Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

PHILADELPHIA, PA — An armed Philadelphia man shot and killed an intruder early Monday morning after hearing his upstairs neighbor screaming for help during a forced-entry home invasion in the Rhawnhurst neighborhood, according to 6ABC.

Police told 6ABC that a man believed to be in his 40s forced open the front door of a second-floor apartment around 1:00 a.m. on the 1600 block of Griffith Street. The apartment was occupied by a single mother and her 14-year-old daughter, both of whom were asleep. The intruder went directly to the daughter’s bedroom.

The mother, identified only as Evelyn, told reporters she heard a commotion and at first assumed one of her cats had knocked something over. When she got up to investigate, she found a man she did not recognize inside her daughter’s room. She confronted him, and a violent struggle followed. She suffered injuries to her hand and collarbone before she was able to scream for help.

Her downstairs neighbor heard her, armed himself, and went upstairs to confront the suspect. The struggle moved into the basement of the building. Police said the intruder was holding a stick. The neighbor ordered him to drop it, and when he refused, the neighbor shot him once in the chest.

The intruder was rushed to a hospital and pronounced dead. Investigators noted the front door had been forced open and reported a suspicious vehicle parked outside the home. Homicide detectives are continuing to investigate, and 6ABC reports that police have not yet announced whether any charges will be filed. Evelyn told reporters she believes the intruder would have killed her and her daughter if her neighbor had not stepped in.

Defense of Others Under Pennsylvania Law

Pennsylvania law explicitly authorizes the use of force to defend a third person. Under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 506, a person can use the same force to protect someone else that the other person would have been legally allowed to use in their own defense. The mother in this case was being attacked by an armed intruder who had forced his way into her home in the middle of the night. Her right to use deadly force in self-defense is well established under Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine at 18 Pa.C.S. Section 505, and the neighbor’s right to act on her behalf tracks that framework directly.

More from USA Carry:

Takeaway

This is what the Second Amendment looks like when it works the way it is supposed to. A neighbor heard a woman and a child in danger, chose to close the distance rather than wait for police, gave the intruder a chance to drop his weapon, and stopped him when he refused. A mother and her 14-year-old daughter went to bed in an apartment that was supposed to be safe. They are both alive this morning because their downstairs neighbor was capable, willing, and lawfully armed.

The first line of defense for any family is the family itself. The second is the people who live closest to them.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

If you’ve ever wondered what would happen if a high-end custom 1911 collided with ancient sword-making aesthetics, Cabot Guns just answered the question.

Meet the new Cabot Damascus Bedside 1911 (formerly called the Ultimate Bedside) a pistol that somehow manages to look like a museum piece while still being purpose-built for home defense.

And yes, this thing is absolutely dripping with Cabot energy.

The centerpiece here is the pistol’s ladder-pattern Damascus slide, which Cabot says is forged using modern stainless Damascus techniques inspired by the ancient pattern-welded steel that made legendary blades famous centuries ago. The result is a slide that looks almost liquid under light, with swirling steel patterns that honestly make most standard black pistols look boring by comparison.

But unlike a lot of flashy “safe queen” guns, Cabot is clearly pitching this one as a serious defensive firearm.

The frame is machined from American 416 stainless steel and finished in black DLC coating for durability and reduced glare in low-light conditions. It also includes an integrated accessory rail, meaning you can mount a weapon light and actually use this thing as a legit bedside gun instead of just admiring it in a display case.

Which is probably good, because a pistol named “Damascus Bedside” would be pretty awkward without a rail. Cabot also leaned hard into the premium details.

The pistol features aggressive rhombus-cut checkering, beveled magwell geometry for faster reloads, billet steel controls, and the company’s signature Fibonacci Ebony grips. The TriStar aluminum trigger is precision-fit and designed for a clean break, while the overall frame-to-slide fit gets the same ultra-tight treatment Cabot has become known for.

In plain English: it’s fancy. Really fancy.

Buyers can choose between a full-size 5-inch Government model or a shorter 4.25-inch Commander version, with chamberings available in either .45 ACP or 9mm.

And because it’s Cabot, production numbers are staying limited.

That means the Damascus Bedside lands in a weirdly cool middle ground between defensive tool, flex piece, heirloom firearm, and functional art project. Some people are going to buy one because they appreciate the craftsmanship. Others are going to buy one because they want the most over-the-top bedside 1911 imaginable.

Honestly? Both are fair.

At a time when most defensive pistols are trending toward polymer sameness, Cabot is still out here building guns that feel unapologetically excessive in the best possible way. Base Price: $8,295

Learn more HERE.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***

https://gunsamerica.com/listings/search

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger has signed Senate Bill 749 into law, establishing a comprehensive statewide ban on “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines effective July 1, 2026. The legislation was immediately met with a sophisticated, dual-track legal assault: a state-level lawsuit filed by GOA and VCDL utilizing a unique “state-only” constitutional theory, and a lean federal lawsuit filed by the NRA and FPC explicitly engineered to bypass the Fourth Circuit and head straight to the U.S. Supreme Court.

---

RICHMOND, VA — The Old Dominion has officially become the latest flashpoint in the national battle over the Second Amendment. On Thursday, May 14, 2026, Governor Abigail Spanberger signed SB 749, joining Virginia with at least ten other states enforcing strict prohibitions on the sale, transfer, and import of popular semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding over 15 rounds.

However, the law’s opponents did not wait for the ink to dry. Within hours, gun rights organizations launched a coordinated, two-pronged counter-offensive designed to attack the legislation from completely different legal angles before the July 1 implementation deadline.

The State Track: Insulating the Case in Lancaster County

In a brilliant display of local procedural strategy, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) teamed up with firearms journalist John Crump to file a 59-page complaint in the Circuit Court for Lancaster County.

The most fascinating aspect of this filing is what it completely leaves out: it makes absolutely no mention of the Second Amendment. Instead, the plaintiffs are relying strictly on Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution.

By disclaiming federal law entirely, the legal team—which previously won a preliminary injunction against local ordinances in Winchester—aims to lock the case into the state court system. This prevents the Commonwealth from “removing” the case to federal court, successfully bypassing the historically anti-gun Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Beyond core constitutional rights, the state case introduces three highly technical statutory loopholes that could defang the law if upheld:

1. The Multicaliber Magazine Issue: Pointing out that a banned 30-round 5.56 magazine is physically identical to a perfectly legal 10-round .458 SOCOM magazine.
2. The Manufacturing Gap: Noting the text criminalizes sale and import but is silent on individual home manufacture from kits.
3. The Shotgun Paradox: Highlighting a drafting error where the word “one” was used instead of “one or more,” potentially exempting shotguns with multiple banned characteristics.

The Federal Track: A Direct Highway to SCOTUS

Simultaneously, in the Alexandria Division of the U.S. District Court, a star-studded coalition including the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed McDonald v. Katz.

In stark contrast to the massive state document, this is a lean, single-count 24-page federal civil rights lawsuit. Consequentially, the plaintiffs openly admit in the text that their request is currently blocked by existing Fourth Circuit precedents (Bianchi v. Brown and Kolbe v. Hogan), which previously upheld Maryland’s rifle ban.

By acknowledging an inevitable loss at the lower federal levels, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC is intentionally fast-tracking the record. They are setting the stage to file a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, providing the high court with a clean, unburdened vehicle to finally rule on whether bans on America’s most popular rifle are unconstitutional under the text and history standards set by Bruen.

Safety Tip: For Virginia’s gun-owning community, the period between May 14 and July 1 represents a critical operational window. Because the law has a grandfather clause for existing possession, any transfers or purchases must be legally completed before the July 1 effective date. If you plan to acquire firearms or standard-capacity magazines, ensure all background checks and retail pickups are finalized to avoid compliance traps. Tactically, keep a close eye on the Lancaster County circuit court; if the Olson and Ambler legal team secures a temporary injunction before July 1, the law’s implementation could be paused statewide, freezing the clock while the state-only constitutional doctrine is hashed out in front of Virginia judges.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

Second Amendment Foundation just picked up another major courtroom win against New York’s post-Bruen carry restrictions. And one of the state’s most controversial anti-carry rules is officially staying down.

In a new ruling tied to Christian v. James, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court injunction blocking New York’s so-called “Vampire Rule,” which effectively banned lawful concealed carry on nearly all private property open to the public unless owners posted explicit permission signs.

In other words, the default was “no carry” almost everywhere.

Gun rights groups argued the law was an obvious workaround to the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling after New York was forced to start issuing carry permits under constitutional standards.

And the court appears to have agreed.

“New York’s carry ban on private property open to the public – essentially all private businesses – was intended as the state’s next novel circumvention of the Second Amendment,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are thrilled the Second Circuit saw through this ruse and tossed the ban out on its rear end.”

The lawsuit was brought by SAF alongside Firearms Policy Coalition and plaintiff Brett Christian. But the ruling wasn’t a total sweep.

The court also upheld New York’s ban on carrying firearms in parks, rejecting SAF’s arguments that the restriction also violates the Second Amendment. According to SAF, at least one judge issued a notable dissent on that portion of the opinion.

That means the fight over what counts as a legitimate “sensitive place” is far from over.

Since Bruen dropped in 2022, anti-gun states like New York, California, New Jersey, and others have tried to redraw massive portions of public life into gun-free zones, often using broad “sensitive places” language to restrict where permit holders can legally carry.

Critics say the strategy was never about safety as much as making carry permits functionally useless.

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb made it clear the organization isn’t done pushing back.

“The ideologues who think they can create ‘sensitive places’ to ban the legal carry of firearms should understand that SAF will continue to fight for the right to keep and bear arms for all Americans,” Gottlieb said.

For New York gun owners, today’s ruling means one thing is now crystal clear: the state can’t simply wave a wand and declare almost every privately-owned business off limits to lawful carry holders.

At least not without a fight.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***

https://gunsamerica.com/listings/search

A midday active shooter attack at the Islamic Center of San Diego on Monday, May 18, 2026, has left at least two people dead, including a dedicated campus security guard. A massive multi-agency response and a tactical SWAT deployment successfully neutralized the armed threat within an hour, ending a terrifying sequence that briefly forced local schools and nearby religious institutions into mandatory lockdowns.

---

UPDATE @ 4:58PM EST: Police confirm that 2 suspects, both teenagers, were deceased at the scene. A total of 3 victims were shot and killed, including an armed security guard. The suspects were identified as male, and were 17 and 19 years old.

SAN DIEGO, CA — A peaceful afternoon of prayer was shattered by violence at the largest mosque in San Diego County. At approximately 11:40 a.m. on Monday, May 18, 2026, the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) began receiving frantic 911 calls reporting multiple gunshots and an active shooter on the campus of the Islamic Center of San Diego, located at 7050 Eckstrom Avenue in the Clairemont Mesa neighborhood.

NOW: ACTIVE SHOOTER situation at Islamic Center in San Diego results in 2 dead, more injured, and someone spotted laying in a pool of blood, aerial view shows

Absolutely horrifying.

Police have rushed the scene.

Pray for any victims

h/t @RapidReport2025 pic.twitter.com/WjaEHWz0Ac

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 18, 2026

Dozens of emergency vehicles and tactical units immediately swarmed the modernist white building, which houses both the house of worship and the Al Rashid School. Authorities issued an immediate shelter-in-place order for the surrounding residential streets and shopping plazas, while the California Highway Patrol closed both the northbound and southbound Interstate 805 off-ramps at Balboa Avenue to isolate the threat.

Sacrifice at the Perimeter

While official police statements remain lean regarding the sequence of events, community leaders and activists close to the mosque confirm that two individuals have died. Tragically, one of the victims was a mosque security guard who reportedly encountered the gunman near the parking lot entrance and attempted to intercept him, absorbing the initial rounds and giving others inside the time to lock down and seek cover.

Aerial footage from local news affiliates captured a harrowing but orderly scene as tactical officers escorted more than a dozen school children, holding hands, out of the parking lot toward safety.

The Threat Neutralized

By 12:43 p.m., SDPD reported that the scene was “active but contained” as a SWAT team systematically cleared the facility. Just after 1:00 p.m., police officials delivered the definitive update that the shooter had been neutralized, meaning the immediate danger to the public had passed.

A reunification center was quickly established at 4125 Hathaway Street for family members seeking to connect with loved ones who were inside the facility or the school during the assault. Out of an abundance of caution, the Jewish Federation of San Diego and several other religious institutions throughout the city briefly enacted lockdown protocols until the suspect’s status was confirmed.

“Emergency personnel are on scene and actively working to protect the community and secure the area,” San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria said in a statement, urging residents to continue avoiding the primary thoroughfares around Balboa Avenue while detectives document the extensive crime scene.

Safety Tip: Active shooter incidents at houses of worship represent a highly specific tactical threat profile. Assailants often choose these locations because they expect a “soft target” with open doors and a welcoming environment. In this tragic event, the presence of a dedicated security guard at the perimeter was the critical factor that disrupted the shooter’s timeline and prevented an unchecked intrusion into the main prayer hall or the attached school.

Virginia gun owners are not waiting around for Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s new gun-control scheme to become another legal trap.

The plaintiffs challenging Virginia’s new so-called “assault firearm” ban have now asked a Lancaster County court for emergency relief, filing a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against the state’s new restrictions on common firearms and standard-capacity magazines.

The motion was filed in John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation v. Colonel Jeffrey S. Katz, the lawsuit brought against the Superintendent of the Virginia State Police in his official capacity.

The underlying case challenges the gun-control package signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, which is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026.

The message from the plaintiffs is simple: do not let this law take effect while the courts decide whether Virginia Democrats just trampled the Commonwealth’s own constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

The latest motion asks the Circuit Court for Lancaster County to block enforcement of the state’s new “assault firearm” and “large capacity ammunition feeding device” restrictions while the case moves forward. It relies on an accompanying memorandum for the detailed legal arguments, but the motion itself lays out exactly what the plaintiffs want stopped.

At the top of the list is Virginia’s new definition of “assault firearms,” along with the ban on the import, sale, manufacture, purchase, or transfer of those firearms. The motion also targets the related penalties and derivative crimes that would flow from the new regime.

As AmmoLand previously reported, the complaint argues that Virginia’s law reaches a broad class of ordinary rifles, pistols, shotguns, magazines, and firearm configurations commonly owned by law-abiding Americans.

Virginia Democrats can call them “assault firearms” all day long. Gun owners know what is really being targeted: common semi-automatic firearms and magazines that millions of Americans use for self-defense, training, competition, collecting, and lawful commerce.

The motion also asks the court to block Virginia’s public-carry restriction for “assault firearms.” That part of the law is especially alarming because the complaint says the definition can sweep in firearms ordinary Virginians would recognize as standard defensive handguns or commonly owned long guns.

In other words, this is not just about future sales. It is about whether the Commonwealth can brand ordinary arms as politically unacceptable and then restrict how law-abiding citizens acquire, transfer, and carry them.

The plaintiffs are also seeking to block Virginia’s ban on the import, sale, barter, transfer, or purchase of “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” That is the gun-control lobby’s preferred phrase for magazines that are standard equipment for many of America’s most popular firearms. There is nothing “large capacity” about a magazine that comes standard with a common defensive pistol or rifle. The phrase is political marketing. The practical effect is a state-imposed limit on the tools citizens may use to exercise a constitutional right.

The motion further targets the forfeiture provision that would allow prohibited “assault firearms” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” to be seized. That is where the threat becomes very real. Gun control is sold as paperwork, definitions, and “common sense.” Then the penalties arrive, and the forfeiture language shows up. Then ordinary citizens find out the state has turned yesterday’s lawful property into tomorrow’s felony.

The case is also notable because the complaint is brought under Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s own constitutional protection is at least as strong as the Second Amendment.

Either Article I, Section 13 means what it says, or it is just another constitutional promise politicians may ignore when the target is gun owners.

The complaint attacks not only the scope of the ban but also its vague language. The challenged laws use feature-based terms and definitions that leave ordinary people guessing what conduct is lawful, while giving police and prosecutors enormous discretion after the fact.

That is the pattern with modern gun control. Lawmakers who do not understand firearms write sweeping restrictions on firearms. Then gun owners, dealers, trainers, manufacturers, and journalists are told to hire lawyers and hope for the best.

John Crump’s role in this case is crucial. He is a law-abiding Virginian, concealed handgun permit holder, firearms journalist, YouTuber, and AmmoLand contributor whose work involves receiving, testing, reviewing, and discussing the types of firearms and magazines Virginia now seeks to restrict.

Crump made clear that the emergency motion is not the end of the fight. It is the opening move.

“As I have said from the beginning, this law is repugnant of the United States and Virginia Constitutions,” Crump told AmmoLand. “We, as Virginians, will use everything in our power to prevent the law from taking effect. The motion for a TRO and PI is just the start of our legal strategy.”

Virginia gun owners should not be forced to wait until July 1, get trapped by a confusing and unconstitutional law, and then beg the courts for relief after the damage is done. The whole point of emergency relief is to prevent the government from enforcing a statute that violates fundamental rights.

Once July 1 arrives, the damage is not theoretical. Lawful commerce will be banned. Events and competitions get altered or canceled. Gun owners stop buying, selling, carrying, and training because the state has made the rules broad, punitive, and unclear.

Anti-gun politicians understand that. Sometimes the point is not immediate confiscation. Sometimes the point is to make the exercise of a right risky, expensive, confusing, and legally exhausting.

This motion asks the court to stop that game before it starts.

Virginia has now become one of the major Second Amendment battlegrounds in the country. A separate federal lawsuit is also challenging Virginia’s new ban. Spanberger and anti-gun Democrats are trying to drag the Commonwealth into the same failed blue-state playbook used in places like California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois: demonize common firearms, relabel standard magazines, criminalize ordinary transactions, and dare gun owners to spend years fighting in court.

GOA, VCDL, John Crump, and the other plaintiffs are refusing to wait.

The court should grant the injunction and keep Virginia from enforcing this law while the case proceeds. A constitutional right is not supposed to be violated while politicians experiment with new ways to restrict it.

Virginia gun owners are not asking for special treatment. They are asking the court to enforce the plain promise of their own constitution: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

“The Supreme Court didn’t skip the AR-15 case this term out of hostility or neglect — they ran out of bandwidth on a generational docket, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already telegraphed that the AR-15 case is coming as soon as October 2026.” — Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

I’m often asked why the Supreme Court didn’t take an AR-15 or “large-capacity” magazine case this term. The implication is usually that the Court is dodging the Second Amendment. But there is another, more basic explanation: the Justices have one of the most packed, precedent-setting dockets in living memory, and Chief Justice John Roberts decided to ration the Court’s political capital for now.

To be the smartest person in the room on this, you have to start with the institutional reality. The Supreme Court hears roughly 60 to 70 cases per term on the merits docket. Every granted case demands briefing, oral argument, conference deliberation, opinion drafting, concurrences, and dissents, and the Justices have themselves and a small group of clerks. Behind the merits docket sit thousands of cert petitions a year, each one screened and assessed. And on top of all that is the emergency docket (sometimes called the “shadow docket”), which consists of urgent applications like the one Virginia just filed and lost trying to engage in mid-decade redistricting. Those applications get no oral argument but still consume enormous attention.

The Generational Docket That Crowded Out The AR-15 Ban Cases

Let’s look at what is on the merits docket this term. The Court is deciding birthright citizenship — whether children of illegal aliens and tourist visa holders are automatically American citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s deciding Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Remain in Mexico fight, as well as Mullin v. Doe, the case over President Trump’s authority to revoke the Temporary Protected Status that Biden handed to Haitian nationals. It has already decided Learning Resources v. Trump, addressing the President’s authority concerning tariff policy — a loss for the administration, but a separation-of-powers ruling that will be read by scholars and students for decades to come.

Then there is the executive-power blockbuster: Trump v. Slaughter, teed up to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). For ninety years, that New Deal-era precedent has forced Republican presidents to keep Democrat holdovers operating their executive agencies. If Humphrey’s Executor goes into the trash bin of history, the deep state’s statutory immunity largely goes with it.

The Court has already handed down Louisiana v. Callais and Allen v. Caster (Alabama)–two decisions that held federal judges cannot use the Voting Rights Act to force red states to draw racial majority-minority districts where the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments prohibit using race in governmental decisions. Those rulings reshaped the 2026 midterm map and served up a terrible blow to the Democrats.

On the cultural front, Chiles v. Salazar struck down Colorado’s one-way talk-therapy regime as a First Amendment violation, i.e., Colorado law said talk therapists could help individuals transition to a new gender, but those same therapists could not discourage gender transitioning. And West Virginia v. B.P.J. is teed up to decide whether states can keep biological boys out of girls’ high school sports consistent with federal Title IX.

These groundbreaking, precedent-setting cases were sitting in front of the Justices when the AR-15 and magazine cert petitions were being considered.

The AR-15 Fight Didn’t Make the Cut-For Now

Here is the part the cynics leave out: The Court granted cert in two important Second Amendment cases this term.

United States v. Hemani asks whether the federal government can disarm unlawful users of marijuana under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Wolford v. Lopez asks whether Hawaii can set as a default law that every place generally open to the public (restaurants, gas stations, laundromats, etc.) is a government-mandated gun free zone unless a CCW holder can first procure express permission to carry from the owners. Both decisions will land by the end of June. Neither is an AR-15 case, but they are precedential rulings that will shape Second Amendment doctrine for years to come.

Remember the distinction I always draw: every case is important to the parties in it, but not every case is precedential. Hemani and Wolford are precedential. The Court took the Second Amendment seriously this term. It just couldn’t take every 2A case.

Next Term Is Likely the AR-15 Term

Justice Kavanaugh signaled in spring 2025 that the Court needed to take an AR-15 case in the next term or two. That phrasing was not accidental. He was looking down the chessboard. With the executive-power, immigration, redistricting, and tariff cases eating up this term, the AR-15 fight likely gets pushed into the October 2026-June 2027 term — exactly the term Kavanaugh had telegraphed.

I think the vehicle is already in the pipeline. The Seventh Circuit’s Barnett case out of Chicago and the Third Circuit’s Cheeseman/ANJRPC case out of Philadelphia both involve state-level “assault weapons” bans, and the Trump DOJ has already weighed in on both. One of those will likely be the cert vehicle.

So when someone asks whether the Supreme Court is afraid of the AR-15 question, my answer is no. The Justices ran out of room this term due to an insanely-significant docket.

The history of the future has yet to be written, but the chessboard tells me the AR-15 case is coming next term — and when it does, the Second Amendment is going to win hugely.

DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith, host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on YouTube, is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. His Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen and in U.S. v. Rahimi.

His most recent book is DISARMED: What the Ukraine War Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms.

---

Why is Ottawa disarming Canadians?

Before committing mass murder, governments typically disarm any many people as possible. That happened in Germany, China, the USSR, Cambodia, and Turkey among other countries in the 20th century.

That would never happen in Canada. Of course.

Ottawa would never decide to murder an unappreciated minority, whether Jewish or Indigenous or Albertan. Nor would the authorities stand aside while the minority was being butchered by a client group, as happened in Rwanda. Never.

Canadians trust the police, even though the RCMP and local police have basically stood aside while Islamic activists terrorize the Jewish community. Like most Canadians, Jews are hard-pressed to defend themselves, because Ottawa has disarmed them. Exceptionally few Canadians can legally own a firearm for self defence. Although under some conditions, Canadians may be able to use their “sporting” firearms to defend their families and community.

On the other hand, progressives claim that past Canadian governments have engaged in “genocide,” against Indigenous peoples and possibly even minority groups – even abusing and murdering children in residential schools. But no one believes a future Liberal Prime Minister would countenance mass murder.

Power corrupts. Juvenal pointed this out centuries ago.

Governments claim to be our protectors, our guardians, but they require watching. Not just to keep the politicians honest, but more importantly, to protect the public from the government.

Gun control proponents believe armed government officials (the police) will protect civilians. They assume that normal civilians can’t be trusted with firearms, but they trust completely authorities who wield deadly force. Historically, this is a bad bet. In 1910 no one could have predicted that Germany, with its liberal constitutional monarchy, would give birth to the Nazis and launch a holocaust of mass murder in the 1930s and 1940s.

Armed citizens are key

Gun control (despite whatever supporters may claim) eventually means disarming ordinary citizens. But disarming the citizenry removes an important deterrent to tyranny. In democracies or republics, armed citizens provide the best bulwark against government abuses. Armed civilians provide an important deterrent to potential tyrants. It is difficult for government to launch a mass murder campaign if they face armed citizens. Almost all of the mass murders by government over the 20th century took place where the citizens had first been disarmed.

Despite lurid media reports, the dangers of civilian criminals with guns are wildly exaggerated, while the dangers of armed powerful governments are typically ignored. Governments over the 20th century have murdered more than 5 times as many innocent people as have civilian killers.

How many criminal murders have been committed during the 20th century?

The best source of worldwide statistics on criminal murder (or intentional homicide) is the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) which publishes compilations of murder statistics from UN member countries. The UN Global Study on Homicide, 2023 , reported 458,000 intentional homicides across the 193 member states; close to the highest number of homicides committed in recent years. Multiplying this number by 100 gives a rough estimate of the number of homicides during the 20th century. The real number might be lower, but it’s unlikely to be higher. [Updated from an earlier post].

Murder in the 20th Century

Murders by criminals	45.8 Million
Government mass murders	273 – 400 million

Government mass murders in the 20th century

Governments murdered their own citizens at much higher numbers than were killed by all the criminals during the 20th century. Estimates vary. Perhaps, five times as many, perhaps much more. And all were innocent civilians. Note: these counts do not include civilian deaths by either bombing or war-exacerbated disease and malnutrition..

Professor R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii, the renown political scientist and statistician, estimated that at least 272 million innocent, non-combatant civilians who were murdered by their own governments during the 20th century. According to Rummel, this estimate is his lower, more prudent figure, stating that it “could be over 400 million deaths.” Professor Rummel coined the word “democide” to denote all mass murder by government, regardless of whether the victims were selected for ethnicity, politics, economics, or other reasons. He included famine in his death counts if he deemed it the result of a deliberate policy, as he did for the Holodomor.

Illustrative examples of government mass murders (Not a complete list)

	Time period	Deaths (millions)	Government perpetrator	Victims
China	1949-1987	87.6	Communists	Peasants, opponents
USSR	1917-1987	61.9	Communists	Ukrainians, opponents
Germany	1933-1945	20.9	Nazis	Jews, opponents
China	1928-1949	10.1	Kuomintang	opponents
Japan	1936-1945	6.0	Military government	civilians in occupied countries, China, Korea, Philippeans
Cambodia	1975-1979	1.5	Khmer Rouge	city residents, peasants
Turkey	1909-1918	1.9	Young Turks	Armenians, Christians

Who shall watch the guardians?

Trusting armed government officials has historically been a bad bet. A reasonable question to ask is could it happen here? Perhaps. We’ll see.

Power corrupts.

Disarming citizens is a dangerous step down a slippery slope to tyranny.

Related

Case Name

Case Number

On Appeal From

Issue

Status

Goines v. United States

25-7344

CA5

Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment?

Filed 5/6

Crawford v. United States

25-7387

CA8

Whether, as the Eighth Circuit held, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (which prohibits any felon from possessing firearms) is invariably constitutional both facially and as applied to any defendant, no matter the case-specific circumstances?

Filed 4/24

Leonard v. United States

25-7386

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second

Amendment

Filed 5/12

Flores v. United States

25-7389

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second

Amendment

Filed 5/12

Rodriguez v. United States

25-7365

CA2

922(g)(1) challenge

Filed 3/23

Bland v. United States

25-7359

CA4

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the Petitioner.

Filed 4/30

United States v. Hembree

25-1219

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of a firearm by a person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

Filed 4/24

Gould v. United States

25-7330

CA4

(1) Whether permanent disarmament under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), based solely upon prior temporary involuntary commitment to a mental institution (as opposed to being a “mental defective” – i.e. during a current episode of mental illness, or incident to an adjudication of incompetence, or insanity), facially violates the Second Amendment under New York Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022).

(2)  Whether for purposes of establishing a “relevantly similar” historical analogue under Bruen’s step two, there are objective limits on the scope of “how” and “why” the compared regulations burden the Second Amendment right – such that categorial disarmament using a completely open-ended and overbroad “dangerousness” principle is entirely too generalized to use as part of Bruen’s analogical analysis.

Filed 4/2

Salazar v. United States

25-7298

CA10

(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which prohibits the possession of firearms by aliens unlawfully present in the United States, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

(2) Whether the Bruen analysis permits consideration of whether a class of persons is among “the people” prior to the Second Step in which the government bears the burden to demonstrate a historical tradition that would permit disarming that class.

(3)  Whether the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation permits the permanent disarmament of all illegal aliens based on their perceived lack of loyalty to the United States.

Filed 4/29

Mitchell v. United States

25-7302

CA8

(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional in all its applications or is it subject to as-applied challenges?

(2) If as-applied challenges are prohibited, is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) facially invalid because it violates the Due Process Clause and is substantially overbroad?

(3) Whether Stinson v. United States still accurately states the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?

Filed 4/28

Evans v. United States

25-7331

CA5

(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment?

(2)  Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional?

Filed 4/28

Corbett v. Hochul

25-1261

CA2

Whether footnote 9 of NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), creates a presumption of constitutionality for a shall-issue licensing regime’s firearms training mandate that relieves the government of its burden to justify that requirement under Bruen’s historical-tradition test.

Filed 2/19

Sims v. United States

25-7315

CA2

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to Petitioner because, consistent with the Second Amendment, the federal government may not permanently disarm citizens based exclusively on prior felony convictions.

Filed 4/29

Pestarino v. Pestarino

25-1249

Washington Supreme Court

Whether Washington’s civil protection order statute, which precludes the subject of such order from having firearms, violates the Second Amendment

(paraphrased)

Filed 1/6

Warren v. United States

25-7313

CA2

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to Petitioner because, consistent with the Second Amendment, the federal government may not permanently disarm citizens based exclusively on prior felony convictions.

Filed 4/29

Moore v. Kipke

25-1206

CA4

Did the court of appeals err in concluding that Maryland’s private building consent rule, which prohibits individuals from carrying firearms into buildings on private property without first obtaining permission from the owner (or the owner’s agent), is unconstitutional?

Filed 4/20

 

McEwen v. Florida

25-7241

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Whether a statute imposing on all convicted felons a lifetime ban on possession of a firearm or ammunition violates the Second Amendment?

Listed for 5/21 conference

Storey v. United States

25-7216

CA11

Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) exceed Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause, facially and as applied to Petitioner Samuel Storey’s intrastate possession?

Filed 4/2

Yanez v. United States

25-7244

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits anyone who has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from possessing a firearm, violates the Second Amendment either facially or as applied to individuals with prior convictions for offenses that did not result in disarmament in the Founding era.

Filed 4/20

Jackson v. United States

25-7219

CA5

(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional?

(2) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment?

Filed 4/15

Hensley v. United States

25-7248

CA5

(1) Federal law bans the possession of firearms by anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). How should courts decide whether an individual prosecution or conviction under that statute is consistent with the Second Amendment to the Constitution?

(2) Under the prevailing interpretation of the nexus-with-commerce element of the federal possession ban, a former felon possesses “in or affecting commerce” a firearm if the firearm was made in another state. Does Congress have the constitutional authority to enact such a law?

Filed 4/13

Taylor v. United States

25-7175

CA3

Whether courts should analyze as-applied Second Amendment challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) by examining whether historical tradition supports banning firearm possession by someone who has been convicted of the predicate disqualifying offenses that are the basis of the individual’s disarmament under § 922(g)(1).

Listed for 5/21 conference

Sowe v. United States

25-7173

CA5

(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment.

(2) Whether Congress may criminalize intrastate firearm possession based solely on the firearm crossing state lines at some point before the defendant came to possess it.

Listed for 5/21 conference

Myslow v. United States

25-1148

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Whether military courts of criminal appeals have authority under 10 U.S.C. § 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment.

Filed 3/31

Johnson v. New York

25-6940

Court of Appeals of NY

Whether, or under what circumstances, individuals can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply with a licensing scheme that contains a facially unconstitutional licensing standard?

Filed 2/23/26

Listed for 3/27 Conference

Response requested (due 5/15)

 

United States v. Cockerham

25-1029

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of a firearm by a person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

Filed 2/27/26

National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v.  James

25-1026

CA2

Whether the PLCAA’s predicate exception allows parties to bring the same common-law-style suits against firearms industry members that Congress enacted the PLCAA to prohibit, so long as states codify those general common-law principles in a statute that applies to commerce in arms.

Filed 2/20/26

Gibbs v. Florida

25-6842

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Whether a categorical ban on the possession of firearms by persons with prior felony convictions is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant with non-violent traffic offenses. (State law)

Parties dismissed pursuant to Rule 46

United States v. Mitchell

25-935

CA5

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Filed 2/5/26

Listed for 5/14 Conference

 

Zhong v. United States

25-742

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Whether military courts of criminal appeals have authority under 10 U.S.C. §§ 860c and 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment.

Filed 12/19/25

Listed for 2/20 conference

Viramontes v. Cook County, Ill.

25-238

CA7

Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

Filed 8/27/25

Listed for 5/21 Conference

 

National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont

25-421

CA2

Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds—both of which are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes—violates the Second Amendment.

Filed 10/3/25

Listed for 5/21 Conference

 

Duncan v. Bonta

25-198

CA9

1. Whether a ban on the possession of exceedingly common ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment.

2. Whether a law dispossessing citizens, without compensation, of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the Takings Clause

Filed 5/20/25

Listed for 5/21 Conference

 

 

Gator’s Custom Guns Inc. v. Washington

25-153

Supreme Court of Washington

Whether ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to hold more than ten rounds are “Arms” presumptively entitled to constitutional protection under the plain text of the Second Amendment.

Filed 8/6/25

Listed for 5/21 Conference

 

Nyandoro v. United States

25-6218

CA5

(a) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to an individual who did not admit that he was intoxicated at the time of the firearm possession when he pleaded guilty.

(b) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)’s prohibition on firearm possession by “an unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” is unconstitutionally vague or should be construed in the narrowest manner possible to avoid unconstitutional applications

(c) Whether Congress may criminalize intrastate firearm possession based solely on the firearm crossing state lines at some point before the defendant came to possess it.

Filed 11/20/25

Listed for 2/27 conference

Grant v. Higgins

25-566

CA2

Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15.

Filed 11/7/25

Listed for 5/21 Conference

 

 

Sanchez v. United States

25-6008

CA5

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits firearm possession by a person who “is an unlawful user of … any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment either facially or as applied to an individual who was under the influence of marijuana at the time of possession.

2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)’s ban on firearm possession by “an unlawful user” of a controlled substance—a term not defined in the statute—is unconstitutionally vague

Filed 10/29/25

Listed for 2/20 Conference

Picon v. United States

25-5713

DC Court of Appeals

Whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms applies fully to 18-20-year-olds.

Filed 9/23/25

Listed for 1/9 Conference

Paris v. Second Amendment Foundation

24-1329

CA3

Do firearms laws imposing a minimum age of 21 violate the purported Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds?

Pending – no movement since November 2025

McCoy v. ATF

25-24

CA4

Whether federal laws banning 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns from federally licensed firearm dealers violates the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep arms

Pending – no movement since November 2025

Harris v. United States

25-372

CA3

(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to an individual who sometimes used marijuana but was not intoxicated at the time of the possession.

(2) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)’s prohibition on firearm possession by “an unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” is unconstitutionally vague.

Listed for 1/9 Conference

 

 

Beaird v. United States

25-5343

CA5

(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment;

(2) whether Stinson v. United States still accurately states the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines; and

(3) whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional.

Granted 4/20 (only as to Question 2)

United States v. Daniels

24-1248

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

Pending – no movement since October 2025

United States v. Sam

24-1249

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent.

Pending – no movement since October 2025

NRA v. Glass

24-185

CA11

Whether Florida’s law banning 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing firearms violates the Second Amendment.

Pending – no movement since November 2025

West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. v. ATF

25-132

CA4

Whether a federal law that bans licensed sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Pending – no movement since November 2025

OT 2025 Denials

Martin v. Florida

25-7218

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Does a statute banning all convicted felons from possessing a firearm violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Denied 5/18

Adamiak v. United States

25-1190

CA4

Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in summarily dismissing Petitioner’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge based on nothing more than erroneous circuit precedent and on which there are multiple circuit splits of authority on questions presently before this Court

(conviction for possession of machinegun based on inert or nonfunctional firearm)

Denied 5/18

Tonge v. United States

25-7200

CA2

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face or as applied to Petitioner because, consistent with the Second Amendment, the federal government may not permanently disarm citizens based exclusively on prior felony convictions

Denied 5/18

Beaubrun v. United States

25-7184

CA11

(1) Whether after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), a criminal defendant may raise an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

(2) If so, whether under the Bruen/Rahimi methodology, the Second Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant like Petitioner whose felony convictions are for non-violent offenses.

Denied 5/18

Cruz v. United States

25-7211

CA2

In light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), does § 922(g)(1) violate the Second Amendment, either on its face or as applied to Petitioner, a United States citizen who has no violent prior felony convictions?

Denied 5/18

Jeffery v. United States

25-7214

CA5

(1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits anyone who has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from possessing a firearm, violates the Second Amendment as applied to an individual with a prior conviction for injury to an elderly person.

(2) Whether, for Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1), courts can consider only the elements of a prior conviction—not the underlying conduct—when determining whether an analogous historical tradition supports permanent disarmament.

Denied 5/18

Taber v. United States

25-7154

CA2

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment, either on its face or as applied.

Denied 5/4

United States v. Doucet

25-1001

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of a firearm by a person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, violates the Second Amendment as applied to a defendant with a predicate conviction for attempted cultivation of marijuana

Denied 4/27

Scott v. United States

25-6983

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face or as applied to Petitioner.

Denied 4/20

Conner v. United States

25-7010

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment either facially or as applied to individuals with convictions for non-violent offenses

Denied 4/20

Jackson v. United States

25-6994

CA4

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which prohibits firearm possession by anyone under indictment for a felony, can constitutionally be applied to a nonviolent indictee on the theory that Congress may, consistent with the Second Amendment, disarm whole categories of people on a class-wide basis, without requiring individualized showings that a given member of that class is dangerous

Denied 4/20

Edwards v. United States

25-6987

CA5

1. Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by all felons, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), plainly unconstitutional on its face under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), because it is permanent and applies to all persons convicted of felonies?

2. Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by all felons, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), unconstitutional as applied to individuals whose predicate convictions involve conduct that was not historically subject to permanent disarmament at the founding?

Denied 4/20

Doster v. United States

25-6952

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face or as applied to Petitioner

Denied 4/20

Morrissette v. United States

25-6962

CA11

1. Whether defendants may assert as-applied challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment.

2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession by felons violates the Second Amendment as applied to Mr. Morrissette, who was previously convicted of non-violent drug and property offenses.

Denied 4/20

Hunter v. S.F.

25-6787

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District

Whether California’s practice of automatically and prolongedly disarming individuals subject to non-violent restraining orders violates the Second Amendment (as applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment) when, as in Petitioner’s case, there was no finding of any credible threat of physical harm and no history of violence, thus depriving an innocent person of the core right to keep and bear arms for self-defense for five years without proper constitutional guardrails.

Denied 4/20

Gardner v. Maryland

25-5961

Appellate Ct of Maryland

Does Maryland’s prohibition on carrying a handgun without a state permit, as applied to an interstate traveler with a valid Virginia concealed carry permit who displayed a loaded firearm in self-defense against an assailant’s vehicular assault and physical advance, violate the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), by lacking a historical tradition of disarming law-abiding citizens in such circumstances?

Denied 4/20

Ramirez v. United States

25-7035

CA5

Does the Second Amendment permit Congress to impose a permanent, categorical firearm prohibition based solely on a prior felony conviction?

Denied 4/20

 

Abercrombie v. United States

25-7072

CA1

Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred where Petitioner was convicted of unlawfully possessing a firearm, for which the government only established his mere proximity to the firearm, but did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt any intent to exercise dominion and control over it.

Denied 4/20

 

Mackins v. United States

25-7041

CA2

922(g)(1) challenge

Denied 4/20

Fletcher v. United States

25-7089

CA5

Whether there is an obvious and irreconcilable clash between § 922(g)(1) and the rights protected by the Second Amendment

Denied 4/20

 

Peterson v. United States

25-1076

CA5

1. Whether the National Firearms Act’s taxation-and-registration scheme for covered firearms can be justified as a licensing law.

2. Whether the National Firearms Act’s taxation-and-registration scheme violates the Second Amendment with respect to firearm suppressors.

Denied 4/20

 

James v. United States

25-6267

CA11

922(g)(1) challenge

Denied 4/6

Schoenthal v. Raoul

25-541

CA7

Whether Illinois’ flat ban on ordinary citizens carrying firearms on public transportation violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Denied 4/6

Brown v. United States

25-6920

CA11

1. Do convicted felons have a Second Amendment right, or do only law-abiding persons enjoy this right?

2. Does 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) withstand Second Amendment scrutiny in all of its applications, or is it unconstitutional as applied to some felons?

Denied 4/6

Browne v. Reynolds

25-1036

Supreme Court of Iowa

Whether Iowa Code § 914.7 (2026) entitled “[r]ights not restorable” infringes the Petitioner’s right to keep and bear arms enshrined by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments—suspended upon the Petitioner’s 1991 convictions under Iowa law for Willful Injury, a forcible felony, and Criminal Gang Participation—by barring him from having that right restored for life.

Denied 4/6

R.R. v. New Jersey

25-1060

Superior Ct New Jersey, Appellate Div.

1. May a court deny Second Amendment rights due to a person’s lawful and peaceful expression of his religious beliefs and grievances with his government?

2. Is disenfranchisement of Second Amendment rights constitutional when denied under a statute that prohibits issuance of firearm purchaser permits “in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare because the person is found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm”?

3. Does the above standard constitute a Second Amendment restriction that is not in our Nation’s historical text and tradition of firearm regulation; or an unconstitutional interest-balancing test in offense to Heller; or an unconstitutionally vague or overbroad standard upon undefined terms that lack Due Process notice?

Denied 4/6

Heaggeans v. United States

25-6729

CA4

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Denied 3/23

LeBlanc v. United States

25-6063

CA5

Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by all felons, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), plainly unconstitutional on its face under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), because it is permanent and applies to all persons convicted of felonies?

 2. Is the lifetime ban on possession of firearms by all felons, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), unconstitutional as applied to individuals with decades-old prior convictions from their youth who have not been shown to be currently dangerous and seek to possess a firearm for self-defense?

Denied 3/23

Alexis v. United States

25-6761

CA5

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Denied 3/23

England v. United States

25-6711

CA4

(1) Whether the “in common use for lawful purposes” measure for applying Second Amendment protections to certain firearms is determined as part of Bruen’s step one textual/conduct analysis, or Bruen’s step two historical analysis?

(2) Whether 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), part of the National Firearms Act, violates the Second Amendment as applied to England’s possessing an unregistered short-barreled shotgun, where England introduced uncontradicted evidence proving that firearm is no more dangerous and unusual than comparable unregulated non-NFA weapons in common use for lawful purposes?

(3) Whether the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment applies only to “law-abiding citizens” who have no prior convictions?

Denied 3/23

Simpson v. United States

25-6813

CA5

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits anyone who has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” from possessing a firearm, violates the Second Amendment as applied to an individual with a prior conviction for evading arrest with a vehicle.

2. Whether, for Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1), courts can consider only the elements of a prior conviction— not alleged conduct—when determining whether an analogous historical tradition supports permanent disarmament

Denied 3/23

Gomez v. United States

25-6858

CA2

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) violates the Second Amendment on its face. [Prohibition on interstate transmission of firearms with obliterated serial numbers]

Denied 3/23

McCowan v. United States

25-6775

CA5

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Denied 3/23

Reed v. United States

25-6771

CA11

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Denied 3/23

Sinnissippi Rod & Gun Club, Inc. v.  Raoul

25-997

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District

Whether the plain language of the Second Amendment encompasses the open carry of firearms in public and if so, whether Illinois’s criminal prohibition on open carry is consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Denied 3/23

Cheatham v. United States

25-6870

CA4

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the Petitioner.

Denied 3/23

Ali v. City of Portland

25-6884

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Does a city ordinance that prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in public, but permits a defendant to raise an affirmative defense that the defendant had a concealed-handgun license, violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Denied 3/23

Taylor v. United States

25-6817

CA4

Whether a handgun affixed with a machinegun conversion device constitutes an “arm” under the Second Amendment’s plain text, thus requiring the government to justify the machinegun-possession prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1) by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation

Denied 3/23

Pettyjohn v. United States

25-6896

CA8

Whether, as the Eighth Circuit has held, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (which prohibits any felon from possessing firearms) is facially constitutional?

Denied 3/23

Belin v. United States

25-6879

CA1

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant whose prior conviction is not accompanied by any judicial finding that he poses a present danger to the physical safety of others, where the Government does not prove that permanently disarming such individuals is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

2. Whether a defendant preserves an as-applied constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) for appellate review by filing and litigating a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds, or whether a court of appeals may treat the claim as forfeited and apply plain-error review.

Denied 3/23

Finney v. United States

25-6868

CA4

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the Petitioner.

Denied 3/23

Johnson v. United States

25-6750

CA4

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Denied 3/9

Williams v. United States

25-6749

CA2

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Denied 3/9

Delgado v. United States

25-6732

CA2

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Denied 3/9

LaFave v. Fairfax County

25-872

CA4

Whether the Fourth Circuit properly rejected Petitioners’ challenge to Fairfax County’s ban on carrying firearms in the hundreds of public parks operated by the County because four of those parks host preschool programs.

Denied 3/9

Morgan v. United States

25-6677

CA5

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Denied 3/2

Vincent v. Bondi

24-1155

CA10

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Denied 3/2

Aramboles v. United States

25-6682

CA2

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Denied 3/2

Garner v. United States

25-6698

CA5

Challenge to 922(g)(1) – federal felon-in-possession ban

Denied 3/2