By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New —SCOTUS—no cases granted or denied; next dates for relisting—May 1 and May 17; District of Columbia: Court of Appeals—Tyree Benson v. USA and District of Columbia; Case No. 23-CF-0514:T: En banc appeal has been granted. Mark W. Smith (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), unhappy about en banc request; Massachusetts: First Circuit: Granata v. Campbell: Case Nos. 22-1478 and 25-1918: Amici listed andon April 16, 2026, FPC filed a reply brief; Tennessee: Pennsylvania: Third Circuit: Shreve v. United States Postal Service: Case No. 3:25-cv-00214: challenging a 1927 federal law that prohibits ordinary citizens from mailing handguns through the U.S. Postal Service; Sixth Circuit—Roberts v. ATF, Case No. 2:26-cv-00091, case was filed on February 26, 2026; Florida: Eleventh Circuit—United States v. Maxon Alsenat is a machine‑gun‑conversion‑device prosecution that produced a published district court decision in 2024, Case No. 0:23‑cr‑60209‑GAYLES, and a published Eleventh Circuit affirmance in 2026.
SCOTUS
On April 29, the Conference Report, no Second Amendment cases were granted or denied. Next relisting dates—May 1 and May 17.
U.S. Court of Appeals
District of Columbia: Court of Appeals
Tyree Benson v. USA and District of Columbia; Case No. 23-CF-0514:The District of Columbia Court of Appeals granted en banc rehearing in Tyrie Benson v. D.C. & United States on April 22, 2026.
Attorney Mark W. Smith, Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), who reviews current cases, and had created a video about the case earlier this month. Now he published a second video in which he was unapologetically unhappy that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. (under Janine Pirro) had urged en banc rehearing to preserve Benson’s convictions for: possessing an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition.
Original video analysis
In the original video about the 3-judge ruling, he argued that the ruling creates a real “circuit split”: multiple federal courts of appeals (First, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits) have upheld state magazine bans, while D.C.’s highest court has now declared such a ban unconstitutional.
And he went on to argue that this split significantly increases the chances that the U.S. Supreme Court will review Duncan v. Bonta, the California magazine-ban case currently at the certiorari stage.
En banc strategic concern for 2A litigants
By supporting rehearing to salvage registration/licensing convictions, DOJ and the D.C. U.S. Attorney effectively invited the court to wipe out the pro‑2A magazine ruling and the split of authority it created.
The video characterizes this as a significant “unforced error,” arguing that the DOJ should have overridden the local office’s short‑term prosecutorial interests to protect long‑term Second Amendment doctrine.
Background
The D.C. Court of Appeals struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds as facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment
That decision affirmed the Second Amendment challenge to the District’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding “more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” …The United States, which prosecuted Benson in the underlying case and initially defended the ban’s constitutionality, now agrees that this ban violates the Second Amendment.
Massachusetts: First Circuit
Granata v. Campbell: Case Nos. 22-1478 and 25-1918: Federal Second Amendment constitutional challenge to Massachusetts’ Approved Firearms Roster and the Attorney General’s Handgun Sales Regulations. It examines whether the state can prohibit the commercial sale of handguns that are commonly used for lawful purposes while still permitting their possession and out-of-state acquisition. On April 16, 2026, FPC filed a reply brief.
At the First Circuit stage in Granata v. Campbell, these amici are involved:
The United States (DOJ, Civil Rights Division) filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs/appellants and FPC, arguing against Massachusetts’ handgun roster and sales regulations.
Everytown for Gun Safety / Everytown Law filed an amicus brief supporting the defendants in the earlier phase of the case (then captioned Granata v. Healey), and again in the current First Circuit appeal under Granata v. Campbell.
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence – listed as interested-party amici on the First Circuit docket in Granata v. Campbell, Case No. 25‑1918.
Pennsylvania: Third Circuit
Shreve v. United States Postal Service: Case No. 3:25-cv-00214: We wrote in July 2025 that this lawsuit “was filed by Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation in Pennsylvania, challenging a 1927 federal law that prohibits ordinary citizens from mailing handguns through the U.S. Postal Service, a restriction not applied to long guns. The lawsuit claims that mailing handguns is an implicit right under the Second Amendment, supported by recent court rulings on ancillary rights. The law’s exceptions for government officials and Federal Firearms Licensees are cited as discriminatory. The lawsuit aims to overturn this restriction, potentially shaping Second Amendment jurisprudence.”
Background
Challenged provisions:
18 U.S.C. § 1715 designates, “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person” as nonmailable, with narrow exceptions such as FFLs and certain government officers.
USPS Publication 52 and related Domestic Mail Manual provisions implementing § 1715 prohibit private individuals from mailing handguns while permitting FFLs and government entities to do so, and allow ordinary citizens to mail unloaded rifles and shotguns.
Legal theory
Facial/as‑applied Second Amendment challenge under the Heller–McDonald–Bruen–Rahimi framework, arguing that (1) mailing constitutionally protected handguns is conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text as part of “keep” and “bear,” and (2) there is no historical tradition from the founding era banning the mailing or shipping of handguns, so § 1715 and its regulations are unconstitutional and must be enjoined.
Regulatory background
§ 1715 originated in 1927 as the “Miller Bill,” a Prohibition‑era response to perceived handgun‑related crime and mail‑order handgun sales, blocking “the mails to the pistol” while allowing long guns to be shipped.
USPS Publication 52 defines handguns as “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person,” and classifies them as nonmailable except when shipped between specific categories (e.g., FFLs, certain government officials) with affidavits.
Publication 52 expressly allows ordinary citizens to mail unloaded rifles and shotguns, underscoring the disparate treatment of handguns.
DOJ position
DOJ, in a Jan. 16 memorandum in support of dismissal, argued that Plaintiffs lack standing and that the case is not ripe because DOJ has issued an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion disavowing prosecution under § 1715 for Shreve’s contemplated mailing; they contend Shreve faces no “credible or imminent threat of prosecution,” and that pre‑enforcement challenges are “the exception rather than the rule.”
OLC directed USPS to modify its regulations to conform to this opinion.
DOJ’s litigation position is that, given this disavowal, the case should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds rather than decided on the merits, and that the court should not issue what DOJ characterizes as an advisory opinion about § 1715’s constitutionality.
Intervention on behalf of maintaining 18 U.S.C. § 1715
Organized Labor: The American Postal Workers Union (APWU) filed an amicus brief supporting the ongoing ban on mailing concealable handguns, highlighting safety concerns and operational challenges.
State intervention: A March 2 filing (Case 3:25‑cv‑00214‑SLH, Doc. 46) reflects a motion to intervene by New York, New Jersey, and Delaware seeking to defend § 1715 in light of DOJ’s refusal to do so.
Continuing controversy despite rule-making by the DOJ/Office of Legal Counsel
The April 24 submission in Shreve v. USPS is part of that summary‑judgment and jurisdictional briefing—Plaintiffs pressing for declaratory and injunctive relief, and DOJ (with intervenor states and APWU) arguing over standing, mootness, and whether the court should reach the Second Amendment question at all. The Plaintiffs are seeking:
- Permanent injunction barring Defendants and those in active concert from enforcing § 1715 and the implementing USPS regulations.
- Declaratory judgment that § 1715 and the corresponding USPS rules violate the Second Amendment.
- Fees and costs, plus any other appropriate relief.
Possible Outcomes:
If Plaintiffs prevail on the merits, ordinary law‑abiding citizens nationwide would be able to mail lawful handguns through USPS, not just FFLs and specified officials, largely eliminating the current handgun‑vs‑long‑gun disparity in postal treatment.
If the court accepts DOJ’s mootness/standing argument and dismisses without reaching the merits, handgun mailing would depend on executive‑branch policy (OLC opinions and USPS regulations) and would be vulnerable to reversal by future administrations.
Tennessee: Sixth Circuit
Roberts v. ATF, Case No. 2:26-cv-00091, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky before U.S. District Judge S. Chad Meredith. It was filed on Feb. 26.
Background
The Firearms Policy Coalition supported a new federal lawsuit challenging the continued enforcement of the National Firearms Act’s registration regime after Congress eliminated the NFA tax for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons.” The suit argues that the NFA was originally justified as a tax measure and that, once the tax was removed, the remaining registration and approval system lost its constitutional basis under Congress’s taxing power. The complaint also references the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment framework, contending that mandatory registration of protected arms such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles conflicts with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Parties
The plaintiffs include private individuals T.J. Roberts and Zachary Cockrell; local firearm dealer Meridian Ordnance LLC; and the Buckeye Firearms Association, American Suppressor Association Foundation, Center for Human Liberty, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The defendants are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and the federal officials responsible for enforcing and administering the challenged NFA registration requirements.
Key Legal Claims
The complaint challenges the continued validity of the NFA’s registration and approval system for covered items after the associated tax was removed. The plaintiffs argue that because the NFA was enacted as an exercise of Congress’s power to “lay and collect taxes,” the remaining registry cannot now be maintained under the taxing power or any other Article I authority once the tax is no longer in effect. The complaint also asserts that the registration regime for suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment because those items are protected arms, and there is no historical tradition supporting their mandatory registration. Supporting organizations describe the case as part of a broader effort to dismantle what they see as the NFA’s unconstitutional post-tax framework.
Relief Sought
The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the challenged NFA registration requirements. Specifically, they request a declaration that the remaining registration system is unconstitutional and an injunction to stop federal officials from enforcing those requirements against the plaintiffs.
Relationship to earlier NFA challenges: Roberts explicitly states that it builds on them.
Brown v. ATF (E.D. Mo., filed August 2025) and Jensen v. ATF (N.D. Tex., filed October 2025) are prior lawsuits challenging NFA provisions because the tax is no longer being collected.
Roberts is the third such lawsuit, all of which align with the strategy supported by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the NRA/SAF to challenge the NFA’s post-tax registration system, aiming to establish a coordinated, multi-district challenge to the current registration process.
Florida: Eleventh Circuit
United States v. Maxon Alsenat is a case from the Southern District of Florida involving a prosecution for a machine-gun conversion device. It resulted in a published district court decision in 2024, Case No. 0:23‑cr‑60209‑GAYLES, and a published affirmance by the Eleventh Circuit in 2026, Appeal No. 24‑14058. Both rulings upheld the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and rejected a Second Amendment challenge based on Bruen.
District Court
Alsenat was indicted in the Southern District of Florida for knowingly possessing machine-gun conversion devices (“Glock switches”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1). The indictment focused on his sale and possession of 3D‑printed switches that convert semi‑automatic Glock pistols into fully automatic machine guns, with no allegation that he possessed an actual firearm or ammunition in the charging count that generated the Second Amendment motion. Undercover operations documented him selling multiple Glock switches and previously selling firearms, including one later linked to a shooting.
The district court’s core holdings were:
A stand-alone MCD is not considered an “Arm” as originally understood and therefore is not protected by the Second Amendment’s text.
Even if considered an arm or part of an arm, machine guns and MCDs are “dangerous and unusual” and not “in common use” for lawful purposes, placing them outside the scope of protected arms under Heller and Bruen.
Because the conduct fell outside the plain text of the Second Amendment, the court effectively resolved the case at the first step without performing an extensive historical analog analysis and concluded that there was no constitutional obstacle to prosecution under § 922(o).
He was sentenced to two years in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, and then appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, preserving his Second Amendment challenge to § 922(o) as applied.
Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court
The Eleventh Circuit (Pryor, C.J.) issued a published, signed opinion in April 2026 affirming the conviction and clearly stating that the Second Amendment does not protect machine guns. The court considered whether the Second Amendment covers the possession of machine guns and machine-gun conversion devices, and it answered in the negative.
