By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New — United States Supreme Court: September 28 long conference Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (U.S.); Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (U.S.) scheduled for oral argument December 2; The three cases held over from the 2025 Term are still seeking certiorari; Beckwith v. Frey, No. 26-258, a pending petition asking the Supreme Court to review Maine’s 72-hour waiting-period law for firearm purchases. The Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA filed an amicus brief; California: Ninth Circuit: Richards v. Newsom, No. 8:23-cv-02413-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.), appealed as No. 25-693 (9th Cir.): The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal on Aug. 27, in a 2-1 decision: National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Griffin, No. 3:26-cv-01528 (D. Conn.), National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Griffin, No. 3:26-cv-01528 (D. Conn.); On Wednesday, Sept. 30, ahead of the law’s scheduled Octo. 1 effective date. Judge Kari A, Dooley granted preliminary injunctive relief to Glock and allied plaintiffs, New York: Second Circuit, Ivan Antonyuk v. Steven , Case No: 1:22-CV-0986-GTS-PJE, Judge Glenn T. Suddaby; District Court, N.D. New York. On Sept. 30, Judge Suddaby issued his final opinion; State Court: Florida: Duval County: Gun Owners of America et al. v. City of Jacksonville et al., Case No. 16-2026-CA-006676-AXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval County);. As of Sept. 30, the plaintiffs had sued to stop firearm restrictions at Jacksonville-owned venues; the available reports do not identify a ruling on the complaint.
Week ending October 2 2026
Weekly Second Amendment developments — week ending Friday, October 2. The dominant development was a late-week federal preliminary injunction against Connecticut’s new handgun-sales restriction, while the Supreme Court’s pending semiautomatic-rifle cases continued to define the national doctrinal horizon.
United States Supreme Court
Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (U.S.); Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (U.S.)
- Development: No merits ruling issued during the reporting week, but the impending Supreme Court Term focused renewed attention on the consolidated cases, scheduled for oral argument on December 2. The Court will decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect possession of AR-15-platform and comparable semiautomatic rifles. Viramontes arises from Cook County’s semiautomatic-rifle prohibition; Grant challenges Connecticut’s statewide assault-weapons provisions.
- Why it matters: The cases squarely present the unresolved question left open by Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi: how “common use,” “dangerous and unusual,” military utility, and historical analogical reasoning interact when a government prohibits possession of a widely owned class of semiautomatic rifles. A ruling could affect state and local assault-weapons bans nationwide, including laws whose lower-court validity rests on theories that such rifles are especially dangerous, military-oriented, or insufficiently useful for core self-defense.
Held over from the 2026 Supreme Court term are still three cases seeking certiorari
Duncan v. Bonta; Case No: 25-198 from the Ninth Circuit
Duncan challenges California’s restriction on possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, including a Takings Clause question.
Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc. v. Washington: Case No: 25-153-from the Washington Supreme Court
Gator’s presents whether 10-round magazines are Second Amendment “Arms”.
National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont: Case No 25-421-from the Second Circuit
NAGR v. Lamont challenges Connecticut’s bans on specified semiautomatic rifles and magazines over 10 rounds.
Beckwith v. Frey, No. 26-258, is a pending petition asking the Supreme Court to review Maine’s 72-hour waiting-period law for firearm purchases. The Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA filed an amicus brief The case squarely presents whether delaying an otherwise lawful person’s acquisition of a firearm burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment and, if so, whether Maine can justify that delay under the historical-tradition test required by District of Columbia v. Heller and N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.October 5, 2026. Court orders from September 28 “long conference:,
US Court of Appeals
California: Ninth Circuit
Richards v. Newsom, No. 8:23-cv-02413-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal.), appealed as No. 25-693 (9th Cir.). The district-court action was filed December 19, 2023. On August 27, 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the original dismissal of the operative complaint.
District court
Firearms dealers, gun-rights organizations, and individual customers brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging California Penal Code § 26806. The provision requires licensed firearms dealers—including those operating from their homes—to maintain continuous digital video surveillance of specified business areas, record audio for systems inside the premises, and retain recordings for at least one year. The original complaint asserted First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta. After the parties stipulated to dismissal of the Second and Fourteenth Amendment claims and all claims against the Governor, the operative amended complaint pursued First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment claims against the Attorney General, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed those claims under Rule 12(b)(6), granted leave to amend, and entered final judgment on Jan. 28, 2025, after plaintiffs elected to stand on their complaint.
Ninth Circuit issue
Appealed as No. 25-693 (9th Cir.)The appeal asked whether the amended complaint plausibly alleged that § 26806’s recording mandate violated the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment. It did not present a surviving Second Amendment claim or ask the court to apply Bruen’s text-and-history test. The panel reviewed the pleading dismissal de novo and affirmed on a 2-1 decision.
Constitutional claims
On the Fourth Amendment claim, plaintiffs argued that the compelled creation of audiovisual recordings constituted a government search from the moment recording began. The majority rejected that theory because the dealers, rather than government agents, installed and operated the systems, and the complaint did not allege a governmental physical intrusion or access to the recordings. It also held that complying with the recording requirement did not turn the dealers into state actors.
The majority rejected the Fifth Amendment claim because the statute did not give the government possession of, or an interest in, the dealers’ property and the pleaded allegations did not establish a regulatory taking. It rejected the First Amendment theories of overbreadth, loss of anonymity, compelled disclosure of association, and chilled speech, concluding that the complaint did not plausibly allege the required regulation or disclosure of protected expression, or an objectively grounded fear of adverse government action.
Disposition and dissent: Big Brother is watching YOU!
The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal on Aug. 27. Judge Kenneth K. Lee dissented in part, concluding that the law’s continuous audio-surveillance requirement infringed the right to receive and exchange information and that the inspection regime posed a Fourth Amendment problem for home-based dealers. The majority declined to adopt those theories, distinguishing the inspection authority supplied by other laws from the recording provision challenged in this case. CRPA has stated they are looking into the next possible stage of legal action.
District Court
Connecticut: Second Circuit
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Griffin, No. 3:26-cv-01528 (D. Conn.), was filed September 21, 2026. The judge currently assigned to National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Griffin, No. 3:26-cv-01528 (D. Conn.), and the Glock, Inc. v. Griffin case is U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley. These two cases deal with Connecticut’s recently enacted HB5043, targeting the Glock design and bans the sale, advertising of handguns that the law considers “convertible pistols.” T
Glock, Inc. v. Griffin, No. 3:26-cv-01525.(D. Conn). On Wednesday, Sept. 30, ahead of the law’s scheduled Oct. 1 effective date. Judge Kari A, Dooley granted preliminary injunctive relief to Glock and allied plaintiffs, temporarily blocking Connecticut from enforcing a new restriction on the sale of certain semiautomatic pistols characterized as readily convertible through illegal “Glock switches.” The ruling is interim rather than a final merits determination, and Connecticut may appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Judge Dooley concluded that the plaintiffs—including Glock and the National Shooting Sports Foundation—were likely to succeed on their Second Amendment challenge, and would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and satisfied the remaining preliminary-injunction factors. The challenged provision therefore cannot currently be enforced against the plaintiffs while the litigation proceeds.
Second Amendment analysis
Applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court concluded that restricting the acquisition of the covered handguns implicated conduct protected by the Second Amendment’s text. The burden then shifted to Connecticut to identify a sufficiently analogous historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Connecticut relied on historical “proving laws,” which required firearms to be inspected or proof-tested before sale. Judge Dooley found those laws insufficiently analogous because they addressed whether firearms were safe and free from defects when entering commerce. They did not regulate otherwise lawful firearms based on the possibility that they might later be illegally modified or misused.
The court also found that the affected handguns, in their ordinary unmodified condition, are safe, commonly owned for self-defense, and protected by the Second Amendment.
Key distinction
The ruling distinguishes between regulating illegal conversion devices or unlawfully modified firearms and restricting the sale of lawful semiautomatic handguns capable of being illegally altered after purchase. Existing law may prohibit the conversion device and possession of a handgun that has been unlawfully converted into a machine gun. The challenged Connecticut law instead restricted a category of handguns based on their potential for later criminal conversion.
Context and procedural posture
Judge Dooley is a Trump appointee whose nomination was supported by Connecticut Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy. The decision arises amid other Connecticut Second Amendment litigation, including challenges to the state’s restrictions on certain semiautomatic rifles.
The immediate legal significance is limited to preliminary relief: the district court found that Connecticut’s historical justification was likely insufficient under Bruen and temporarily enjoined enforcement of the challenged restriction against the plaintiffs. The ultimate merits ruling, as well as any Second Circuit review, remains unresolved.
Challenged Provisions
Connecticut’s H.B. 5043 restricts the importation, advertising, and sale of newly manufactured semiautomatic pistols meeting its definition of a “convertible pistol.” That definition reaches pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that can be altered for conversion by installation or attachment of a pistol converter. Plaintiffs challenge the restriction on lawful, unmodified handguns—not the prohibition of machine guns or unlawful conversion devices.
Plaintiffs contend that the Second Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects access to handguns commonly possessed for lawful purposes, including self-defense. In their view, a firearm does not lose that protection because a third party might criminally modify it. They allege that Connecticut cannot prohibit lawful commerce in an entire category of semiautomatic pistols on the basis of that possibility.ammoland+1
Historical Record
Plaintiffs maintain that the Nation’s historical tradition supplies no analogue for barring the sale of otherwise lawful firearms because they might later be illegally converted. They distinguish laws punishing the unlawful modification or misuse of a firearm from a prospective ban on unmodified handguns
New York: Second Circuit
Ivan Antonyuk v. Steven , Case No: 1:22-CV-0986-GTS-PJE, Judge Glenn T. Suddaby; District Court, N.D. New York. This case was filed in September 2022 after the passage of New York’s 2022 “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” (“CCIA”), which included making most venues “sensitive places” and thus inaccessible to citizens carrying firearms. On Sept. 30, Judge Suddaby issued his final opinion.
In a Four Boxes Diner youtube.com video attorney Mark W. Smith’reports that Suddaby expressed serious doubts about several of the state’s gun-free “sensitive place” restrictions but upheld most of them because he was bound by Second Circuit precedent.
What the video covers
- In Antonyuk v. James, Judge Glenn Suddaby ruled on challenges to New York’s restrictions on carrying firearms in public parks, establishments serving alcohol, theaters, zoos, and airports. According to Smith, the judge followed controlling appellate precedent to uphold the first four categories but ruled for the challengers on the airport restriction.
- Smith reads passages in which the judge says some Second Circuit rulings may be overturned in light of later Supreme Court decisions. The concerns he highlights are the cumulative reach of New York’s restrictions, the burden they place on ordinary public carry, and the weight given to historical laws from territories or periods distant from the founding.
- Smith then advances his own proposed test: a government should be able to prohibit carry in a place only if it also provides enhanced security, such as controlled entry and armed protection. He contends that founding-era examples—legislative chambers, courthouses, and polling places—support that approach.
Final result: The district judge applied binding Second Circuit law despite his stated reservations. Smith’s prediction that the Supreme Court will overturn that law, and his enhanced-security test, are arguments made in the video—not holdings announced by the court.
Texas: Fifth Circuit
Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, No. 6:25-cv-00056 (N.D. Tex.)
- Development: The most material event this week was the reported confirmation that the Department of Justice would not appeal Judge James Wesley Hendrix’s Aug. 5 final judgment and permanent injunction. The ruling, consolidated with Jensen v. ATF, barred enforcement of specified National Firearms Act registration and approval requirements for suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns against the covered plaintiffs, members, and customers after the relevant tax had been eliminated. The CourtListener docket lists an Oct. 2 filing and identifies the case as terminated following final judgment.
- Why it matters: DOJ’s decision not to appeal leaves in force a final, party-limited injunction grounded in Congress’s taxing power rather than a broad facial Second Amendment holding. The practical effect should not be overstated: the injunction is not nationwide and does not erase NFA obligations for non-covered persons. But the government’s non-appeal substantially raises the stakes for future litigation over whether NFA registration may persist independently of a revenue-producing tax.
State Court
Florida: Duval County
Gun Owners of America et al. v. City of Jacksonville et al., Case No. 16-2026-CA-006676-AXXX-MA (Fla. Cir. Ct., Duval County). Reported filed on Sept. 28. As of Sept. 30, the plaintiffs had sued to stop firearm restrictions at Jacksonville-owned venues; the available reports do not identify a ruling on the complaint.
Issue
Florida Carry, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and individual plaintiffs allege that Jacksonville has made lawful firearm carry a condition of exclusion from public venues. They name the City, Sheriff T.K. Waters, and Mayor Donna Deegan, and contend that venue-admission rules and enforcement practices cannot impose local restrictions on firearm possession beyond those authorized by Florida law.
Challenged practices
The complaint reportedly describes lawful carriers being told to disarm, denied admission, or threatened with trespass at the Moran Theater, Florida Theatre, Jacksonville Fairgrounds, and EverBank Stadium. The plaintiffs challenge written and unwritten rules, directives, and recurring practices—not merely a single encounter with security personnel—and allege that uniformed officers participated in enforcement.
Preemption theory and relief
The plaintiffs’ theory rests on Florida’s reservation of firearm regulation to the state. Section 790.33 preempts local rules governing firearm possession and expressly permits an adversely affected person or organization to seek declaratory and injunctive relief against a written or unwritten measure, directive, or policy enforced in violation of that preemption. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that Jacksonville’s challenged restrictions are invalid and an injunction barring their enforcement. This is a state-law preemption action.
