely the only practical channel through which to acquire new handguns. When the State criminalizes those sales for a class of handguns that are indisputably in common use for lawful purposes, it imposes a direct, ongoing, and irreparable burden on the core right to keep and bear arms, regardless of whether fringe carve outs remain.
US Court of Appeals
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Barnett/Harrel v. Raoul, Case No: 23-1825, is a significant Second Amendment case challenging Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which bans the sale and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms, labeled as “assault weapons,” including AR-15s, AK-47s, and magazines holding more than 10 rounds for rifles or 15 for handguns. Oral arguments were held on September 22, 2025, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The district court declared the bans unconstitutional following extensive briefing, presentation of evidence, and a trial, but the Seventh Circuit panel, with three trial judges perceived as skeptical of expansive Second Amendment rights, reversed that ruling on July 9, 2026.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), under President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi, intervened by filing an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, a rare move. The DOJ argued that the Seventh Circuit’s prior ruling in Bevis v. City of Naperville (2023), which upheld a similar ban, misapplied Heller and Bruen. The DOJ contends that semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are in common use and thus protected, and that magazines are integral to firearm functionality, also falling under Second Amendment protections. The DOJ’s brief emphasizes that Illinois’ ban lacks historical grounding and that the burden lies on the state to justify restrictions, not on citizens to prove their rights. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon argued for five minutes during the oral arguments, reinforcing the federal government’s stance that PICA is unconstitutional.
Illinois defends PICA, claiming the banned firearms are “dangerous and unusual” weapons more suited for military use than civilian self-defense, thus falling outside Second Amendment protections. The state argues that PICA is a valid public safety measure, citing features like pistol grips and folding stocks as justifying the ban. However, the plaintiffs and DOJ counter that these features do not render the firearms unprotected, as they are commonly used for lawful purposes.
The case’s outcome was due primarily to the Seventh Circuit’s panel of judges. Since the Supreme Court has already scheduled two cases, including another Illinois case, Viramontes v. Cook County, questioning the constitutionality of banning AR-15s, hopefully this decision will be reversed.
District Court
California: Ninth Circuit
Renna v. Bonta, No. 3:20-cv-02190-DMS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that challenges California’s Unsafe Handgun Act and its “Handgun Roster.” A Fourth Amended Complaint was filed on March 27, and a motion to supplement was made on July 1, 2026, adding a related “Glock Ban” claim. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that California’s roster-based and “Glock Ban” purchase bans unconstitutionally prevent law-abiding adults from acquiring commonly owned semiautomatic handguns under Bruen’s text-and-history framework.
Background
Between November 2020 and today, Renna v. Becerra/Bonta has evolved from an initial Second Amendment challenge to California’s Unsafe Handgun Act in the district court, through dismissal and preliminary-injunction proceedings after Bruen, into a continuing Ninth Circuit appeal that has been remanded back to the trial court and remains active.
Issue
Plaintiffs challenge California’s requirement that licensed dealers may only sell semiautomatic handguns listed on the state’s roster and that meet chamber‑load indicator, magazine‑disconnect, and microstamping requirements. They also oppose AB 1127’s new ban on Glock‑pattern pistols with cruciform trigger bars. They argue these combined rules act as a de facto Handgun Ban, excluding most modern, commonly owned semiautomatic pistols from the California retail market.
Challenged Provisions and Parties
The suit challenges the Unsafe Handgun Act, related roster regulations, and AB 1127’s “Glock Ban,” enforced by Attorney General Rob Bonta and the Director of the California DOJ Bureau of Firearms. Plaintiffs—gun owners, retailers, and firearm‑rights groups—claim they are law‑abiding, eligible to own firearms, and want to buy non‑rostered and Glock‑pattern pistols that state law prohibits dealers from selling.
Core Second Amendment Theory and History
Under Bruen, Plaintiffs argue that acquiring handguns is protected by the Second Amendment’s text and that California’s categorical bans on common semiautomatic pistols are presumptively unconstitutional. They assert that the State cannot identify a founding‑ or Reconstruction‑era tradition of banning broad classes of commonly used handguns based on safety‑feature or convertibility criteria, and that modern “unsafe handgun” product‑regulation statutes are not meaningfully similar to relevant historical examples.
Argument and Relief Sought
Plaintiffs argue that the roster and “Glock Ban” together ban guns that are “in common use for lawful purposes,” which conflicts with Heller and Bruen. This is because they reduce the roster and make widely owned Glock‑style pistols, which are essential for modern self-defense, illegal. They are asking for a ruling that the challenged rules violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and for preliminary and permanent orders to stop their enforcement. This would allow Californians to buy these common handguns from licensed dealers again.
State Court
Virginia
Santolla v. Katz: Case No. CL26-1139, Judge Jeffrey L. Campbell, Washington County Circuit Court
On June 25, Judge Campbell issued a preliminary injunction against the law. A dispute over the scope of the injunction led to another hearing, after which he released a July 7 letter opinion stating that the injunction has “statewide application and enjoin[s] all law enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth and its localities, to include law enforcement officers as defined in §9.1-101 of the Code of Virginia and Commonwealth Attorneys from enforcement of the provisions of the Bans within all localities and jurisdictions of the Commonwealth on the same terms and conditions as otherwise set forth in the Court’s prior letter opinion.” The letter also backdated the injunction to June 21, 2026.
