By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New— SCOTUS: Amicus Activity; Appeals Court, Virginia: Fourth Circuit: LaFave v. County of Fairfax: Case No: 24-1886: Circuit Court: Oregon: Ninth Circuit: Mongomery v. Rosenblum: Case No. 3:24-cv-01273: On Oct. 30, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, or Other Relief;
State Court (Oregon)-Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Kotek; Case No: S071885: The Oregon Supreme Court heard arguments on Nov. 6, regarding Measure 114, a voter-approved law aimed at banning magazines with more than 10 rounds and implementing stricter gun purchase requirements such as background checks, permits, and safety training.
SCOTUS
Amicus Activity
Pro-Second Amendment groups such as the Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA, Gun Owners of America, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center (2ALC), Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and others have become much more active in submitting amicus briefs.
Several groups have recently submitted numerous amicus briefs to the Supreme Court challenging both federal and state gun laws. These organizations call on the Court to adopt a strict originalist approach, rejecting legal tests that weigh government interests against individual rights. They emphasize that broad bans on gun ownership for large groups—such as nonviolent offenders or former drug users—are too sweeping and not supported by tradition. They also advocate for reaffirming strong Second Amendment protections and conducting more thorough judicial reviews of gun legislation. Recent and notable cases before SCOTUS that include amicus briefs:
- Duarte v. United States: Pro-gun groups filed briefs challenging federal bans on gun ownership by nonviolent felons. The Second Amendment Foundation, along with the NRA, FPC Action Foundation, and Firearms Policy Organization, filed a significant amicus brief on Nov. 7, urging the Supreme Court to overturn the federal lifetime gun ban for nonviolent offenses. They argue that, historically, nonviolent criminals—including nonviolent felons—had the right to keep and bear arms unless proven dangerous, with some laws even requiring them to remain armed. The brief states that never in American history has the government had the authority to disarm people for nonviolent crimes permanently. These groups ask the Court to restore Second Amendment rights to law-abiding Americans, emphasizing that the Founding Fathers would have seen lifetime gun bans for nonviolent offenses as unthinkable, and they seek certiorari to clarify that the Second Amendment prohibits such disarmament.
- Antonyuk v. James (challenging NY’s concealed carry law): A coalition of national and local Second Amendment advocacy groups—including the Second Amendment Foundation, NRA, Gun Owners of America, and others—filed amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to strike down restrictive state concealed carry permitting regimes. Their briefs argue that such laws violate the Constitution by imposing barriers unsupported by historical tradition and contrary to the Court’s Bruen standard. The coalition emphasizes that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental and should not be curtailed except for the most compelling reasons, with judicial review based on the text, history, and tradition—not on “interest balancing.” These groups assert that granting certiorari is necessary to confirm strong Second Amendment protections and to prevent overly broad disqualifications of law-abiding citizens from firearm ownership.
- Ongoing Drug User Ban Cases: Several briefs address §922(g)(3), the drug user prohibition, specifically arguing against the permanent deprivation of gun rights for otherwise law-abiding individuals with a history of drug use.
Watson v. Republican National Committee, Case No: 24-1260. Although this case does not directly address Second Amendment jurisprudence, election law influences our Second Amendment rights. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether federal law requires ballots to be not only cast by voters but also received by election officials by the end of Election Day.
This case focuses on a Mississippi law similar to laws in 30 other states and the District of Columbia, which allows mail-in ballots to be counted if they are received within five business days after Election Day.
Appeals Court
Virginia: Fourth Circuit
LaFave v. County of Fairfax: Case No: 24-1886: The case was initiated by a Fairfax County resident who wanted to carry her legal firearm while walking in the County parks system. She was denied access by both the circuit court and the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court stated: “This is an appeal from the district court that granted summary judgment to the County, concluding (1) that both restrictions regulate firearms in sensitive places consistent with the Second Amendment, and (2) that the events restriction isn’t unconstitutionally vague. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the County ordinance based on the sensitive places doctrine in Bruen.
In a 4 Boxes Diner on YouTube.com, Second Amendment attorney Mark W. Smith has an interesting video where he discusses this case and the court’s faulty analysis.
Circuit Court
Oregon: Ninth Circuit
Mongomery v. Rosenblum: Case No. 3:24-cv-01273: On Oct. 30, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, or Other Relief.
Background: On Aug. 5, 2024, the Firearms Policy Coalition filed a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit in the District of Oregon challenging Oregon’s recently passed House Bill 2005, which effectively bans self-manufactured firearms. Eleven months later, the District Court dismissed the case in a highly activist decision that reversed Supreme Court Second Amendment precedent and allowed the State to avoid historical scrutiny. However, the court permitted the plaintiffs to amend their original claim.
State Court (Oregon)
Oregon Firearms Federation, Inc. v. Kotek; Case No: S071885: The Oregon Supreme Court heard arguments on Nov. 6, regarding Measure 114, a voter-approved law aimed at banning magazines with more than 10 rounds and implementing stricter gun purchase requirements such as background checks, permits, and safety training. The law has not taken effect due to ongoing legal challenges. While a federal judge upheld it under the U.S. Constitution, a state circuit court blocked it, stating it violates Oregon’s constitutional right to bear arms. The Court of Appeals disagreed, leaving the decision to the state Supreme Court.
Key issues debated:
Whether the historical presence of high-capacity guns in Oregon should outweigh public safety concerns.
If the court needs to analyze the historical context, or if public safety alone justifies regulation.
The cost and accessibility of permits and required training.
Whether such restrictions are too broad or target actual risks.
Debated during the hearing:
Whether the historical presence of high-capacity guns in Oregon should outweigh public safety concerns.
If the court needs to analyze the historical context, or if public safety alone justifies regulation.
The cost and accessibility of permits and required training.
Whether such restrictions are too broad or target actual risks.
Arguments made during the hearing:
Attorneys for the plaintiffs (gun owners) argue that Measure 114 is overly restrictive and goes beyond regulating dangerous uses or limiting gun access for criminals.
State attorneys insist the measure is justified for public safety and that Oregon’s constitution allows reasonable regulation.
The court questioned both sides on the prevalence of high-capacity magazines in Oregon’s history, referencing expert testimony, as well as major incidents like the 2017 Las Vegas shooting.
Until the decision:
The law remains in limbo: The State Police’s permitting system awaits resolution, and Oregon legislators have postponed implementation until March 2026, pending the settlement of court battles.
The case does not directly concern the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, but it echoes national debates following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that requires a historical analysis of gun regulations.
A federal challenge to Measure 114 is on hold pending related cases in the Ninth Circuit and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, as debates over magazine bans and Second Amendment interpretation continue nationwide.
