What’s New – No Second Amendment cases were addressed after the March 20, SCOTUS conference. Added to certiorari list: Gardner v. State of Maryland: Case No. 25-5961. Whether prosecuting a law‑abiding, out‑of‑state resident for carrying a handgun for self‑defense while traveling, when she complies with her home state’s law and possesses a valid Virginia permit, violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments; Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment: Case No. 24–171:Decided-3-25. This is not a Second Amendment case, but it could potentially relate to the PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act); District Court: Ziegenfuss v. Martin, No. 4:24‑cv‑01049‑P (N.D. Tex.),is a civil‑rights action challenging Texas’s statutory bans on carrying handguns in bars, racetracks, and sporting‑event; Decision: Judge Pittman ruled for the State of Texas: Zimmerman v. Bondi, No. 4:26‑cv‑00372‑Y (N.D. Tex.), challenging Federal statute:18 U.S.C. § 930(a), prohibiting possession of firearms in a “federal facility,” (federal parks) with associated definitions and penalties.
SCOTUS
Conference March 27: no Second Amendment cases decided.
As of March 30, a listing of the Second Amendment cases awaiting certiorari decisions, with the exception of § 922(g)(1) cases
Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, Case No. 25-153, Case issue: Whether magazines over 10 rounds are “Arms” under the Second Amendment.
Duncan v. Bonta, Case No. 25-198, Case issue: Whether magazines over 10 rounds are “Arms” under the Second Amendment.
Viramontes v. Cook County, Case No. 25-238, Case issue: Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles in common lawful use, including the AR-15.
Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, Case No. 25-421, Whether a ban on AR‑15‑style rifles and magazines over 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.
Grant v. Higgins, Case No. 25-566, Case Issue: Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles in common lawful use, including the AR-15.
Schoenthal v. Raoul, Case No. 25-541, Case Issue: Whether Illinois’ flat ban on carrying firearms on public transportation violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
McCoy v. ATF, Case No. 25-24. Case Issue: Federal ban on 18-20-year-olds buying handguns from FFLs under the Second Amendment.
Paris v. Second Amendment Foundation, Case No. 24-1329, Case Issue: Whether minimum age-21 firearms laws violate 18-20-year-olds’ asserted Second Amendment rights.
United States v. George Peterson, Case No. 24-30043. Case Issue: Whether the district court erred in holding that silencers are not “bearable arms.”
New Supreme Court brief added
Gardner v. State of Maryland: Case No. 25-5961. Case Issue: Whether prosecuting a law‑abiding, out‑of‑state resident for carrying a handgun for self‑defense while traveling, when she complies with her home state’s law and possesses a valid Virginia permit, violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment attorney, @FourBoxesDiner on X.com and on the Four Boxes Diner YouTube channel, has a video that I am summarizing below because I hope SCOTUS takes this case. I also want to thank Second Amendment firm Cooper & Kirk for filing a reply brief supporting her petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Historical‑tradition and travelers
- According to the brief, Maryland produces no founding‑era or Reconstruction‑era history, restricting out‑of‑state travelers from carrying firearms for self‑defense while passing through the state.
- The filing contends that historical practice actually supports the opposite: several colonies mandated travelers to carry arms for safety, and numerous jurisdictions historically exempted travelers from otherwise applicable weapons restrictions due to the inherent dangers of the road.
- The absence of historical analogues, coupled with pro‑traveler practices, is presented as strong evidence under Bruen that Maryland’s rule is unconstitutional as applied to interstate travelers like Gardner.
Implications and Smith’s view
- Smith argues that the sympathetic facts (a permitted traveler using a gun only to ward off a perceived threat, prosecuted solely for carrying) are likely to attract the Supreme Court’s attention, much as the facts in Caetano v. Massachusetts involving stun guns did.
- He contends that Maryland cannot honestly meet its Bruen burden and that a grant of certiorari in Gardner would be a major step toward recognizing a constitutional right to nationwide concealed carry for licensed individuals.
Federalism, full faith and credit, and broader stakes
- Beyond the Second Amendment issues, the brief invokes structural constitutional principles, including the goal of forming a “more perfect union,” the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and the right of citizens to pass through other states for work or other pursuits without surrendering fundamental rights at state borders.
- It emphasizes that roughly 20 million Americans hold carry licenses and frequently travel interstate, but face “insurmountable” burdens where states like Maryland, New York, and Illinois require separate in‑state licenses just to carry while passing through.
- The brief frames the question as whether states may effectively nullify licensed carry during interstate travel, thereby imposing immense burdens on the right to armed self‑defense outside the home.
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment: Case No. 24–171: This is not a Second Amendment
This case might be linked to the PLCAA (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act). In Cox v. Sony, the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling a legal, everyday product or service isn’t automatically liable for crimes committed by its customers unless the company actively encourages or facilitates those crimes. The ruling makes it clear that merely knowing some people might break the law and not taking enough steps to stop it isn’t enough to support a lawsuit. This same reasoning helps firearm manufacturers and dealers challenge new state laws that try to hold them responsible for gun crimes, even when they follow all current regulations.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this principle twice.
- The article on calgunslawyers.com explains that when Congress enacted PLCAA, it specifically aimed to eliminate this type of secondary-liability theory, which is an expansive aiding-and-abetting framework that the Supreme Court has now rejected twice. In Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, the Court stated that PLCAA’s narrow predicate exception does not include claims that manufacturers “aided and abetted” unlawful trafficking just by continuing to supply so-called “rogue dealers,” refusing to tighten distribution controls, or making design and marketing choices that are allegedly attractive to criminals. Regular participation in a lawful, heavily regulated market—even with knowledge that some products will be misused criminally—does not meet the criteria to bypass PLCAA’s protections.
- Calguns summarized it: “The Supreme Court’s decision today in Cox v. Sony is a timely and powerful reinforcement of the rule of law in the face of creative attempts to circumvent statutory protections. For the firearms industry, it means continued stability and predictability: You may sell lawful products to lawful buyers without becoming the guarantor of every criminal who misuses them downstream.”
District Court
Ziegenfuss v. Martin, No. 4:24‑cv‑01049‑P (N.D. Tex.), is a civil‑rights action challenging Texas’s statutory bans on carrying handguns in bars, racetracks, and sporting‑event venues as unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the constitutional cause‑of‑action framework.
Opinion
On March 24, Judge Mark Timothy Pittman granted the State’s cross‑motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs’ motion, confirming that the challenged “sensitive places” prohibitions are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation under Bruen.
Issue
Plaintiffs—three individual Texans who wish to carry loaded, operable handguns for immediate self-defense in public, along with Firearms Policy Coalition—file this civil rights lawsuit to challenge their right to bear arms against location-based carry bans that prohibit law-abiding adults from carrying handguns in common public areas that the State has unilaterally designated as “sensitive places.” Plaintiffs assert that Texas’s restrictions on carrying firearms in businesses earning at least 51 percent of their income from on-premises alcohol sales, at racetracks, and at venues hosting specific sporting events violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
Challenged Provisions
Plaintiffs challenge Texas statutes and implementing provisions that outright bar otherwise law‑abiding individuals from carrying handguns in three categories of locations.
- Bars and other establishments where 51 percent or more of the business’s revenue comes from selling alcoholic beverages for on‑premises consumption, as indicated by the State’s “51%” signage and licensing system.
- Licensed racetracks, where the State prohibits carrying on activities on the premises during racing events and related functions.
- Premises where high school, college, professional, or interscholastic sporting events occur, including stadiums and similar venues hosting such events.
Plaintiffs’ Core Second Amendment Theory
Plaintiffs’ primary Second Amendment argument relies on Bruen’s text-and-history framework: the central question is whether Texas’s sensitive‑place carry bans align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation; without such a tradition, the challenged bans should be invalid. In the first step, Plaintiffs argue that their intended conduct—carrying loaded, operable handguns on their persons in public places in case of confrontation—fits clearly within the plain text of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and that they are “the people” who possess that right. In the second step, they claim that the State cannot meet its burden to find a well-established, representative historical equivalent for broad, categorical bans on carry at bars, racetracks, and sporting events—rather than narrower rules addressing misuse, disorder, or carry while intoxicated.
Historical Record
To support their Bruen claim, Plaintiffs present historical evidence from the Founding and Reconstruction periods, arguing that the American tradition of firearm regulation has traditionally focused on punishing misuse and actual breaches of the peace rather than broadly disarming responsible, peaceable citizens in everyday public spaces. Plaintiffs contend that the State’s claimed equivalents—such as regulations related to fairs, markets, or specific gatherings—do not show a long-standing, widespread practice of designating large parts of social and commercial life as gun-free zones for all law-abiding citizens.
Argument and Opinion
By the time of the court’s March 24, Opinion and Order, the case was heard on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the challenged provisions are unconstitutional on their face, a permanent injunction against enforcement, and attorneys’ fees. The State, joined by court-appointed outside counsel after the Attorney General declined to defend the merits, sought judgment upholding the laws. The district court agreed that Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct fell within the plain text of the Second Amendment but ultimately concluded that Texas had shown sufficient historical analogs to justify treating bars, racetracks, and sporting-event venues as sensitive places. The court granted the State’s motion and denied Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory and injunctive relief.
Zimmerman v. Bondi, No. 4:26‑cv‑00372‑Y (N.D. Tex.) Filed on March 27, involves a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a constitutional cause of action framework seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Issue:
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and related National Park Service regulations (including 36 C.F.R. § 1.5), as applied to “federal facilities” within national parks, violate the Second Amendment under Bruen by categorically prohibiting otherwise law-abiding individuals from carrying handguns for self-defense in those locations.
Challenged Provisions and Conduct
- Federal statute: 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), prohibiting possession of firearms in a “federal facility,” with associated definitions and penalties.
- NPS regulations: Enforcement and application of § 930 through National Park Service policies, including 36 C.F.R. § 1.5 and related authorities, to structures and buildings within national parks.
- Targeted application:
- Visitor centers and other park buildings are broadly designated as “federal facilities.”
- A ban on lawful individuals carrying handguns for self-defense while visiting or passing through those areas.
Plaintiffs’ Core Second Amendment Theory (Bruen)
Text
- “Bear Arms” includes carrying handguns in public for self-defense, even on government-owned land like national parks.
- Plaintiffs describe their actions—carrying a handgun in national park areas and related buildings for self-defense—as clearly within the “plain text” of the Second Amendment, rooted in history and tradition.
Historical record:
- Founding‑era and nineteenth‑century practices allowed ordinary citizens to travel armed on roads, in wilderness areas, and in public gathering places, including government‑controlled lands.
- Firearm regulations target specific, narrowly defined “sensitive places” (such as legislative chambers, courthouses, polling places, and schools), rather than applying to ordinary public buildings that are open to the general public for recreation.
Sensitive places argument:
- The government cannot, in line with Bruen, turn ordinary public-facing park structures into “sensitive places” just by labeling them “federal facilities.”
- Modern, broad prohibitions in national park facilities lack a comparable historical precedent; they are considerably broader than historically recognized restrictions on sensitive places.
