By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—The Anti-Second Amendment press; A new update named the Legal List to be published monthly; Zherka v. Bondi, Docket No. 25-269: Zherka filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 5, (Docket No. 25-269), arguing that the Second Circuit’s decision conflicts with other circuits and misapplies Bruen by upholding the ban for non-violent felons without sufficient historical analogues; Florida: Florida Commissioner of Agriculture v. Attorney General: Number 22-13893: Article from Duke Center for Firearms Law; New Jersey: Third Circuit: Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. NJ Attorney General: Last month, a 3-judge panel of the Third Circuit invalidated some aspects of the law, but upheld carry bans in many categories of locations; Fifth Circuit: Louisiana: Caleb Reese et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF): Case No: 6:20-cv-01438; an agreement on membership lists; Fifth Circuit: Texas
Ziegenfuss v. McCraw: Case No. 4:24-cv-01049-P: The FPC filed its response to the amici brief on October 10, 2025.
The Anti-Second Amendment press
The gvpedia.org (Gun Violence Research) group has just announced another publication dedicated to removing our Second Amendment rights. They announced The Legal List, describing it as a concise inventory of recent GVP-related cases from across the country to help you understand where we stand in our battle against the gun lobby.
In their first issue, they called Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey a “Partial Win, Partial Loss.” A description that most of the readers of thegunmag.com would agree with—but for different reasons.
This Substack page, which is published weekly, promises to publish The Legal List monthly. It is interesting to note that most of the cases covered in this first episode are criminal cases in which a person has been charged with a criminal offense.
SCOTUS
Zherka v. Bondi, Docket No. 25-269: Zherka filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on September 5, 2025 (Docket No. 25-269), arguing that the Second Circuit’s decision conflicts with other circuits and misapplies Bruen by upholding the ban for non-violent felons without sufficient historical analogues An Amicus briefs in support have been filed on Oct. 9, by a coalition of groups including the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition, urging review due to circuit splits on felon disarmament post-Bruen.
Background: Selim Zherka, a real estate developer and political commentator, pleaded guilty in 2011 to non-violent federal felonies: conspiracy to make a false statement to a bank and signing and filing a false federal income tax return. He was sentenced to 37 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, and was required to pay fines and restitution; he completed his sentence in May 2020. As a result of his convictions for crimes punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, Zherka is subject to a lifetime ban on possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). In September 2020, Zherka filed suit in federal district court against the U.S. Attorney General (named as Pamela Bondi in the case caption), seeking declaratory judgment that § 922(g)(1) violates his Second Amendment rights as applied to him, as well as injunctive relief to allow him to possess firearms in his home for self-defense. The district court dismissed the complaint. Zherka appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in May 2022. Shortly after, in June 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen. In a June 9, opinion authored by Judge Gerard E. Lynch (joined by Judges Jon O. Newman and Myrna Pérez), the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
Court of Appeals
Florida: Eleventh Circuit
Florida Commissioner of Agriculture v. Attorney General: Number 22-13893: The question of the use of marijuana and guns was brought by the former Commissioner of Agriculture as a political stunt to try to get the support of Florida gun owners. This week, the Duke Center for Firearms Law covers its article on “Guns and Marijuana at the Eleventh Circuit.” I have summarized this article that deals with a problem that will recur in other circuits.
Case Background
- Florida legalized medical marijuana in 2016, but because marijuana use remains illegal under federal law, users are disqualified from buying firearms through federal background checks. Plaintiffs, including Florida’s agricultural commissioner and three citizens, sought a declaration that § 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to state-legal medical marijuana users.
- The district court dismissed the claim, upholding the prohibition by analogizing to historic laws disarming the “unlawful” and those deemed dangerous (such as the mentally ill and alcoholics), and rejecting the argument that the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment shielded users from gun restrictions.
Eleventh Circuit Decision
- The Eleventh Circuit unanimously reversed the lower court on Second Amendment grounds after pausing for the Supreme Court’s Rahimi decision.
- The panel found the plaintiffs’ conduct—state-legal marijuana use—was presumptively covered by the Second Amendment and rejected DOJ arguments that “unlawful drug users” are not among “the people” protected by the amendment since pretrial plaintiffs had not committed felonies and had no proven dangerousness.
- The court rejected historical comparisons to felon disarmament and danger-based exclusions, noting that no factual allegations showed the plaintiffs acted dangerously due to their marijuana use. It distinguished between medical marijuana users and those associated with broader criminal drug activity or violent behavior.
Legal and Policy Context
- DOJ argued for broader discretion to disarm those it views as potentially dangerous, referencing both the Rahimi ruling and a new proposed process (925(c)) for restoring gun rights. However, the proposed rule would still presumptively deny relief to all “active unlawful drug users,” including medical users, until they cease using.
Implications
- The decision signals difficulty for the federal government in defending broad bans that do not specifically address the conduct or dangerousness of individual plaintiffs, especially with state law safely authorizing their drug use.
- The Biden administration’s (now the Trump administration’s) potential rescheduling of marijuana and the DOJ’s procedural changes might alter the legal landscape. Still, they will not resolve the constitutional question without policy or legislative changes.
New Jersey: Third Circuit
Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. NJ Attorney General: Last month, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit invalidated some parts of the law but upheld carry bans in many location categories, including permitted events, public parks, beaches, playgrounds, zoos, libraries, museums, bars, casinos, and healthcare facilities. The panel also supported the requirement that applicants provide references from four “reputable” non-relatives.
The petition argues that the panel misapplied Bruen and emphasizes that the issues presented in the case are too important to allow the panel’s flawed decision to be the last word on the constitutionality of New Jersey’s outlier regime. The plaintiffs in the case are the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and seven individuals.
District Court
Fifth Circuit: Louisiana
Caleb Reese et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF): Case No: 6:20-cv-01438.
My closing comment on this case in my Judicial Report of Oct. 1, was quite prescient:
It seems to this writer that the person writing the government brief failed to review the Trump administration’s February 7, 2025, Executive Order titled “Protecting Second Amendment Rights”, which initiates a review process to identify and address potential infringements from previous years.
In several YouTube.com videos uploaded by the FourBoxesDiner between Oct. 10 and 14, attorney Mark W. Smith has discussed this case and the uproar over the membership lists from various gun rights groups.
The core issue in the Reese case involves the constitutional right of 18- to 20-year-olds to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had previously ruled in favor of these young adults, affirming their rights. However, a controversy arose over a provision in the district court’s final judgment that seemed to require pro-Second Amendment organizations—such as the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)—to disclose their membership lists to the federal government, specifically the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Department of Justice (DOJ).
In the video from Smith on Oct. 14, he announces a significant legal breakthrough:
Judge Robert Summerhays of the Western District of Louisiana vacated his own prior order that would have required groups like the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition to turn over their private membership lists to the federal government and Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice. Smith explains that the Department of Justice, under Pam Bondi and working alongside Harmeet Dhillon and the 2A organizations, filed a joint motion to vacate the order because:
- The DOJ never requested these member lists.
- Turning over such lists would violate First Amendment rights, including the right to free association.
The judge agreed, granting the joint motion and effectively removing the requirement from the court’s judgment. Smith highlights this as a “complete victory” for Second Amendment groups, citing Supreme Court and civil rights era precedents (such as protections won by the NAACP) that prevent forced disclosure of membership lists to the government. The judge will follow up with a conference and possibly a hearing to finalize the amended judgment.
Fifth Circuit: Texas
Ziegenfuss v. McCraw: Case No. 4:24-cv-01049-P: The FPC filed its response to the amici brief on October 10, 2025. On September 12, 2025, the two amici appointed by the court filed their defense of the “sensitive places” as defined by the Texas penal code. The Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint after a hearing on July 24, 2025. Reasons for the denial included: (1) it would disrupt the parties’ February 11, 2025 agreement to proceed directly to summary judgment briefing on purely legal issues; (2) the amendment introduces new parties, statutes, and arguments that would significantly alter the case; and (3) the change is untimely and would delay resolution of the fully briefed summary judgment motions, prejudicing the state.
Background: This case was filed on Oct. 28, 2024, against the Texas carry bans at locations where (a) alcohol accounts for 51% of the business sales, (b) racetracks, and (c) sporting events, and it requests that the enforcement of these laws be declared unconstitutional. On April 16, 2025, both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs’ motion stated that these laws are not analogous or similar to historical bans.
