By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New – SCOTUS: Next Conference March 20, 2026: United States v. George Peterso: Case No. 24-30043: This new Supreme Court petition mounts a broad Second Amendment challenge to core provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA); Gardner v. State of Maryland: Case No. 25-5961.
Background: Eva Marie Gardner is a Virginia resident with a long-standing concealed carry permit from Virginia. In 2021, while driving through Maryland to Pennsylvania, she displayed her loaded handgun in apparent self-defense after another driver struck her vehicle twice on I‑270 and approached her car. A Montgomery County jury convicted her of carrying and transporting a loaded handgun without a Maryland permit in 2022, and she received a suspended sentence with probation. She appealed to the Maryland courts, which denied her appeals; listing of all the Second Amendment cases awaiting certiorari decisions with the exception of § 922(g)(1) cases; District Court: Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. v. Bondi, Case No. 4:24‑cv‑00565: District Judge O’Connor declared 18 U.S.C. 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l) unconstitutional as applied to carrying a firearm in ordinary post offices and on postal property,
SCOTUS
Next Conference March 20: United States v. George Peterson: Case No. 24-30043:
Firearms Policy Coalition confirms that “attorneys for George Peterson have filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in Peterson v. United States.”
U.S. Supreme Court
- This new Supreme Court petition mounts a broad Second Amendment challenge to core provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA). It argues that the NFA’s tax‑and‑registration scheme operates as a de facto ban on arms and accessories in common lawful use, violating Heller and Bruen’s protection for such weapons. The petition frames key issues: whether Congress may condition mere possession of protected arms on prior government permission, whether longstanding federal status alone shields the NFA from Bruen review, and whether there is a historical tradition supporting categorical treatment of these items as “dangerous and unusual.” It also raises the question of how lower courts must apply Bruen’s historical‑analogue test to federal, not just state, gun laws. Strategically, the case is positioned as a vehicle for the Court to clarify Second Amendment doctrine and curb perceived lower‑court resistance to Bruen.
Gardner v. State of Maryland: Case No. 25-5961.
Background
- Eva Marie Gardner is a Virginia resident with a long-standing concealed carry permit from Virginia. In 2021, while driving through Maryland to Pennsylvania, she displayed her loaded handgun in apparent self-defense after another driver struck her vehicle twice on I‑270 and approached her car.
- She immediately called 911 and fully disclosed her firearm; responding officers found the loaded, holstered handgun in her vehicle, confirmed she had a valid Virginia permit but no Maryland permit, and arrested her under Maryland Criminal Law § 4‑203.
Maryland Courts
- A Montgomery County jury convicted her of carrying and transporting a loaded handgun without a Maryland permit in 2022, and she received a suspended sentence with probation. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed this in an unreported 2025 opinion, rejecting her Second Amendment and reciprocity‑based challenges. Her petition for review was later denied by the Supreme Court of Maryland in July 2025, exhausting her state remedies and leading to a federal certiorari petition focused on Bruen, interstate travel with firearms, and Maryland’s refusal to recognize out-of-state carry permits.
U.S. Supreme Court
- Gardner has just filed a petition for certiorari with SCOTUS focused on Bruen, interstate travel with firearms, and Maryland’s refusal to recognize out-of-state carry permits. Maryland has filed a brief in opposition. Mark W. Smith, a Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), describes Maryland’s recent opposition brief as “panicked.” He argues that, under Bruen’s text-and-history test and historical traveler exemptions, Maryland cannot constitutionally criminalize a transient, law-abiding traveler like Gardner for defensive public carry while merely passing through the state. He believes her case is a promising vehicle for the U.S. Supreme Court to expand protection for armed interstate travel.
As of March 18, A listing of all 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, 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, Whether Illinois’ flat ban on carrying firearms on public transportation violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
McCoy v. ATF, Case No. 25-24,. Federal ban on 18-200tear-olds buying handguns from FFLs under the Second Amendment.
Paris v. Second Amendment Foundation, Case No. 24-1329, Whether minimum age-21 firearms laws violate 18-20-year-olds’ asserted Second Amendment rights.
District Court
Texas – Fifth Circuit
Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. v. Bondi, Case No. 4:24‑cv‑00565: Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l) as applied to carry and storage of firearms at post offices and on postal property. After approximately 12 months of motions and briefs, On Sept. 30, 2025, Judge Reed O’Connor rendered his opinion and order granting summary judgment, and declaring 18 U.S.C. 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l) unconstitutional as applied to carry in ordinary post offices and on postal property, and issuing a permanent injunction in favor of FPC/SAF and their members).
As Judge O’Connor explained, “it is hard to envision that the Founders would countenance banning firearms in the post office—particularly because they did not do so themselves. Thus, the Government has not carried its burden” to justify its ban on carry in and around post offices. The Court thus held that the prohibition is “unconstitutional as-applied to carrying firearms” inside a post office or on post office property. The court’s order also blocks the federal government from enforcing its unconstitutional ban against FPC members.
At the time of the decision, Second Amendment founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said, “This is a huge win for SAF and its members. There is no historical analogue to justify a ban on carrying a firearm on postal property, and we are pleased the court rightly saw through this thinly veiled attempt at preventing citizens from fully exercising their constitutional rights.”
DOJ filed a motion to gut the victory in FPC v. Bondi during the early months of 2026, but on March 17, 2026, Judge O’Connor denied the DOJ motion to gut the Second Amendment victory. As a result, the injunction in the case will continue to apply to the Plaintiffs. The case is now on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
