By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New— Duncan v. Bonta: Case No: 5-198: Hopefully, this case will be scheduled for a conference to decide whether SCOTUS will grant certiorari. This case concerns California’s ban on “large‑capacity magazines” (LCMs); West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Case No. 25-132. The petitioners appealed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, seeking Supreme Court review on whether the Second Amendment prohibits Congress from barring 18- to 20-year-olds from buying handguns from licensed dealers. Listing of cases seeking certiorari: ; Steven Brown et al. v. ATF, Case No. 23-2275: The District Judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, while the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of federal law; Hawkins v. Youngkin; Case No.: 24-1791: Is it really a question of self-defense?
SCOTUS
Duncan v. Bonta: Case No: 5-198: The deadline for all the motions to be filed was Oct. 20. Hopefully, this case will be scheduled for a conference to decide whether SCOTUS will grant certiorari. This case concerns California’s ban on “large‑capacity magazines” (LCMs)
Case Summary
The petitioners, Virginia Duncan and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, are challenging California Penal Code § 32310, which bans the possession, manufacture, or transfer of LCMs. They argue that the law violates the Second Amendment as articulated in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).
The district court struck down the LCM ban, ruling that magazines with more than ten rounds are commonly owned and protected as “arms.” However, a divided Ninth Circuit panel reinstated the ban, considering it consistent with historical firearm regulation. Petitioners argue this decision contradicts Bruen’s text‑and‑history test and continues the Ninth Circuit’s pattern of resisting Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings.
The petition asks the Court to determine whether a state can ban possession of arms that are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as self-defense. The respondents, led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, filed a brief in opposition on October 20, 2025, arguing that the law is constitutional under Bruen’s framework.
Amicus Curiae Filings (as of Oct. 26)
Filed Sept. 17:
- National African American Gun Association, Inc. (NAAGA), et al.
- Chris Cheng and the Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association (APAGOA)
Filed Sept. 18:
- National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. (NSSF)
- National Association for Gun Rights
- Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Gun Owners of California
- Amici States: Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming
West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Case No. 25-132. The petitioners appealed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, seeking Supreme Court review on whether the Second Amendment prohibits Congress from barring 18- to 20-year-olds from buying handguns from licensed dealers. The petition for certiorari was filed on July 31. It was docketed on Aug. 4. The respondent’s brief from the BATF was filed on Oct. 20. Certiorari petition is pending; as of late October 2025, the Supreme Court has not yet decided when to consider granting review. A number of states, led by West Virginia, have filed an amicus curiae in this case
In an unusual motion filed by the Department of Justice, the government argued that the Supreme Court should delay resolving this issue and wait for decisions in two other major Second Amendment cases: Wolford (challenging Hawaii’s “no carry default” rule) and Hammani (concerning “prohibited persons” under 922G3). DOJ recommends the Court put the 18–20-year-old issue “on the shelf” and potentially remand it back to lower courts after updating legal doctrine through Wolford and Hammani. Mark W. Smith, a Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), speculates that DOJ may want SCOTUS to first address outlier state laws (e.g., AR-15 bans in New Jersey, Illinois, California, or Hawaii’s carry restrictions) before tackling federal statutes. DOJ might also be advising prosecutors to be cautious about enforcement, given the uncertainty about the plaintiffs (18-to 20-year-olds) in this case.
Listing of cases seeking certiorari that deal with Second Amendment issues, but not challenging 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) — Federal law denying certain persons to own or carry firearms.
Pending Petitions (Not §922(g)(1)):
- VanDyke v. United States (25-5867) | 9th Cir. | 6-Oct-25
- Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) (unlicensed firearms dealing).
- Response due 10-Nov-25
- National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont (25-421) | 2nd Cir. | 3-Oct-25
- Second Amendment challenge to Connecticut’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and magazines with capacity greater than ten rounds.
- Response due 8-Dec-25
- Washington v. Duncan (25-153) | Supreme Court of Washington | 6-Aug-25
- Whether large-capacity magazines are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.
- Response requested, due 31-Oct-25
- Williams v. United States (25-120) | Supreme Court of Pennsylvania | 29-Jul-25
- Commerce Clause and federalism challenge to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
- Response due 10-Nov-25
- United States v. Short-Barreled Rifles (25-5150) | 11th Cir. | 16-Jul-25
- Second Amendment challenge to criminal punishment for possession of unregistered short-barreled rifles. Whether punishment for unregistered short-barreled rifles exceeds Congress’s tax power.
- Response filed 20-Oct-25
- Hollingsworth v. United States (24-8071) | 10th Cir. | 22-Jul-25
- Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to own M-16 rifles.
- Distributed for conference 7-Nov-25
- West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (25-132) | 4th Cir. | 31-Jul-25
- Second Amendment challenge to federal laws banning 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns from federally licensed firearm dealers.
- Response filed 20-Oct-25
- Brady v. Massachusetts (25-5280) | Mass. Supreme Ct. | 31-Jul-25
- Second Amendment challenge to Massachusetts’s licensing regime for nonresident travelers.
- Response due 28-Nov-25
- Smith v. Maryland (25-325) | Supreme Court of Maryland | 2-Sep-25
- Facial and as-applied Second Amendment challenge to state ban on possessing firearms after conviction for a state-law non-felony offense, by a non-violent offender.
- Response requested, due 8-Dec-25
- Plummer v. United States (24-1437) | 7th Cir. | 27-Aug-25
- Second Amendment challenge to ban on AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles.
- Picon v. United States (25-5713) | D.C. Court of Appeals | 23-Sep-25
- Whether the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment applies fully to 18-to-20-year-olds.
- Response due 29-Oct-25
- Duncan v. Bonta (25-198) | 9th Cir. | 15-Aug-25
- Whether a state may ban large-capacity magazines consistent with the Second Amendment.
- Response due 24-Oct-25
- Marquis v. Massachusetts (25-5280) | Mass. Supreme Ct. | 31-Jul-25
- Second Amendment challenge to Massachusetts’s licensing regime for nonresident travelers.
- Response due 28-Nov-25
- Gustafson v. Springfield, Inc. (25-120) | Supreme Court of Pennsylvania | 29-Jul-25
- Commerce Clause and federalism challenge to Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
- Response due 10-Nov-25
- DeWilde v. Bondi (24-8071) | 10th Cir. | 22-Jul-25
- Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to own M-16 rifles.
- Distributed for conference 7-Nov-25
- McCoy v. ATF (25-24) | 4th Cir. | 3-Jul-25
- Second Amendment challenge to federal laws banning 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns from federally licensed firearm dealers.
- Response filed 8-Oct-25
- Paris v. Lara (24-1329) | 3d Cir. | 26-Jun-25
- Do firearms laws imposing a minimum age of 21 violate the purported Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds?
- Rescheduled 4-Sep-25
- Rush v. United States (24-1259) | 7th Cir. | 6-Jun-25
- Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to possess unregistered short-barreled rifles.
- Reply filed 23-Oct-25
- National Rifle Association v. Glass (24-1185) | 11th Cir. | 16-May-25
- Whether Florida’s law banning 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing firearms violates the Second Amendment.
- Rescheduled 4-Sep-25
Courts of Appeals
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Steven Brown et al. v. ATF, Case No. 23-2275: The three-judge panel included Judges Wilkinson, Quattlebaum, and Heytens. The arguments were held on January 30, 2025, and the decision was handed down on June 18.
The Fourth Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling, instructing dismissal of the challenge. The majority held that, per its prior McCoy v. ATF en banc precedent, the federal ban on handgun sales to those under 21 does not violate the Second Amendment. There was a dissenting opinion by Judge Quattlebaum.
District Court
Brown et al. v. ATF, No. 1:22-cv-00080-TSK (N.D. W. Va.): Thomas S. Kleeh (appointed by President Donald Trump) granted Summary Judgment in 2023. He held that 18- to 20-year-olds are protected by the Second Amendment and that prohibiting them from buying handguns from FFLs was unconstitutional. The court stayed its decision pending appeal at the government’s request.
Circuit Court
Hawkins v. Youngkin; Case No: 3:23-cv-00232-JAG: Plaintiffs, including Tati Abu King and Toni Heath Johnson, challenged Virginia’s constitutional provision that automatically disenfranchises individuals convicted of felonies unless the Governor restores their rights. They argued that this provision violates the 1870 Virginia Readmission Act, which they claimed restricts Virginia from disenfranchising persons for crimes that were not felonies at common law in 1870.
Judge John A. Gibney Jr. signaled, and later ruled from the bench, that Virginia’s felony disenfranchisement law violates a 150-year-old federal statute. He granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that the law improperly disenfranchises thousands of Virginians in violation of federal law. The judge ordered the parties to brief on the terms of a possible injunction.
Virginia: Fourth Circuit
Hawkins v. Youngkin: Case No.: 24-1791: After Judge Gibney’s ruling, the Commonwealth of Virginia appealed to the Fourth Circuit. On August 19, 2025, the Fourth Circuit affirmed part of the district court’s ruling, allowing Ex parte Young prospective relief against most defendants, but required dismissal of the Governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth due to lack of enforcement authority. The core dispute remains whether the Virginia disenfranchisement process violates federal law stemming from the Readmission Act and possibly the First Amendment.
Again, Mark W. Smith, a Second Amendment attorney (@FourBoxesDiner on X.com and the Four Boxes Diner on YouTube.com), attempts to clarify the apparent contradiction of simultaneously denying felons voting and jury rights while potentially protecting nonviolent felons’ Second Amendment rights. He resolves this tension through a critical constitutional distinction: the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing, fundamental human right, while voting and jury service are civic rights created by society.
He argues that the right to self-defense existed in nature before civilization or constitutional government. In contrast, voting and jury service did not exist before organized society established them. Since society grants civic rights, it may revoke those rights when individuals demonstrate irresponsibility through felony convictions. However, the government may only restrict the pre-political right to bear arms if an individual poses a physically violent danger to themselves or others — a narrower standard than felony status alone.
