By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New— SCOTUS: Wolford v. Lopez, Case No. 24-1046: As the first post-Rahimi Second Amendment case addressing “where” carry is allowed, Wolford could clarify Bruen’s application to private-public spaces, with the Ninth Circuit’s outlier ruling; Certiorari cases: Two AR-15 cases—National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont; Case No: 25 – 421, and Viramontes v. Cook County: Case No: 25-238; Schoenthal v. Raoul, Case No. 24-541: citizens being denied carrying firearms on public transportation; The Four Boxes Diner interviews Judge VanDyke; Court of Appeals: California: Ninth Circuit: Gary Sanchez v. Rob Bonta: Case No.: 24-5566: CA law denies the use of suppressors and Judge Robert S. Huie granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend; Delaware: Third Circuit. Delaware became the 11th state to enact a permit-to-purchase law when Gov. John Carney signed SB2 in May 2024. The Order Denying Motion for Expedited Injunctive Relief 3 was signed on 11/14/2025. Fifth Circuit: Firearms Policy Coalitions v. Pamela Bondi; Case No. 4:24-cv-00565-O: On November 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion To Clarify, or, in the alternative, to Modify the Permanent Injunctuion.
SCOTUS
Wolford v. Lopez, Case No. 24-1046: As the first post-Rahimi Second Amendment case addressing “where” carry is allowed, Wolford could clarify Bruen’s application to private-public spaces, with the Ninth Circuit’s outlier ruling rejected by other circuits, potentially reshaping state gun laws amid data showing permit holders’ low crime rates (e.g., under 0.02% conviction rates in studies from Texas and Florida).
- The cross-post by Kostas Moros, director of legal research at the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), highlights a detailed thread on SAF’s amicus brief filed in Wolford v. Lopez. This Supreme Court case challenges Hawaii’s “Vampire Rule,” which bans concealed carry on private property open to the public without explicit owner consent unless invited. Interestingly, every court in the country has rejected the Vampire Rule except the Ninth.
- The plaintiffs’ brief contends that the rule violates the Second Amendment under Bruen due to the lack of historical analogues, relying on flawed precedents such as a 19th-century Black Code and a poaching law, while ignoring the vetted status of permit holders; it suggests limiting “sensitive places” bans to government deliberative venues or government-secured areas, citing historical traditions to prevent overly broad restrictions.
- As the first post-Rahimi case addressing “where” carry is permitted under the Second Amendment, Wolford could clarify how Bruen applies to private-public spaces, with the Ninth Circuit’s outlier ruling being rejected by other circuits. This has the potential to reshape state gun laws, especially considering data showing low crime rates among permit holders (for example, under 0.02% conviction rates from studies in Texas and Florida).
Other cases seeking certiorari
The question of 18-to-20-year-olds being denied Second Amendment rights
The U.S. federal government intervened to defend the constitutionality of the PLCAA at the state appellate level since the constitutional challenge was at issue. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard the case and ultimately ruled in 2025 that the PLCAA is constitutional, thereby barring the Gustafsons’ lawsuit. As a result, the court ordered the trial court’s dismissal to be reinstated. A petition for review was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS). The case thus drew federal attention for potential review.
Two AR-15/“assault weapons” ban cases seeking certiorari before SCOTUS
Attorney Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Channel on youtube.com has published a video discussing the two AR-15 “assault weapons” ban cases seeking certiorari before SCOTUS. The two latest cases to be filed are:
National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont; Case No: 25 – 421:
The petition for certiorari was filed on Oct. 3, from the decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that stated: “Even assuming arguendo that the desired firearms and magazines are ‘typically possessed’ and ‘in common use’ for lawful purposes, we disagree [that the Second Amendment necessarily protects them.]”
The question presented to the Court is:
“Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds—both of which are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes—violates the Second Amendment.”
As of today, the motion to file a response has been extended to Dec. 8.
Viramontes v. Cook County: Case No: 25-238
The petition for certiorari was filed on August 29, 2025, from the decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Both the District Court’s opinion and the subsequent order of the Court of Appeals are unpublished.
The question presented to the Court is: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”
As of today, this case has been distributed for the Dec. 5 conference.
A side note: Attorney Mark W. Smith created a second video after the one listed above. In this video, he responds to Cook County litigators’ opposition brief, which includes a footnote criticizing the plaintiffs for using Smith’s article titled ‘“Assault Weapon’ Bans: Unconstitutional Laws for a Made-Up Category of Firearm’ because it was published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Smith defends the credibility and influence of the Harvard Journal, noting that Supreme Court justices and prominent federal judges have cited its articles. He further argues that Cook County’s attack is an ad hominem, targeting the source rather than the substance of the arguments.
Schoenthal v. Raoul, Case No. 24-541: A Petition for a writ of certiorari filed on October 31, 2025, with a response due December 5, 2025. The question being asked the Court is: “Whether Illinois’ flat ban on ordinary citizens carrying firearms on public transportation violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.”
The Four Boxes Diner interviews Judge VanDyke
Last week, the YouTube channel The Four Boxes Diner featured an interesting video about Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence Van Dyke. This is the judge who created a YouTube video to explain the practical necessity of magazines that he included in his dissent from the Ninth Circuit’s 7-4 vote upholding the constitutionality of California’s ban on magazines, in their decision in Duncan v. Bonta.
The video’s overall message is a strong endorsement of Judge VanDyke’s qualifications, background, and perspective on the Second Amendment and its implications for judicial decision-making.
Court of Appeals
California: Ninth Circuit
Gary Sanchez v. Rob Bonta: Case No.: 24-5566: The appeal to the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit was filed on Sept. 12, 2024, and argued on Nov. 18, 2025, before Judges Jay S. Bybee, Kenneth K. Lee, and Ana De Alba. At issue: whether California’s suppressor ban violates the Second Amendment. Mark W. Smith’s video notes that two of the three judges appeared sympathetic to Second Amendment advocates, predicting a possible 2-1 decision in their favor.
- Legal Background: The lawyers for Sanchez had to argue both under the Supreme Court’s precedents and the Ninth Circuit’s “Duncan v. Bonta” precedent.
- Key Arguments:
- Suppressors are considered “arms” under Supreme Court precedent, and the plain text of the Second Amendment covers both arms and “arms-bearing conduct.”
- California’s argument is primarily that suppressors make it harder to detect gunfire and find shooters, labeling them “dangerous and unusual.”
- The video highlights the CDC’s support of suppressors for hearing safety, and California admitted criminals rarely use suppressors.
- Suppressors facilitate training, hunting, and self-defense, aligning with Second Amendment rights.,
- Supreme Court Cited: In this analysisHeller and Bruen are referenced, emphasizing that gun restrictions must fit America’s historical tradition and that the government bears the burden to justify bans.
- Amicus Curiae: Amicus Brief of Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Support of Defendant-Appellee. Amicus Brief of Gun Owners of California, Inc., Tennessee Firearms Association, Tennessee Firearms Foundation, America’s Future, United States Constitutional Rights Legal Defense Fund, and Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant; Amicus Brief of National Association for Gun Rights in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant; and Amicus Brief of Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., Silencer Shop, B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, and SB Tactical in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant.
DC: DC Court of Appeals:
Juan Peterson v. United States of America, No. 25-CF-430: The Department of Justice (United States) Judge Jeanne Pirro moved to vacate Peterson’s conviction under D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b) for possession of a large-capacity ammunition feeding device, asserting that this statute is unconstitutional and will no longer be defended or prosecuted by the United States. Peterson’s counsel did not oppose the motion, and the District of Columbia, while maintaining the statute is constitutional, does not object to vacating the conviction in this case. The motion was received and filed on Sept. 12 and references oral arguments held Oct. 28.
District Court
California: Ninth Circuit: Sanchez v. Bonta: Case No. 3:24-cv-00767: The complaint was filed on April 29, 2024. On Aug. 28, 2024, Judge Robert S. Huie granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
Delaware: Third Circuit
Background: Delaware became the 11th state to enact a permit-to-purchase law when Gov. John Carney signed SB2 in May 2024. The Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association (DSSA) filed a legal challenge on May 16, 2024. The Delaware Department of Homeland Security began a series of delay tactics, first requesting more time to respond to the complaint and then filing a motion to dismiss. Six months later, on November 20, 2024, Judge Maryellen Noreika rejected Delaware’s motion to dismiss the initial complaint. However, Delaware submitted another motion to dismiss the second DSSA motion. On April 11, 2025, DSSA requested oral arguments on the dismissal motion.
Since the law was signed, the state of Delaware has been actively working to implement the permit-to-purchase law, making some of the allegations in the original challenge obsolete or inaccurate. On November 4, 2025, two new actions were initiated because, as the DSSA’s attorney wrote:
“The second case was filed on November 3, 2025. Both cases challenge the constitutionality of Delaware’s Permit-to-Purchase Handgun statute (“Permit Bill”), which is scheduled to be enforced beginning November 16, 2025. As Your Honor may be aware, Plaintiffs have moved for expedited injunctive relief in the new action to enjoin that enforcement. I write briefly to explain why a new complaint was filed rather seeking injunctive relief or an amendment in the first action.
“Since the first case was filed, several factual allegations in those pleadings have become obsolete, or moot, or no longer applicable. Also significant new developments have arisen—most notably, the State’s failure to establish the infrastructure necessary to implement or administer the permit-to-purchase system enacted under the Permit Bill.
“Given the resulting immediate and irreparable harm—and the urgency of obtaining relief before the law’s effective date—the time required to seek an amendment, and to determine whether an amendment was allowable, would be incompatible with the exigent timetable for expedited Injunctive relief is sought in the new case. We are considering the most efficient means of addressing the overlap between the two cases, but, of course, would appreciate the Court’s procedural instruction on this unusual situation.”
The Order Denying Motion for Expedited Injunctive Relief 3 was signed on 11/14/2025. (dlw) (Entered: 11/14/2025)
Texas: Fifth Circuit
Firearms Policy Coalitions v. Pamela Bondi; Case No. 4:24-cv-00565-O: On Nov. 18, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion To Clarify, or, in the alternative, to Modify the Permanent Injunction. The opening paragraph of the motion summarizes the Plaintiffs’ position:
“In this case, two national membership organizations that work to promote and defend the rights protected by the Second Amendment established that the federal ban on carrying firearms in post offices and on post office property is unconstitutional. Now the Government, in a bid to render that victory practically meaningless for all the members of those organizations except for the two who participated in this suit directly, seeks to narrow the scope of the injunctive relief this Court has ordered to exclude from coverage anyone whom the organizations have not identified to the Government as a member and anyone who was not a member at the time the complaint was filed.”
The Plaintiffs are very unhappy that the Department of Justice is fighting this court’s decision that the members of the organizations, the NRA and the Firearms Policy Coalition, are no longer under the federal law that denies law-abiding citizens from carrying guns in post offices.
