By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New— Schoenthal v. Raoul, Case No. 24-1046: The case focuses on whether broad restrictions on public transportation are historically supported under the Second Amendment; Texas: Sixth Circuit
Firearms Coalition v. Garland: Case No. 4-24-cv-00565: The main legal issues in Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. v. Garland (Case No. 4:24-cv-00565, N.D. Texas) revolve around the constitutionality of the federal government’s ban on the possession of firearms on United States Postal Service (USPS) property; Florida: Eleventh Circuit: a case challenging Florida’s waiting period law; Dunn et al v. Glass: 8:25-cv-02264 New Jersey: United States District Court, District of New Jersey; NSSF v. Platkin; Case number: 3:22-cv-06646, and New Jersey v. Sig Sauer:
Case number: ESX-C-000217-25.New Jersey v. Glock, Inc.: Case number: ESX-C-000286-24
Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County.
SCOTUS
Certiorari Watch
Last week, the Supreme Court scheduled four important cases about the Second Amendment rights of young adults aged 18 to 20 for discussion on Nov. 14. These cases—NRA v. Glass, Paris v. Lara, McCoy v. ATF, and West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. ATF— all challenge restrictions that prevent people under 21 from buying firearms. The McCoy and WVCDL cases focus on federal limits on handgun sales, while Glass and Paris contest state laws in Pennsylvania and Florida, respectively.
Additionally, a new petition was filed on October 22 in Gardner v. Maryland, challenging Maryland’s requirements for handgun licenses as they relate to travelers from other states. The petition also claims, based on the Full Faith and Credit Clause, that Maryland’s refusal to recognize Virginia’s concealed carry permits has no historical basis and imposes an unfair burden on the more than 20 million permit holders. For this case, Maryland has decided not to submit a response.
Schoenthal v. Raoul, Case No. 24-1046: A Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed at the Supreme Court on Oct. 31 by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition seeking review of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision. The case is focusing on whether broad restrictions on public transportation are historically supported under the Second Amendment, as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. It is a constitutional challenge to Illinois’ public transportation carry ban, currently petitioned to the Supreme Court District Court case number 3:22-cv-50326, appealed under 24-2643. The panel of judges included Ripple, St. Eve, and Kolar.
Background: The district court for the Northern District of Illinois (Judge Iain D. Johnston) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the restriction violated the Second Amendment. The decision was appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Nos. 24-2643 & 24-2644) heard oral arguments on May 28, 2025. On Sept. 2, the Seventh Circuit overturned the District Court. The panel concluded that public transportation bans aligned with the nation’s historical firearm regulations and did not infringe on the Second Amendment. The court cited post-Founding era laws and similar regulations, reasoning that such bans in “confined and crowded spaces” were justified.
Rush v. United States; Case No. 24-1259: The NRA-ILA filed a petition for certiorari on June 6, emphasizing confusion among lower courts in adjudicating restrictions on certain types of firearms and magazines. The government responded by conceding that some questions may warrant review, but defended the NFA’s restrictions, claiming short-barreled rifles are especially susceptible to criminal misuse. After the government filed its brief, the NRA filed a Reply Brief on Oct. 23, highlighting that the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in this case—which the government did not defend—conflicts with the Supreme Court precedents.
Background: Jamond Rush was charged in August 2022 with possessing an unregistered short-barreled AR-15 rifle (with a 7.5-inch barrel), violating the National Firearms Act (NFA). Rush argued that this statute was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. The government countered by relying on United States v. Miller, which upheld similar federal regulations. The district court denied his motion to dismiss. Rush then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Case No. 23-3256, Judge Joshua Kolar upheld the decision of the District Court, and Rush filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Circuit Court
Florida: Eleventh Circuit
Dunn et al v. Glass: 8:25-cv-02264: filed on Aug. 25 by NRA-ILA. Plaintiffs request: Declaratory judgment that Florida’s waiting period is unconstitutional for law-abiding citizens who have passed a background check, permanent injunction against enforcement of the law, damages for constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case challenges legacy restrictions, such as “cooling-off” waiting periods, which lack historical backing. If successful, it could: establish a precedent for invalidating similar waiting periods elsewhere, clarify that delays after background checks are not automatically constitutional without supporting traditions from the founding era, and expand immediate access rights for law-abiding buyers in Florida.
Texas: Sixth Circuit
Firearms Coalition v. Garland: Case No. 4-24-cv-00565: The main legal issues in Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. v. Garland (Case No. 4:24-cv-00565, N.D. Texas) concern the constitutionality of the federal government’s ban on possessing firearms on United States Postal Service (USPS) property. However, an additional procedural issue arose after District Court Judge Reed O’Connor enjoined enforcement of the post office gun ban for the plaintiffs and organizational members. The Department of Justice (DOJ) requested clarification, seeking to limit the injunction’s scope only to individuals confirmed as members at the time of the lawsuit, raising questions about associational standing, organizational rights, and the practical enforcement of injunctive relief.
Judge O’Connor’s injunction applies not only to the individual plaintiffs in the case but also to the organizational plaintiffs (FPC and SAF) and their respective members. The Department of Justice (DOJ), responding to the scope of this injunction, filed a motion seeking clarification—essentially asking the court to narrow the injunction so it would only apply to individuals who had disclosed their membership in the organizations at the time the lawsuit was filed. The DOJ claims that, without knowing exactly who the current members are, they cannot effectively comply with the injunction.
Mark W. Smith, a Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), who reviews current cases, explains that the issue of organizational standing and who benefits from an injunction like this is well-established in American law—dating back decades and involving precedents that emphasize associational standing for civil rights organizations. He notes that similar exceptions exist elsewhere in law, such as for police or medical professionals, and that these issues are routinely handled in practice without the government knowing the identities of members in advance. The DOJ’s efforts to limit relief, he argues, reflect broader legal strategy (especially in politically charged contexts) rather than legal necessity. He suggests that the DOJ is trying to walk a fine line between Second Amendment rights and the issues they face with federal judges issuing injunctions on police activity across the country.
This past June, the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA marked a landmark ruling that significantly limited the power of federal courts to issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions against government actions, even in cases with broad constitutional implications like birthright citizenship. The case stemmed from President Trump’s Executive Order aiming to revoke birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents with specific immigration statuses, directly challenging the Fourteenth Amendment.
Background: This case was filed on June 18, 2024, against 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), which bans knowing possession of firearms in federal facilities, including federal post office buildings, and against 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), which similarly prohibits carrying and storing firearms on “postal property.” This case is similar to United States v. Ayala::8:22-cv-00369, discussed in the Grassroots Legislative Report 2025-08-18. Unlike the Ayala case, the plaintiffs are not defendants in a criminal case but are seeking the restitution of their Second Amendment rights. Additionally, the Sixth Circuit, rather than the Twelfth Circuit, has historically been more supportive of Second Amendment rights.
New Jersey: United States District Court, District of New Jersey
NSSF v. Platkin; Case number: 3:22-cv-06646: The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is actively challenging New Jersey’s law, arguing it violates the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) and several Constitutional provisions. The NSSF previously sued to block the law; that case was dismissed for lack of standing at the time, but has been amended and reopened after Platkin’s subsequent lawsuits.
The NSSF and others view this as an attempt to impose NJ-style gun control nationwide through litigation and as a violation of federal law.
State Court (New Jersey)
Attorney General Matthew Platkin is taking aggressive legal action, or “lawfare,” against firearm manufacturers, especially targeting SIG SAUER and GLOCK. Platkin’s lawsuits cite New Jersey’s Firearms Industry Public Safety Law, using a vague “reasonable controls” standard, along with the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The goal is to stop sales, require recalls, and prevent advertising for certain handguns sold by these companies. SIG SAUER has publicly denied the allegations, claiming that the claims about defects with the P320 handgun are false and asserting that their firearm is safe.
- New Jersey v. Sig Sauer:
Case number: ESX-C-000217-25
Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County - New Jersey v. Glock, Inc.:
Case number: ESX-C-000286-24
Court: Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Essex County
