By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Trump Administration: Department of Justice: The Civil Rights Division today filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department due to their pattern or practice of infringing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens seeking concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits.
Court of Appeals: California: Ninth Circuit, Knife Rights, Inc v. Bonta, Ninth Circuit Case No: 24-5536: NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Friday, October 10, 2025 – 10:00 A.M. –Illinois: Seventh Circuit: Barnett, et al., v. Pritzker: combined case—Case No. 23-cv-00209-SPM: see Editor in Chief Dave Workman’s coverage of this case on Sept. 24; D.C. William D. Wehr-Darroca, et al., V. District of Columbia: Case No.: 24-3504 (RC); Convoluted reasoning? Fifth Circuit: Louisiana: Caleb Reese et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF): Case No: 6:20-cv-01438: When the U.S. suggests the narrowest interpretation of the Appeals Court order
Trump Administration: Department of Justice
Late on Tuesday, September 30, 2025, a press release was sent out by the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ that stated: “The Civil Rights Division today filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department due to their pattern or practice of infringing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens seeking concealed carry weapons (CCW) permits. This lawsuit is the first affirmative lawsuit in support of gun owners filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. On March 27, 2025, the Division initiated the first-of-its-kind Second Amendment investigation due to numerous complaints of unreasonable delays in CCW permitting decisions by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. After analysis of data and documents spanning over 8,000 CCW permit applications, the Division today filed suit seeking relief on behalf of law-abiding applicants.”
We will closely follow this decision by the DOJ and the lawsuit against the Los Angeles Count Sheriff’s Department.
Court of Appeals
California: Ninth Circuit,
Knife Rights, Inc v. Bonta, Ninth Circuit Case No: 24-5536. The case was opened on Sept. 11, 2024. On Feb. 3, 2025, the plaintiffs filed their opening brief in which they alleged that switchblades constitute “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment, relying on precedents such as District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. They assert that the Second Amendment’s protection extends not only to firearms but to all bearable arms, including knives, particularly given their historical role as common weapons at the time of the Nation’s founding. The plaintiffs also cite the Supreme Court’s determination in Heller and Bruen that arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes—not limited exclusively to self-defense—are protected.
The plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in several respects:
- By limiting the “in common use” analysis only to self-defense, rather than any lawful purpose.
- By improperly separating the “dangerous and unusual” and “in common use” analysis into distinct tests, and applying them at the wrong Second Amendment step.
- By placing excessive evidentiary burdens not found in Supreme Court precedent.
Relief Sought
On appeal, plaintiffs request that the Ninth Circuit conduct de novo review, reverse the district court’s narrow interpretation of Second Amendment coverage, affirm the absence of historical tradition justifying the ban, find that switchblades are not “dangerous and unusual,” and declare the California statutes unconstitutional with a permanent injunction against enforcement.
Answering Broef
The answering brief was filed on April 3, 2025, by the office of Rob Bonta.
Briefs requested from amici
On Sept. 5, the Court file an Order inviting amici to submit briefs on the following questions:
- With respect to the Supreme Court’s use of “in common use” in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022): a. Does a Court assess whether a weapon is “in common use” under Bruen’s “step one… threshold inquiry” or “step two” historical inquiry? See United States v. Alaniz, 69 F.4th 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 2023). b. What is the proper understanding and application of the “in common use” language?
- With respect to the Supreme Court’s use of “dangerous and unusual” in Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): a. Does a Court assess whether a weapon is “dangerous and unusual” under Bruen’s “step one… threshold inquiry” or “step two” historical inquiry? b. Whether and to what extent this language is related to the “in common use” language? c. What is the proper understanding and application of the “dangerous and unusual” language?
Followed by an Added order
ADDED Court Appointed Amicus Curiae William James Taylor, Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Erin E. Murphy.
Briefs submitted by additional Amici
The following have submitted amicus curiae: National Rifle Association of America and National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, and Giffors Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Oral Argument Scheduled
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Friday, Oct. 10 – 10:00 A.M. –
District Court: Knife Rights v. Bonta: Case No.: 3:23-cv-00474-JES-DDL: On August 23, 2024, Judge James E. Simmons Jr granted the state’s motion to dismiss. Judge Simmons wrote:“the Plaintiffs’ proposed conduct cannot be covered by the Second Amendment because the weapons at issue are not commonly used for self-defense and are dangerous and unusual. The weapons thus fall outside of the scope of the Second Amendment.”
Background: On March 15, 2023, Plaintiffs commenced this action against Defendants, in their official capacities as State and City officials, challenging the constitutionality of certain switchblades under Cal. Penal Code §§ 17235, 21510, and 21590. ECF No. 1. Both parties moved for summary judgment a year later. Oral arguments were held on May 8, 2024.
Illinois: Seventh Circuit
Barnett, et al., v. Pritzker: combined case—Case No. 23-cv-00209-SPM
Editor in Chief Dave Workman covered this case on Sept. 24 when Chicago media called it “an unusual step” for “Assistant U.S. Attorney General for civil rights, showed up in Chicago to argue in support of the Second Amendment, and against a ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ in Illinois.” As the Chicago Sun-Times called the Illinois law, “A signature achievement of Gov. JB Pritzker,” it will be interesting to follow the 2026 Presidential campaign to see how this case impacts Pritzker’s ambitions.
District Court
William D. Wehr-Darroca, et al., V. District of Columbia: Case No.: 24-3504 (RC)
On Sept. 22, District Judge Rudolph Contreras granted the defendants the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. This outcome is seen not as a defeat but as a calculated step by gun rights advocates, particularly the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which brought this case. The plaintiffs were aware that a month prior to this case being initiated, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Judge Jeanine Pirro, acting as U.S. Attorney for D.C., had declared that enforcement of the law making it a crime to own “large capacity” magazines would be suspended.
In this case, according to Mark W. Smith, who publishes YouTube videos on Second Amendment issues, the ultimate goal is to bring the standing issue and possibly the question of the ban on “large capacity” magazines before either the D.C. Circuit Court meeting en banc, or ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether this strategy will succeed remains to be seen. Several viewers have their doubts:
“@michaelperine2780, I am 81 years old. It’s hard to get excited about a legal action that is going to take 5 or 10 years. The Constitution is now. The system is absurd. @gunztommiegunz, Thanks for the news, Mark. Unfortunately, I don’t see it as good news. The Supreme Court is full of cowards. They have no backbones. Why set a precedent if you refuse to enforce it?”
Fifth Circuit: Louisiana
Caleb Reese et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF): Case No: 6:20-cv-01438.
Initially filed in 2020, the district court granted summary judgment to the government, upholding the age restriction based on pre-Bruen precedents, such as NRA v. ATF. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this in Reese v. ATF, holding that the restrictions lack historical analogues and thus infringe on the Second Amendment rights of 18-to 20-year-olds, who are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. The appellate court remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, emphasizing that such adults have presumptive Second Amendment rights to acquire handguns for self-defense.
Following remand to the District Court, both parties submitted proposed judgments. The government’s proposal limits relief to the individual plaintiff, Caleb Reese, and excludes organizational members, arguing for case-by-case determinations. The plaintiffs have now submitted their proposed judgment. In their opening statement, the plaintiffs point out that the original plaintiffs in this case are no longer between the ages of 18 and 21.
They reject the government’s first argument for restricting relief, deeming it contrary to precedent and unfounded. First, defendants claim organizational relief is inappropriate because membership status could change, requiring ongoing verification. Plaintiffs then countered that the government ignores established law on associational remedies, which allows courts to grant injunctions to organizational members without requiring individual adjudication. They note that self-identification as a member, backed by organizational records, is sufficient, and any disputes can be resolved through contempt proceedings if necessary.
Secondly, plaintiffs dismiss the government’s argument that broad relief harms public interest by potentially allowing unqualified individuals access to handguns, by calling it speculative. They point out that the Fifth Circuit in Reese found no historical basis for age-based restrictions and that similar injunctions in other cases have not led to chaos. They also highlight that FFLs retain discretion to refuse sales and must comply with background checks.
Third, defendants mischaracterize the request as a “universal injunction,” but plaintiffs clarify it is party-specific, limited to organizational members—not the general public. Plaintiffs argue that the government’s proposed narrower relief would lead to repetitive litigation, wasting resources, and denying timely justice to members who face ongoing harm.
It seems to this writer that the person writing the government brief failed to review the Trump administration’s Feb. 7, Executive Order titled “Protecting Second Amendment Rights”, which initiates a review process to identify and address potential infringements from previous years.
